The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

651. Comment #21086 by gimlibengloin on February 7, 2007 at 2:26 pm

(803)

"intercest" = incest. Sorry, typo.

Q

See
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2726

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

652. Comment #21287 by Quetzalcoatl on February 8, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Re Comment 21082: Gimlibengloin-

I've read the link you suggested, and it doesn't make sense. The whole purpose of God forbidding incest is apparently to prevent harmful deformities in offspring. But according to your own comment, the whole of humanity is descended from Adam & Eve. That means that, no matter how many generations had passed, every human would only have genetic information inherited from those two people. Without fresh genetic information coming into the pool, that is all they could have. Surely, therefore, everybody would still be related genetically, rendering the whole forbidding of incest meaningless, as the genetic abnormalities would logically occur with anyone.

Furthermore, the link says that Adam and Eve were "perfect". How could genetic abnormalities and mutations arise from "perfect" beings? Either God introduced the errors with each generation, or he altered their genome immediately, taking "perfection" away from them. Which is it? What else might he have done?

Genesis 3:19:By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.

This verse is used in the link as a justification for the "corruption due to Adam's sin" argument. Yet this verse says nothing that could even remotely be interpreted as relating to genetic corruption, or even corruption of the body as a whole.

In addition, the whole point of forbidding incest would be to encourage reproduction with those who have different genes. Yet how could this diversity arise from a "corruption" that over the generations since A&E supposedly caused harmful genetic mutations? The genetic diversity would be a benefit. How could the consequences of Original Sin benefit humanity?

It just doesn't add up.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

653. Comment #21292 by gimlibengloin on February 8, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Q (805)

Well done for reading the link even though you didn't agree with it. After posting my response to you last night I was reflecting that I could have been clearer.

When God created Adam and Eve they were created perfect or as scripture says "everything was very good". However, as a result of Adam's sin death and degeneration entered the cosmos.
Genetic mutations (which are generally harmful)accumalate over time so that there was no problem with intermarriage in the early generations prior to the Flood. It was only later as a result of such a build up that it became necessary to set limits on sexual relations. You will be aware that many superhero movies eg The Hulk, X-Men etc make a deal about genetic changes resulting from radiation etc which produce tremendous abilities in the 'victims'.
As for variation it is now well known that there is the potential for tremendous variety within the genome of the organism. For example take Richard Dawkin's point in the Blind Watchmaker about the vast variety of dogs - pekinese, labrador, saint bernard, poodle etc etc all from a few wild dogs.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

654. Comment #21294 by gimlibengloin on February 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Q

Should you be interested there is an article explaining this variation on:
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3258/106/

By the way I'm not being 'crafty' here in getting you logging onto creationist websites but I'm simply doing my best to respond to queries.

Regards, GBG

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

655. Comment #21641 by gimlibengloin on February 10, 2007 at 9:35 am

Billy Sands

Ohhh, I get it. You're 'sending me to Coventry' because I quoted Steven M Stanley and National Geographic (Nov 2004) on the fossil record and you think this is representative of some insidious tactics on my part. (Or "am I just paranoid"?)
Not so I'm afraid. However, I PROMISE I won't quote any more and instead we can have a discussion on why you think its out of order to do so and why I don't. How about it, eh? I'm up for it if you are. Or, alternatively we can just stick to discussing the Word of God.

Friends? Pax? Oh, come on.

GBG
XXX

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

656. Comment #22380 by Theo on February 15, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Hi guys, just popping in for a while because I am really busy.

Quetzacoatl

Apologies for the delayed response

. . . However, practically all of the books that form the New Testament were written decades after Jesus' death, including the Gospels. . .

Yes, the books of the N.T. were written years after the death of Christ. However, this as no bearing on the validity of what was written. If what the bible claims is true, that the Holy Spirit inspired the message of the scripture, then it would not matter how long after the account was written because the source would always be available.

Also at one time what the Church included within the NT was very different. Over the centuries, books have fallen from favour, discredited books have been introduced, and lines added. In the first 300 years following Christ, there was no universally accepted testament.

Correction, there was no fixed canon for those 300 years, not the absence of an accepted Testament. We must understand that there were books in the N.T. that were undisputed, such as the Gospels, the Pauline epistles and Acts. These books form the core of the N.T. those that were the subject of the debate were books such as James, Jude, 1 & 2 Peter, etc. It must be pointed out that the main criterion for the selection of books was actually stated in the undisputed books, namely the Pauline epistles. Therefore any book that contradicted the undisputed books was automatically disqualified. This is why certain books fell out of favor and were rejected.

I do not know of any discredited books being introduced, I know of books whose inspiration have been questioned. These were disputed books (not discredited) and they were included in the canon because their teaching was not contradictory to the undisputed books; other criteria used were apostolic authority and widespread church usage.

One of the most beautiful aspects of the N.T. is the fact that we have over 20,000 manuscripts in which we can compare newer ones with older. From such studies, we have seen that the N.T. is remarkably preserved and this is the reason why we can detect edited versions of the scripture, because we have the preserved documents to compare it to.

Not too sure when I will be able to respond again, hopefully it would be soon!

Other Comments by Theo

657. Comment #22648 by BillySands on February 20, 2007 at 7:10 am

gimlibengloin
It's rather sweet that you seem concerned that you think I'm ignoreing you. I have however been busy - but I am touched. I will repay your cut and paste with one of my own. However, you show nothing in your response that there was a single author and ignore some of the details thart are crucial. a few are pasted below. Note also concerning the trip to gerar, there was no city there in the supposed time of abraham

"Other evidence also suggests that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and that many different writers made contributions to it. There are contradictory statements, one of the most obvious of which concerns the number of animals Noah took into the ark. In Gen. 6:19 Noah is told to take two of every kind of living creature — one male and one female — but in Gen. 7:2 seven pair of clean animals and birds are required. Would a single writer be so inconsistent?

Num. 35:6-7 specifies that Levites were to receive certain territorial inheritances, but Deut. 18:1 makes it quite clear that they are to have no inheritance. According to Exod. 3:13-15 and Exod. 6:2-3, the personal name of God, "Yahweh,"5 was revealed for the first time to Moses on the holy mountain. Prior to this revelation, Yahweh was known only as "Elohim,"6 or as "El Shaddai."7 On the other hand, however, Gen. 4:26 indicates that from very early times men called upon God by his personal name of Yahweh, and in numerous places the patriarchs use the name Yahweh (see Gen. 22:14, 26:25, 27:20, 28:13). Would a single author make statements so contradictory? In fact, the very manner in which divine names are used prior to the revelation of Yahweh's name in Exodus raises problems. In certain sections of Genesis "Elohim" appears exclusively (Gen. 1:1-31, 9:1-11) ; in other places "Yahweh" appears alone (Gen. 4:1-16, 11:1-9). It would appear that different traditions have been brought together.

Some stories appear more than once, in what scholars have called "doublets." For example, in Gen. 15:5 Abraham is promised many descendants, and in Gen. 17:2 the promise is needlessly repeated. In Gen. 12:11-20 Sarah pretends to be the sister of Abraham. This same story appears in a slightly different setting in Gen. 20:1-18, and is told again with Isaac and Rebekah as central actors in Gen. 26:6-11. In the last two examples, Philistine kings are mentioned and the Philistines did not settle in Palestine until the twelfth century. How are such repetitions, contradictions and anachronisms best explained?"

Concerning incest, are you saying that the god who I believe you have said elsewhere is a source of moral absolutes changes his mind and outlaw something that he was previously ok with. I also find it somewhat difficult to believe that cain built a city - where did the people come from? Leviticus 20:12 calls for the death penalty for incest, as it is a disgusting act - not a bad genetic act. 1 Cor 5:1 also calls it an immoral actnd not one that is sensible to avoid on genetic grounds. Your arguement of variation breaks down when scrutinised. For example hieght of pea plants is controlled by one gene. Each plant has 2 copies of it. Mutations generally disrupt function. Mutate both copies, and you have no tall plants. A more serious flaw in your statement however is the existance of fossil mutants hundreds of millions of years older than the first humans fossils. It's amazing how a little reality can destroy a nice theory.

Concerning fossils, what are you referring to? And where are these fossil humans that supposedly lived with T.rex? THE FLINTSTONES IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY BY THE WAY!

I am still busy, so dont cry if I dont get back - stiff upper - remember how we gave gerry a taste of good old british spunk and all that!


PS is your real name Douglas?

Theo Hi back

Other Comments by BillySands

658. Comment #22828 by gimlibengloin on February 23, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Billy Sands (810)

Thanks for the reply, Billy. I just wasn't sure why you seemed to stop posting after I posted a reply and was also partly wondering whether it was because I hadn't fully responded to one of your previous posts and you were fed up of wasting your time. I know how exasperated you become with us theists.

I'll respond to your latest point as soon as I can but my internet connection is presently on the blink and I'm having to use a friend's for this post.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "I will repay your cut and paste with one of my own" and "stiff upper - remember how we gave gerry a taste of good old british spunk and all that!"
Maybe I'm just hopelessly naive.
Regards, GBG

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

659. Comment #23041 by LeeC on February 26, 2007 at 2:51 am

I think the number of contributions to this thread seems to be dieing a little, so I may be too late to join the "learning". I wish I found the site sooner since I seemed to have missed a lot.

There is a risk then in posting this that I will be talking to myself…

It seems that the debate has varied a little over time, but I believe the main points seems to be to discuss two key points,
"Does God exist?
and
"Was man and the universe creative by God?"

Also rather a lot of bible study (but since I do not have a degree in this area, and I notice some rather clever wordsmiths, I may be out of my depth.) This does though make me curious why there are so many quotes from the bible since I do not see how this moves the debate about god in general forward (Insert your comment here…)

I for one do not want to get into a debate here regarding the teaching or words of the bible or any other holy book for that matter, since this is different debate and will only cloud what I hope is the main discussion (as I see it). Who is God?

(Although it would be a topic I personally find interesting if we can start another thread since it is a big topic.)

I believe in the bible (that is the book, the pages and the ink). I can go down my local book shop and buy many different versions of the bible if I wanted. I could ask 3 or more independent observers to do the same and I am sure they will confirm that the bible does actually exist. They could buy a copy and actually hit me over the head with it; this would be more than enough proof for the existence of the bible for me.

However a printing of a book written over 2000 years ago is not proof for the existence of the god written within. I am yet to see any reference from the bible that can act as real proof for his existence. (I would love to see it though, I mean real proof, not just some quotes from the bible that are either written after the event, or so simple a prediction even I a mere human like me could make it. So please give me the reference from the bible but also tell me how I can test what is written is proof of a god and so it can be confirmed to be true.)

The bible contains words written by men stating "And god said to such and such" and "God did this or that". This is not proof of the existence of god any more than if I publish a book that has written: -

"Behold the spaghetti monster, creator of the Spag Bog, he spoke to his believers and said he is the one true god. Believe in me and only me".

Would such a book with these words prove the existence of the spaghetti monster as a god? Answer No; I just made it up… does Harry Potter exist as he is written about in a book too?

How about if I put my book in my time machine and take it back 3000 years to a little tribe in the desert? Would the book today have any more proof on the spaghetti monster?

Most of the so called predictions have never been accepted by any non-religious people, they have even been shown to be written after the fact, so misleading and unclear it was bound to happen anyway, or just plain wrong.

No, so there seems little value quoting words from the bible on the matter of proof and they should only be used if they are backed up with independent references from non-biblical sources. If the "god believing" contributors to this website did this then they could prove that certain events that are written about in the bible – a battle here, and city there – did happen or exist but I challenge these contributors to be able to give proof for the existence of god from these words.

I know another line in the threads previous to this, it has been said before by a contributor who stated along the lines of – "I do not need to prove my god – it is enough that I believe - it is you (the atheist) who need to prove God does not exist"

My answer has also been repeated before. It is religion that needs to prove God's existence. It is they who claim they know him best. I could be looking in the wrong places…

The scientific community are trying to prove God's existence… they really are. This is what science does, they try and find the answers to the how and why of the universe.

It is just over the years they have not found a god or the need in one, only less and less areas where god could be "hiding" (that is, areas where science is still working on theories to explain the observed.)

Example? - Look at Newton (he's come up many times before, an old friend of many – he loved god and said so, but I'm sure he knew he did not have all the answers, hence looked to god to help with the unexplained. Einstein moved physics on; he improved on Newton's theories and only spoke of god in a "literal" manner not as any supreme being. The more science has learnt the less the need for a god to answer the questions such as "How did Earth and the universe come into being?"

To repeat another question on this debate on the existence of god that has yet to be answered satisfactory by the "believers" (And I believe this question has always been ignored and never acknowledge by any believer, that is:-

If man is so complex that evolution or science could not possibly answer how he came into being, and then according to the "believers" I should accept (without proof?) that god created man (and the universe?) then who created God, since surely he is even more complex a being than simple man?

I have heard the answer "God was always here, is always here, will always be here" before and it is not an answer that helps in the proof of the existence of god. Since, I could, with the same logic, reply that "the universe was always here, is always here, will always be here" no need for a god. Since scientific theories are pretty good from the beginning of the universe and beyond… I see no hiding place for god. If I cannot see him, hear him, touch him, sense him in any way, and the natural physical processes described by science can form the universe and life within, then I begin to "believe" god does not exist at all. The same way I "believe" the spaghetti monster is just a made up story to put along side Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker.

Well, had to get that off my chest, I feel better know…

Is there anybody out there who can reply and prove God… doubt it, this thread has been going on for months and the questions have started to repeat themselves, of which I am guilty also….


Publish and be damned!!!!

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

660. Comment #23048 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 3:23 am

Hi Lee
I agree with you. A book, even if it was consistant and historically accurate is not proof of the existance of god. However, if this so called perfect book is shown to be false - eg evolution or contradicts itself, or is full of contrived prophecies or those written after the event, then you effectively falseify that god. So as well as there being no evidence for yahweh, there is actually good evidence that he is a human invention. Mark (who is the originator of the thread )and Shaun try to claim that deut 28 is a prophecy about rome. If this were true, it would be some evidence of a god that predicts the future. However, there are lots of problems with their claims, and it is about Babylon (almost certainly written afterwards). This is why there has been lots of bible chat. Personally, I find it entertaining, but I am getting a bit fed up with gimlibengloin determination that evolution is wrong, and as I have pointed out, that even if it were wrong, it does not prove gods existance. Evolution does however occur and it disproves the bible.
With the exception of Mark and Shaun, who tried to provide some positive evidence (and failed) it seems that theists use the god of the gaps arguement a lot, which basically states "I cant explain it, it must be god" This is not a reason to justify the existance of god and is a submission to ignorance.
I need to spend a lot less time on this site.
GBG
I would be suprised if your answer contained anything that I have not heard before. I would however like your explanation as to why there are no humans amongst the earliest fossils and how different fossil groups appear and disapper at specific times.

Other Comments by BillySands

661. Comment #23218 by LeeC on February 27, 2007 at 1:27 am

Hi Billy

I think I understand the bible chatter now, I have read more of the "history" on this thread. I previously only read the last 50 posts, I've now read up to comment 600 and odd… and I am very impressed with my atheist colleagues.

My problem now is to actually to say something new and bring something to the debate since so much has already been said (and repeated)

My reason to try and stay clear of the bible discussion is that I just see it as fighting the debate in an area the theist have an unfair (and meaningless) advantage

Firstly, they have been studying the bible as a matter of life and death all their lives so are more familiar with the text than any "hobbyist" like myself (OK this 1st point is not actually unfair- I just can not be bothered to read the bible from cover to cover. I have tried but I find myself laughing too much it hurts. It is as if my 10 year old nephew had written the story),

Secondly (and unfairly?), the theist have throughout "recent" history changed the rules –
"Oh you should read this bit of text with this understanding now… not like we use to…" or
"That is what church A believes, the silly people, we of church B are far more cleverer and read it to mean something else now " or
"The sun moves around the Earth, the bible says so – sorry I meant to say, the Earth moves around sun – sorry my mistake I just misunderstood the meaning of the text" or
"The Earth is only 6,000 years old – what's that, the radioactive decay of Uranium proves that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?? – blast that moon rock, OK I meant to say was the bible tells us is the Earth is very old and god creative it a long time ago" ….

ARGH!!! The list goes on and on… as you know.

It is hard to hit a moving target… so what bother… prove them wrong on one piece of text the theist just ignores it or re-words it. This type of debate has being going on for years.

Meaningless? – Well it is only one of many holy books, why this one and not any other holy book? (This has also been asked before.)

The atheist agrees that this bible is just a book. With words (no pictures? always found that odd myself…) This book and all the many different holy books are interesting in many ways. They can say a lot about man and their desire to believe when they do not understand the world. They are a very important part of mankind's history. However, it is only a historical book (not a history book.)

No proof of god… and from what I have read now of this thread we are not going to get any proof from the God camp. But I hope the comments keep coming

Lee

PS I assume you were not asking me about the fossils… or are you testing me?

Other Comments by LeeC

662. Comment #23225 by BillySands on February 27, 2007 at 2:34 am

hi lee,
For a guy who claims to be a hobbyist, you have the bibliophiles attitudes spot on. The assumption is that the bible must be true, therefore we will contort it in any way possible to harmonise it, or find that it supports evolution (except shaun and gbg). I think it is good to bring all this stuff up for the benefits of those who doubt what they believe, but I agree that to a dyed in the wool faith head, it makes no difference.
You are right about your nephew, and I remeber a minister else where on his site getting very upset that an arguement that a 10 year old could make undermined his position. in fact, his only response was that it was the arguement of a child.

The fossils are for gimbengoloin (or what ever his name is). I've had a long standing debate (over several threads) with him on evolution. I've been providing molecular/biochemical and anatomical evidence for him. He likes to focus on what we dont currently know as evidence that the theory is unsound. That however is just evidence that we do not know yet. He likes the idea of intelligent design, but his arguements are those from incredulity and ignorance. So, I thought that I am fed up with it now and have asked him to explain the fossil record. I previously asked him to write down in his own words why he refuses to believe that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil - I am still waiting. With out having considered it for himself, his opinion is one of pure faith that it can not be, because the bible talks of a 6 day creation. I at least agree with him that evolution and the bible are mutually incompatible. Evolution does happen though

Other Comments by BillySands

663. Comment #23410 by gimlibengloin on February 28, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Billy

"The fossils are for gimbengoloin (or what ever his name is). I've had a long standing debate (over several threads) with him on evolution. I've been providing molecular/biochemical and anatomical evidence for him. He likes to focus on what we dont currently know as evidence that the theory is unsound. That however is just evidence that we do not know yet. He likes the idea of intelligent design, but his arguements are those from incredulity and ignorance. So, I thought that I am fed up with it now and have asked him to explain the fossil record. I previously asked him to write down in his own words why he refuses to believe that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil - I am still waiting. With out having considered it for himself, his opinion is one of pure faith that it can not be, because the bible talks of a 6 day creation. I at least agree with him that evolution and the bible are mutually incompatible. Evolution does happen though"

Its not just a few areas that we don't know about its, well, I can't say cos I promised I wouldn't but if you go to the previous page you'll find it there - 99.9% and all that. In regard to the anatomical evidence we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think that homologous structures if that's what your talking about demonstrate evolution. In regard to Archaeopteryx there are experts (inc evolutuionists) who disagree over it so why am I going to find it relevant. It is clearly a 'mosaic' at best like the platypus a complete embarrasment to evolution. Its no good simply pointing to an bird that has fully formed, highly complex, interlocking feathers and which according to some experts MAY have been capable of powered flight and saying its proof of evolution cos its got teeth. You need to demonstrate lineage. You've got to give examples of eg scale to feather transformation.

And no evolution doesn't happen. You didn't observe these processes in the past and they'll not being observed today in any way that would lead one to believe that they will result in macro changes. Variation in seagulls does not explain how all birds evolved from some common birdlike ancestor nevermind how that evolved from reptiles. And mutatedfruit flies with wings where the antenna's should be is no better either.

Oh, if you'll going to make the accusation of ignorance in regard to this post be kind enough to explain why.

Cheers, GBG

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

664. Comment #23415 by gimlibengloin on February 28, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Billy

"I would be suprised if your answer contained anything that I have not heard before. I would however like your explanation as to why there are no humans amongst the earliest fossils and how different fossil groups appear and disapper at specific times."

Same 2 u, mate (as Prince would say), why do fossil groups appear and disappear in the fossil record without leaving evidence of evolutionary transformation?
However, I reject the "earliest"/later interpretation of the fossils. Obviously, I don't know why because I wasn't there but I would imagine a significant reason would be that for why alligators and komodo dragons aren't found buried with humans - they don't live in the same enviroment.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

665. Comment #23418 by gimlibengloin on February 28, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Billy

I've really pushed the boundaries for you here, Billy.
I've got two links for you both of which contain a written debate between the biophysicist Lee Spetner and another scientist (a secularist Edward Max). The second is a continuation of the first. Enjoy.

www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

666. Comment #23472 by LeeC on March 1, 2007 at 2:18 am

Mr gimlibengloin,

It is interesting to me that you are able to make such a statement as "no evolution doesn't happen".

I was of the understanding that evolution was widely accepted in the scientific community.

Of course, you may know more than me on the subject (I do not mean to be sarcastic here – I do not have even an o-level in biology so I could be wrong on evolution.
(an O-level is a school exam for 16 year olds if you are not from the UK)

But before we enter into this debate, if you will welcome into it of course, can we first agree on a definition of evolution that you state does not happen so strongly. I do not wish to prove (or disprove) a form of evolution that you did not mean to say "doesn't happen". No point wasting our time proving something we already agree upon.

A simple definition I have is: -

"evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation"

Would you agree this is a fair and simple definition, or do you feel evolution means something else to you?

This definition setting is open to anyone else, so long as we all agree to it. As I said, I am no biologist I merely want to know what it is you are so certain "doesn't happen"

The problem I find debating sometimes with people is that the statement "I didn't mean that, I meant this..." often arises, so please define your meaning of evolution, and then we have a clear objective of discussion. That is, if you wish to debate evolution?

Thanks

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

667. Comment #23476 by gimlibengloin on March 1, 2007 at 2:37 am

Hi Lee,

I agreetotally that our definition is important. In answer to your query I refer you to the first link I gave above (818) ie spetner1.asp

In the first few paragraphs Dr Spetner deals with this issue. It would be well for you to read the whole debate as it will give a good intro' to one of the most important issues

regards, GBG

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

668. Comment #23521 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm

oh dear GBG,
the platypus an embarrasment to evolution? Is that the same platypus that is a good link between mammals and mamal like reptiles? I suppose you think it really does have a birds beak.
Your refusal to get into a debate about archaeopteryx underlines your position of faith. I keep telling you, argue fror youself, dont quote others (especially physicists) to support your need to deny evolution.

You really should justify your rejection of homologus structures. Your comment reveales your closed mindedness - something that you cannot throw back at me because religion and evolution were never an issue to me. You still fail to comment on why we have fossilised genes. For example over half of our olfactory receptor genes are corrupt. Why do we have them? Related species have functional copies. The further you go back the less related a species is to us the more functional genes they contain. The obvious explanation is that we inhereted these genes from ancestors that had and used them. we stopped using them, so natural selection was not actin on them, so they became corrupt. Interestingly, this seems to correlate with the evolution of trichromatic vision in our ancestors (through gene dupication events).

You Also have nothing to say on the fossil record, and you allude to species that suddenly appear with no ancestors. What fish (conodonts) amphibians (acanthostega) mammals (dimetrodon) birds (sinosauroptrex (even more dinosaur like with even more primitive feathers than archaeoptreyx - if you think teeth are the only non bird like property of archaeoptrex, you obviously paid no attention to the 20+ morphological features I posted elsewhere - or you just dont want them to be true). Now, gaps in the fossil record are hardly a case for creationism. Plenty of nice fossils no doubt wait to be discovered. What is a problem for creationism though is that you do not get birds and humans in the oldest rocks. You seem to ignore this fact, as well as the timies that innermediate fossils occur in the fossil record. Why are modern humans only found in rocks younger than 1-200 0000 years ols, but the earliest fossils are thousands of millions of years old? Why?
You have no case against evolution - The bible is wrong, deal with it!

I will forgo the links thanks. Previous experience of your links just leave me exasperated at the ignorance and misrepresentations on the sites. If you had argued your point i would have considered it

If this is such a big deal to you, I suggest that you actually consider the evidence for yourself. Your main arguements come in the form of "so and so says so". You clearly are just going along with what suits the way you want things to be. i probably wont reply to you again, because your mind is so clearly closed.

Despite the harsh words, all the best
Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

669. Comment #23528 by Theo on March 1, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Hi LeeC,

I agree with you on the fact that bible discussion is fruitless concerning Gods existence. As I said before, if the bible is false, it does not mean that God does not exist, it means He did not write it. Likewise, the discussion on evolution is fruitless also; there are many theists who believe in evolution (because you do not have to be Christian to be theist). As this is an atheist site, the most pertinent question that must be discussed is,"Does God Exist?"

It must be pointed out that both atheist and theist rely on the same data, it is the interpretation of this data that causes the clash. For example you cannot directly observe reptiles turning into mammals, but scientist can look at the fossil record and infer that evolution has taken place. In the same light theists cannot directly observe God, but they look at life on earth and infer a creator. Therefore, just as scientists cannot show an observable transformation from reptile to mammal to prove evolution, it is the very same way a theist cannot show a visible God to prove creation, they both rely on evidence

The question now becomes, "is there evidence for Gods existence?" the answer is yes, the evidence - life on earth. There are two competing theories regarding the origin of life on earth: Spontaneous Generation (S.G.) and Creation. In other words, life either occurred naturally or supernaturally, there is no third alternative that logic can supply. The problem that some have with creation is that it is not scientifically testable (it cannot be proven nor unproven). However S.G. is testable, in 1952 the Miller Urey experiment yielded some organic compounds, which we all know is light years away from an actual living cell. From that one experiment it was seen that life did not arise naturally. However numerous S.G. experiments were conducted in its various forms (clay theory etc) for over 50 years until now, but still no life, and these experiments will go on in indefinitely until the desire of the experimenters is achieved.

Therefore current data shows that life did not arise naturally, and this will remain so until a living cell is actually produced. So we see that:

1. Life originated EITHER naturally OR supernaturally.
2. Current data shows that life did not arise naturally.
3. Life exists.

The conclusion is obvious. However, an atheist would cry foul saying that this is a "God of the Gap" argument and that we should remain agnostic (not atheistic?) on the matter. This objection would have carried some weight if there was a third alternative, meaning: if it is not A and we cannot test B, then it might be C. but this is not the case, it is an either A or B situation. For that reason, when an atheist claims that it does not have to be creation, it is really a sugar coated way of saying, "life arose by S.G., we just cannot prove it yet!"

We must understand that for the materialist, S.G is embraced as a philosophical necessity rather than being because it is true. Why? Because anything other than S.G is outside the scope of science. Now this is one of my gripes with materialism where in order for something to exist or be true, it must be limited to the scope of science which is quite disturbing. I do believe there are truths that are independent of scientific discovery, truth is not subject to science but rather science is subject to truth. Theists are not anti - science, we just have a healthy respect for what it is: a growing body of knowledge that is limited to repeatable and observable phenomena. The atheist on the other hand seems to be of the viewpoint that all reality is within the scope of science. e.g. "God does not exist because He is not testable." Of course theists are labeled anti science when objecting to this view point.

Therefore, contrary to atheistic propaganda, the burden of proof lies on the atheist himself because he has to prove that life arose without the need for a Creator, and until such evidence is produced, reason constrains me to remain a theist.

Other Comments by Theo

670. Comment #23536 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Theo,
this will probably be my last post here. You have provided no evidence for your claims of life. If a god of the gaps arguement is your reason for believing, that is a pretty poor one. One thing is for sure though, as mentioned above complex life only appears late on in the fossil record and follows a ligical sequence. Literal 6 day creationism is therefore not an option. Given the random nature of mutation, guided evolution is not an option either.
Since when has it become necessary to prove the non existance of something for which there is no evidence. Do you feel the need to disprove any theory that states fairies created life? Over 100 years ago, If I said matter was made from atoms that no one had seen, you would quite rightly put the burden of proof on me. No one has seen god, so provide direct proof (actually moses has seen him, even though the bible says no one may see him and live - i discuss this near the start of the thread- strange that from a book that is allegedly the truth!). No one has countered my earlier claims that messianic prophecies are made up either. Wake up and smell the coffee dude, there is no god - especially yours

All the best
Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

671. Comment #23626 by Theo on March 1, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Billy

You have provided no evidence for your claims of life.

Um, yes I did. Evidence for a Creator is Creation. Its elementary.

. If a god of the gaps arguement is your reason for believing, that is a pretty poor one.

Accepting Spontaneous Generation without any proof is even poorer Billy.

One thing is for sure though, as mentioned above complex life only appears late on in the fossil record and follows a ligical sequence. Literal 6 day creationism is therefore not an option. Given the random nature of mutation, guided evolution is not an option either.

Nope, I am not arguing from a biblical perspective (for expedient reasons). The debate is concerning the evidence for a Creator looking at purely extra biblical evidence . As I said before Billy, I will not indulge in evolution either; I am looking at origins.

Since when has it become necessary to prove the non existence of something for which there is no evidence. Do you feel the need to disprove any theory that states fairies created life?

Of course the "fairy" argument sounds nice, except it is not fairies we are dealing with. The difference between a creator and fairies is . . . life exists!

Over 100 years ago, If I said matter was made from atoms that no one had seen, you would quite rightly put the burden of proof on me. No one has seen god, so provide direct proof

Did scientists discover atoms because they saw them? Or did they use evidence from the cathode ray and gold foil experiment? They proved the existence of atoms based on indirect observation. Please consider the folly, "No one has seen electrons, so provide direct proof." Savvy?

(actually moses has seen him, even though the bible says no one may see him and live - i discuss this near the start of the thread- strange that from a book that is allegedly the truth!). No one has countered my earlier claims that messianic prophecies are made up either

Well I am not going to go into a bible debate here since it can also be done on a deist site. But I visited your link on" good selection of contradictions" and I must admit atheists win hands down . . . for quote mining! Here is a whole site that is that is actually dedicated to this art. At least you can rest assured that you are not alone because for me also those "links just leave me exasperated at the ignorance and misrepresentations on the sites"

Other Comments by Theo

672. Comment #23654 by Quetzalcoatl on March 2, 2007 at 12:55 am

Re Comment 23626: Theo-

"Evidence for a Creator is Creation. It's elementary".

Imagine this conversation if you will.

Me- I know who created me.
You- Your parents.
Me- No.
You- So you were adopted?
Me- No.
You- I don't understand.
Me- Fair enough. I was created by Smaug.
You- Er... Wasn't he that dragon from the Hobbit, a brilliant book by J R R Tolkien that will hopefully be made into a film someday soon?
Me- That's right.
You- So you're a dragon.
Me- No, I'm a human. He made me in a human's image.
You- But he's fictional.
Me- No he's not.
You- Prove it.
Me- I'm here, aren't I?

Okay, so I'm being facetious. No offence. But the point of that was to establish the irony. The Greeks would have used similar logic for Zeus. The Aztecs for Quetzalcoatl. Etc, etc...

"The difference between a Creator and fairies is... life exists!"

So are you saying fairies don't exist? Why is it more likely that your God exists than fairies do?

I've been a bit slack comments-wise lately. I'll have a read of what's been said. Hopefully, more later.

PS- LeeC: Welcome to the forum.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

673. Comment #23679 by BillySands on March 2, 2007 at 3:35 am

Hi Theo,
you're in luck, I've got a cold and need something to occupy me today (prob really will be my last posting this time).

Um, yes I did. Evidence for a Creator is Creation. Its elementary.

No Theo, you have already presumed the existance of a creator. Since you want to propose a creator and not specifically your god, then a creator surely presupposes a creator of him then and so on to infinity. Compared to this, a naturalistic explanation of life must surely be a simpler and more likely possibility.

Accepting Spontaneous Generation without any proof is even poorer Billy.

No it is not, see above.

Nope, I am not arguing from a biblical perspective (for expedient reasons). The debate is concerning the evidence for a Creator looking at purely extra biblical evidence . As I said before Billy, I will not indulge in evolution either; I am looking at origins.

Unfortunately you are ultimately argueing for the existance of your god, and he says creation took place in 6 days. You seem to be setting the rules to suit yourself here. The fact is that the fossil record, geology, genetics, radiochemisrty all say this did not happen. This I why I say that your specific god cannot be the creator. If you want to take the deist view (which you dont) you still have to explain the existance of the creator.

Did scientists discover atoms because they saw them? Or did they use evidence from the cathode ray and gold foil experiment? They proved the existence of atoms based on indirect observation. Please consider the folly, "No one has seen electrons, so provide direct proof." Savvy?

I chose this example cafefully. The point is that anyone can reproduce Rutherford's experiment and get the same data. All you really have is that life looks designed, therefore it must be, or how can life spontaneously arise? - I cant understand it, so it must be god. It is hardly the same as reproducible evidence. You have provided none. Evolution shows life increasing in complexity and that destroys your version of the god hypothesis - regardless of opinions about origins.

BTW we can directly visualise atoms now. 12 billion years of "creation" and no one has a photo of yahweh

Take care - I'm off to OD on paracetamol - Oh no! some one put the laxatives in the wrong bottle - PPPTTTHHHHTTTT SQUIT :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

674. Comment #23769 by Theo on March 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Quetz.

Comparing a creator with the tooth fairy and pagan gods is not a viable argument.
If I placed an object in a box and asked persons to guess what is in box, would unearthly guesses nullify the fact that there is an object existing in the box? Would calling it the tooth fairy nullify the fact that the object exists? Therefore caricatures of the Creators title would never invalidate His existence. But you can still have them coming, they are quite entertaining!

Billy:

No Theo, you have already presumed the existance of a creator. Since you want to propose a creator and not specifically your god, then a creator surely presupposes a creator of him then and so on to infinity.

Infinite regress stops at an infinite being.

Compared to this, a naturalistic explanation of life must surely be a simpler and more likely possibility

A reproducing cell that was assembled by chance is easier to believe than a cell being created by intelligence . . . you lost me there. What? So where did God come from? See above

Accepting Spontaneous Generation without any proof is even poorer Billy.


No it is not, see above.

This is why atheists should not object to atheism being called a faith. To believe in a scientifically falsified theory over a theory that cannot be scientifically tested is truly delusional.

Unfortunately you are ultimately argueing for the existance of your god, and he says creation took place in 6 days. You seem to be setting the rules to suit yourself here. The fact is that the fossil record, geology, genetics, radiochemisrty all say this did not happen. This I why I say that your specific god cannot be the creator. If you want to take the deist view (which you dont) you still have to explain the existance of the creator.

Actually Billy I am arguing from a deistic perspective (for argument sake) because the bible/ Christianity/ Evolution does not have any bearing on the existence of a creator. I have wasted enough time on debating the bible with atheists, even though I have refuted all claims directed to me about the scriptures it seems that no profit was gained. I am not squandering any more time going back there.

I chose this example cafefully. The point is that anyone can reproduce Rutherford's experiment and get the same data. All you really have is that life looks designed, therefore it must be, or how can life spontaneously arise? - I cant understand it, so it must be god. It is hardly the same as reproducible evidence. You have provided none. Evolution shows life increasing in complexity and that destroys your version of the god hypothesis - regardless of opinions about origins.

You have provided no reproducible evidence that life could have arisen without a creator, do you really want me to believe in the falsified S.G. hypothesis? That is absurd to say the least! The burden of proof is on you Billy. (I could however delude myself into actually accepting a falsified theory so that atheists would label me a "Critical Thinker")

BTW we can directly visualise atoms now. 12 billion years of "creation" and no one has a photo of yahweh

BTW there is a difference between an atom and an electron.

Other Comments by Theo

675. Comment #23776 by LeeC on March 2, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Billy,

Sorry to here it will be your last posting, I have now read all the posts and I personally appreciate your contribution (and others of course) discussing the bible, I learnt a lot.

I believe some theists may have left the discussion because of your strong and valid points. Normally when they quote the bible people just agree and not question.

So to repeat myself again, I never said I did not like the discussion of the bible, I actually enjoy it – but the only positive outcome is that you prove the bible false and not god. As Theo has agreed.

I feel much that is written in the bible is a joke, but all that happens if we discuss these issues is theist changes their interpretation of the passage or ignores it altogether.

I, and hopefully others, will continue the discussion on science and hope do as well as yourself for the atheist cause.

Although with your comment stating that we should be wary of some comments "especially physicists" worries me a little, since my degree is in Physics and Astrophysics, however I hope if I make any errors in discussing evolution someone will correct me. I certainly do not have all the facts and a full understanding of evolution but know enough of it to prefer it over the god solution.

Thanks again Billy and I hope you change your mind and stay tunned.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

676. Comment #23820 by LeeC on March 3, 2007 at 2:15 am

Responding to Theo's comments( 822. Comment #23528)

Theo, thanks for the reply.

Below are your original comments and my reply to each.

Look forward to hearing your response.

Lee

the discussion on evolution is fruitless also; there are many theists who believe in evolution (because you do not have to be Christian to be theist). As this is an atheist site, the most pertinent question that must be discussed is,"Does God Exist?"

I agree, to a point. However the same way a Christian will quote their holy book in response to questions about god, an atheist when questioned has to quote science in discussing how the universe came into being. A theist will say God created it, and an atheist would say "What god?" However I am happy to discuss god with as little science as possible in this response.

It must be pointed out that both atheist and theist rely on the same data, it is the interpretation of this data that causes the clash.

Agreed.

For example you cannot directly observe reptiles turning into mammals, but scientist can look at the fossil record and infer that evolution has taken place. In the same light theists cannot directly observe God, but they look at life on earth and infer a creator.

So far so good… I will accept this as part of this discussion.

Therefore, just as scientists cannot show an observable transformation from reptile to mammal to prove evolution, it is the very same way a theist cannot show a visible God to prove creation, they both rely on evidence

I think it is here we start to move into the debate…

A scientist may not have found enough fossils (yet but more than likely he never will) to show every step of evolution to "prove 100%" to a theist that evolution by natural selection enabled the development of life on Earth. So I will accept your point as made, and that in a discussion like this it may be difficult for a theist to "prove" god 100%. So I will not ask for such proof, merely evidence that a god solution is statistically more likely and therefore a more probable solution than what science can give as an answer.

I, and probably most atheists on this web site, do not believe 100% that god does not exist; merely that a god is very, very unlikely and science is offering a more likely solution, even if it is not a complete solution yet.

However, let us not forget though, we are talking about a god here… surely a god could give us such evidence? – but lets leave this point for another time.

The question now becomes, "is there evidence for Gods existence?" the answer is yes, the evidence - life on earth.

Now you must know Theo this statement is not proof in god.

Our existence on Earth is as much proof for the scientific solution on how life was "created" as it is for god theory.

I could say - "Look science is right – life on earth is the evidence for it"

Very weak if left as the only statement, as I am sure you will agree?

The difference is that science has then tried to explain their statement in further detail. Stating how from this initial form of life in its simplest of states could "evolve" (I wish I could think of a different word – advance?) from this simple life form into all the complex and diverse life we see on Earth.

The God solution stops there…. We are to question no more. God did it all… no questions asked?

But now it comes back to which solution is more likely and probable, for an atheist at least. Some theists as we know stop thinking at this point, I hope you are not one of those…

I will expand on this later in this thread…

There are two competing theories regarding the origin of life on earth: Spontaneous Generation (S.G.) and Creation.

If you say so, seems reasonable if I understand your theory on SG to mean:-

"Life, it just started right? In a very simple and basic form – as simple as you can get and call it life. Not sure on the details yet, science will come back to us on this – just like it did to explain how the Sun and the stars work"

If this is SG – then I think I am happy with it as a theory for now for our discussions. It is nice and simple and I think we can all understand it.

In other words, life either occurred naturally or supernaturally, there is no third alternative that logic can supply.

Personally I cannot think of a good 3rd option… so agreed

The problem that some have with creation is that it is not scientifically testable (it cannot be proven nor unproven).

This is a problem for some, but not my major reason to be against it as a solution.

The problem I have is that the "creation solution" gives more questions than it answers. For a scientist this means it is a very weak solution.

The creation recipe in summary –

"To create a very, very simple life form – just add one very complex god. Easy. Oh and God then creates all the other complex life forms as well… the end."

You know the question now Theo – "What created this very complex god?"

If your answer is "God is just there – he always has been etc etc" then I can not be happy with this answer – I have to question any solution given. Who created god?

So the question we are left to answer is which is more probably and statistical more likely.

That a god powerful enough to create the galaxies, stars, planets, and all the complex life just came "randomly" into being?

Or that a very simple, basic life form – when given a little luck in the right environment in the billions of possible planets in the universe. Just "randomly" came into being?

I know which I prefer… the simple bet. Option two. The second option is the simple option and requires less faith.

However S.G. is testable, in 1952 the Miller Urey experiment yielded some organic compounds, which we all know is light years away from an actual living cell. From that one experiment it was seen that life did not arise naturally. However numerous S.G. experiments were conducted in its various forms (clay theory etc) for over 50 years until now, but still no life

Does this prove that it is very difficult to create life, or that we do not yet fully understand how it is done?

It does not prove there is a god though… or that god is more likely a solution.

It is just a science experiment which shows life is difficult to create in the lab.

… and these experiments will go on in indefinitely until the desire of the experimenters is achieved.

The desire is to create life in the lab, so you accept that science will, in time, be able to create life in the lab?
Interesting – would this make man a god?
Or did you mean that man would never create life in the lab? Science may in a few billion years… this is how long life had to create itself, if not longer…

Therefore current data shows that life did not arise naturally, and this will remain so until a living cell is actually produced.

No it doesn't… it only shows that it is statistical improbability or we do not yet know all the answers to make it work.

It does not prove it is impossible…. How could it.

However, to paraphrase your earlier argument … "proof that life started naturally is all around us… life on Earth proves that life occurs naturally!!!"

Good argument I am sure you will agree???

Let's not go there – I do not think it is a good argument, I am just using it to show how weak an argument – on its own – it actually is.

So we see that:

1. Life originated EITHER naturally OR supernaturally.
2. Current data shows that life did not arise naturally.
3. Life exists.

The conclusion is obvious.

Point 1 - Agree

Point 2 - Disagree - it only shows life is unlikely and difficult to "start". A billion to one you could say. Good odds in the universe this size.

Point 3 - Agree - isn't life great?

Sorry though, I missed the obvious conclusion out of this... Maybe point two needs some work before anything is obvious.

However, an atheist would cry foul saying that this is a "God of the Gap" argument and that we should remain agnostic (not atheistic?) on the matter.

I do feel that theists are always looking for the gaps in science knowledge as proof of god and yes, I think you are walking on thin ice. Just look at the history of science.

As science learns (and proves) more we have less and less hiding places for god. I have made points on this before. In other words, science becomes more likely to know the solution.

(A few examples in history where a theist was "certain" on a solution until science came along are:-

Earth centric universe…
Flat Earth…
The age of the Earth… I'm sure there are more if I thought about it)

This objection would have carried some weight if there was a third alternative, meaning: if it is not A and we cannot test B, then it might be C. but this is not the case, it is an either A or B situation.

I have accepted it is either A or B… but you can not proved 100% it was god anymore than I can prove it is 100% SG.

I have also accepted that you can not prove 100% the existence of god, so you should also agree that I should not need to prove 100% it is SG.

So at worst you can say we are 50/50… still either A or B - Although no one would be happy with that conclusion.

So we can start to look at probability… which solution is more probable.

SG and science to me is more probable… god is too complex to be likely. The more complex you make him, the more unlikely he is.

For that reason, when an atheist claims that it does not have to be creation, it is really a sugar coated way of saying, "life arose by S.G., we just cannot prove it yet!"

Yep… but again, you have not proved it was a god either. So which solution is more probably?

We must understand that for the materialist, S.G is embraced as a philosophical necessity rather than being because it is true. Why?

Because anything other than S.G is outside the scope of science.

You mean God is outside science and man's understanding?

Now this is one of my gripes with materialism where in order for something to exist or be true, it must be limited to the scope of science which is quite disturbing.

Not sure why this is disturbing to you - maybe you could expand on it later, but here I'm just looking at statistics to answer the original question… which is more probable, SG or God? I'm not talking science yet...

This "disturbing aspect" though sounds like a new and long discussion and I want to clear this debate up first before moving onto a new one.

I do believe there are truths that are independent of scientific discovery, truth is not subject to science but rather science is subject to truth.

Truth is truth? OK?…
But why is it not subject to science? Have you an example ? God I suppose?
Again – I am merely looking at statistics, not aiming to actually put "science" into understanding god and his existence.

Just let's discuss which is more likely.

I am repeating myself again now… I will stop - sorry.

Theists are not anti - science, we just have a healthy respect for what it is: a growing body of knowledge that is limited to repeatable and observable phenomena.

Glad to hear it… but I do not agree. It just sounds like the "Emperor's New Clothes" – only clever people can see the fine clothes (or God), and fools like us can only see what there is (or not).

The atheist on the other hand seems to be of the viewpoint that all reality is within the scope of science. e.g. "God does not exist because He is not testable."

I like to think I have just explained my view, and you now know I do not agree with this statement for the reasons already given.

Of course theists are labeled anti science when objecting to this view point.

Not yet by me – time will tell. I think you are just mistaken and have not "seen the light".

Therefore, contrary to atheistic propaganda, the burden of proof lies on the atheist himself because he has to prove that life arose without the need for a Creator, and until such evidence is produced, reason constrains me to remain a theist.

No I do not… I merely have to prove it is more probable – this is your misunderstanding. If you do not need to prove 100% of a god (or indeed can not) why should I have to prove 100% that he does not exist or that my solution is 100% correct?

I merely will argue that science's solution is more likely and probable.

The theist has to explain why we should accept a very improbable and unlikely existing god.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

677. Comment #23822 by LeeC on March 3, 2007 at 2:34 am

Responding to gimlibengloin (Comment #23476 820.)

I agreetotally that our definition is important. In answer to your query I refer you to the first link I gave above (818) ie spetner1.asp

Can you please give me your definition of evolution?

The web site you redirected me too has two definitions, and have been written by people with PhD's. I do not have any such PhD and so need it nice and simple and one that you (and everyone) can agree to.

I think this thread requires a definition to be included on this web-site before any debate so it is clear to anyone joining the discussion.

I do not believe it should be two pages long on a different web site.

So you please add just a couple of sentences to explain your definition of evolution.

I have already tried to do this:-

evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation

Thanks

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

678. Comment #24389 by Theo on March 6, 2007 at 10:58 am

Hi Lee,

Sorry for the delayed response, but you know how busy it can be sometimes.

I read your responses to my comments, and saw one main point pervading. So for the sake of time I will concentrate on this point.

Your position is (and correct me if I am wrong): the probability of life having a natural origin is greater than the probability of it arising supernaturally.

Lee, a cell is significantly more complex than a penknife, so if this analogy works for a penknife it would definitely work for a cell. Which is more probable, a penknife being assembled by blundering chance or a penknife being assembled by an intelligent designer? Is the probability of the spontaneous generation of a penknife greater than the intelligent design of the same? We both know the answers; how much more for the complex precision of a self replicating cell? If we are dealing with probabilities, then a functional piece of machinery such as a cell has a much greater probability of being designed than being spontaneously generated. Hence this is why in terms of probability, the origin of life on earth points to a designer rather than blind chance.

Creation is therefore not rejected because evidence does not point to a designer (for we know it does), but it is rejected because of the type of designer it points to . Infinite Regress stalls at an Infinite Being, and that would be outside the scope of science. When we ask what is the probability of such a Being, what we are really asking is what is the probability of that Being existing outside the scope of science. If you disagree with my definition of a materialist then you should agree with this: if evidence points to it, the probability of something existing outside the scope of science is greater than the probability of the wind just so happening to assemble a penknife.

Or did you mean that man would never create life in the lab? Science may in a few billion years... this is how long life had to create itself, if not longer

I do believe that S.G. has been given special license and if I were to apply that same license to say Newtons 2nd Law: F = ma, where force is directly proportional to the acceleration of a fixed mass, then someone could conclude that it is very difficult to produce a force that is not proportional to the acceleration of the mass in the same conditions, maybe in a billion years we might be able to produce it, we just do not know how yet. But of course, the way science works is that, to avoid this confusion, the current data is simply accepted until evidence to the contrary is produced. This applies to every theory of science except S.G.

If you disagree, the main point is this: if S.G. is wrong, then it has been placed in a truly unassailable position, i.e. it would never be falsified. Because even after a "billion years" there would always be one more experiment, and this would go on ad infinitum. It may be the only scientifically accepted theory that cannot be falsified.


Hope to reply soon
T to the O.

Other Comments by Theo

679. Comment #24428 by Mark Taunton on March 6, 2007 at 3:46 pm

It's been a while, but I've finally found some time to pick up the threads here again.

Firstly let me add my welcome to Lee. It's nice to see someone new around here, even though it's clear you and I have rather different points of view!

In my next few posts I'll try to respond to earlier comments & questions asked of me, though in no particular order. Sorry if this all seems out of date, but I don't like to seem to dodge issues by simply going silent – for various reasons I just wasn't able to contribute to this thread for the past few weeks. I'm aiming to deal separately - in individual comments – with various pending points, over the next few days.

Billy: (it's not clear whether you'll read this, or post here again, but anyway…) with reference to your comment (796) over a link you gave (in 792) to a site about alleged contradictions in the Bible:

Mark and shaun,
The trick is to read it then judge for yourself. There are many things on that site that I do not believe to be true contradictions etc, but there are plenty of real ones too. You seem to be employing a tactic of rubbishing claims for lack of objectivity, but that is hardly an arguement.

I know Shaun raised the objectivity issue, but the concern I expressed was over the site's obvious abuse of the Bible text (taking it substantially out of context) in an effort to ridicule it. That issue is a valid basis for argument against the ideas presented there. Just as any misuse by creationists of the writings of evolutionists (by taking them out of context) cannot be condoned, so, equally, out-of-context interpretation of Bible passages, in order to attack it, should be rejected, no matter what view of the Bible you take.

If you want something more balanced, try http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

I've found that site before now, and was quite amused (in a sad way) by the character of its analysis. For example, it carefully points out places in the biblical accounts where God gets angry, and sometimes kills people, for disobeying him, as if that is a reason for thinking that the Bible is somehow bogus. But the basic point is this: if God exists, and is who and what the Bible says he is, then he has every right as our creator to do just that – no matter how unpleasant a conclusion we humans might find it. The authors of the site obviously cannot conceive of a God who doesn't conform to their particular views about morality and "human rights". But why must humanity's divine creator be bound by the (according to the Bible) errant thinking of human beings? That the Bible presents a God who is substantially out of step with humanist ideas, and what is commonly considered acceptable and appropriate behaviour on the part of men and women, seems to me good reason to question the atheistic assumption, that the God of the Bible is merely a delusion, a human invention. Surely if that were so, mankind would be more likely to invent a God who conforms to, and commends, natural human preferences and desires, whose commandments and precepts suit our interests, rather than one whose requirements we find potentially inconvenient, and in some cases hard to understand and follow, or even (as many here consider them) actively objectionable? Certainly mankind has concocted many "gods" that have suited the purposes of their inventors (usually to the disadvantage of others), but I suggest that the God of the Bible doesn't match that characterisation, in significant ways.

Incidentally, do you suggest that your congregations read sceptical reviews too or do you only cry foul when the bible is being knocked? There is nothing less objective than a preacher in full flow.

First, I'm not sure what you meant to imply by "your congregations". I am not "the preacher" to "my" congregation – Christadelphians don't operate like that. I am just one of a number of believers who meet together, to talk about and learn from the Bible, to help one another follow its counsel and instructions, and to actively promote an understanding of it to others, for example by public talks like the one I gave, as advertised on the flyer at top. I contribute my thoughts and studies to our collective spiritual development, as do others. I am not alone responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of "my congregation" – we each have a duty to follow Christ's example, but equally we have responsibilities towards each other, to help in that.

As to your question: no, I would not actively promote the reading of sceptical reviews – there are more profitable things to be recommended. However, I would not find it a problem for a fellow believer to read such things. Even most of the young people I help to teach about the Bible would probably find it easy to spot at least some major errors and misconstructions by the producers of the above-mentioned web site.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

680. Comment #24435 by Mark Taunton on March 6, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Fonex_86: You wrote a while ago:

Maybe we should get one thing straight here: do you religious gentlemen consider Genesis an accurate description of the beginning of the universe? By 'accurate' I mean 'literally correct.'

Yes, I consider Genesis to be a dependable, accurate and correct account of the beginning. But I have a problem over your word "literally" – what does it mean? In Genesis 1:2, it says "the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Now by one meaning of "literally", that could be taken to imply that the waters have eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. I certainly don't believe that, but I would like to know whether your notion of "literality" would actually require such a reading?

To be clear, I believe the Genesis account of creation is true. My understanding of it is based on the meanings of the words that occur there, defined by their usage, both in that immediate context, and in the wider context of the Bible as a whole.

For example, the word "day" seems to be used quite flexibly within Genesis, including the period characterised by the presence of light (as opposed to its absence, i.e. darkness), but also for each one of the six time periods (comprising "the evening and the morning") in which particular creative utterances and acts took place. How long were those days? Well, in the account of the law given through Moses to Israel, Genesis is explicitly picked up at the point where Israel is commanded:

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Ex. 20: 9-11, KJV).

The two instances of the phrase "(in) six days" use identical Hebrew words. From that I conclude that the six days in which creation occurred were the same sorts of days that Israel (and we) experience, i.e. of 24 (or in one aspect, 12) hours each; otherwise there would seem no point making the comparison the basis of the law ("for in six days…").

Likewise for all the other details of creation in Genesis: to make sense of the account, I rely on the basic principle of interpreting scripture by scripture, with reference to context, as in the above example. I hope this is helpful in explaining my approach to the Genesis record.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

681. Comment #24678 by LeeC on March 8, 2007 at 3:11 am

Thanks for the response Theo,

Sorry if my first reply went on a bit – I am not use to such web sites yet, so I made an effort to comment on each of your points. I will try and be more precise here.

Your position is (and correct me if I am wrong): the probability of life having a natural origin is greater than the probability of it arising supernaturally.

Pretty much – but I would like to fine-tune it if I may.

My point is that the probability of the simplest form of chemistry that we may define as life is more likely to have a natural origin then a supernaturally being. This supernaturally being is the person who you claim created life – this being is far more complex than this simple form of life I describe.

Which is more probable, a penknife being assembled by blundering chance or a penknife being assembled by an intelligent designer?
…
…the origin of life on earth points to a designer rather than blind chance

This is a classic reply, as you know, to the creation Vs evolution and has, I am sure, had a reply already. So I will not repeat earlier responses. Merely that I disagree with the logic (I will expand on this only if you need me to repeat others)

I will however turn the logic back on you – as I have before.

Is this single cell more complex than your god?
Which is more likely to come out of a blundering chance experiment? A complex god or the simplest form of life?

I have offered no science or explanation to how this simplest form of life could come into existence other than statistics (keeping science out of it) and neither have you explained how god came into existence (well actually you have tried – re: infinite regress – see below) so the only valid solution is random chance for both.

The more complex you make an entity, the more unlikely it is to come into existence by chance I am sure you would agree. (This is your point with the penknife is it not after all?

So onto your explanation on how god came into being… (or at least your reply to who created god?)

Creation is therefore not rejected because evidence does not point to a designer (for we know it does), but it is rejected because of the type of designer it points to . Infinite Regress stalls at an Infinite Being, and that would be outside the scope of science.

This hurt my head I have to tell you… thinking about infinity has that affect on me.

So to try and use merely the logic of words as you have…

(Please forgive me though, I am a physicist after all, not a philosopher of words… I am just trying to keep the science out of the argument since you have stated you believe god is outside science)

An infinite regress does not, by definition stop anywhere… it goes on indefinitely – it is impossible to say therefore something came before it - the creator of the creator just goes on and on and on – forever. It never has a beginning, there is never a first creator because with "Infinite Regress" something created it.

To create your god on this logic would require an infinite amount of time… I can not wait that long to find out… erm, but I am here asking the question so an infinite amount of time has not passed…. So therefore, with your logic – god cannot exist!

No science used here again to explain anything (so why did I go to university?)

I do believe that S.G. has been given special license…

It is getting late here I have to go – I will answer this final comment in more detail later.

However, simply put, I see nothing wrong myself. The theory could be proven tomorrow – with the right piece of luck, knowledge and skill. More than I could say for the creation theory.

Lee

PS I am glad you used a physics equation – interestingly it is a classical equation…

Other Comments by LeeC

682. Comment #24680 by LeeC on March 8, 2007 at 3:24 am

Firstly let me add my welcome to Lee. It's nice to see someone new around here, even though it's clear you and I have rather different points of view!

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the welcome… I am glad you are back on-line.

I feared that you might have stopped writing because some atheists on this thread have been rather rude to the theist.

They can give us atheists' a bad name…

I may have different views but I have enjoyed your responses and I look forward to reading more. I am after all only 99% certain there is no god, you must like the odds in that.

Have to go now… tired.

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

683. Comment #24695 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 4:46 am

Hi Lee,
Thanks for your comments. I was not knocking physics by the way, just pointing out that things like cosmology are still in their infacy just now.

Mark As I said, some things on Kinsey's site are not true contradictions. Many are though. And when I said Check for yourself, that naturally means read the context, and I have pointed out that christians fail to do so concerning prophecies.
God actually killed more than a few in the bible. The count exceeds 2 million. And if he were god, that does not make killing infants etc right - that is totally incompatible with a loving and forgiving god. We will just have to agree to differ on that, because the OT god in particular disgusts me

Theo

Infinite regress stops at an infinite being.

You are going to have to back that up and disprove the possibility of other explanations (known and unknown). Also, you are not only assuming a creator, but you are assuming qualities about that creator. You are in effect creating the rules here - and without justification. I see no evidence to believe in a creator. How can something just be and not need an explanation of its own origins? for arguement sake, why can the universe not have always existed without a god?

A reproducing cell that was assembled by chance is easier to believe than a cell being created by intelligence . . . you lost me there. What? So where did God come from? See above

See above. Who created god?

This is why atheists should not object to atheism being called a faith. To believe in a scientifically falsified theory over a theory that cannot be scientifically tested is truly delusional.

It is not a faith and you contantly saying so does not make you right. I'm sorry to say that evolution hasd not been falsified, and so much evidence exists for it. I can also sequence and compare genes and genomes, compare fossil homologies, date rocks etc. Evolution can be tested and is striongly supported. It is a reasonable belief. If you think that atheism is a faith (although you confuse this with belief in evolution) then deciding to sit on a chair is also an act of faith - will it hold my weight?
You howevere have no direct proof of god, and there is much evidence against the claims of the bible. Please point out the delusion here.

Actually Billy I am arguing from a deistic perspective (for argument sake) because the bible/ Christianity/ Evolution does not have any bearing on the existence of a creator. I have wasted enough time on debating the bible with atheists, even though I have refuted all claims directed to me about the scriptures it seems that no profit was gained. I am not squandering any more time going back there.

No, you are argueing about a hypothetical creator who just happens to have the qualities you want your god to have (without any evidence that he even exists first). I dont recall you refuting my comments on Isaiah 7:14 or Micah 5:2. I seem to remember that no valid defense was made.

You have provided no reproducible evidence that life could have arisen without a creator, do you really want me to believe in the falsified S.G. hypothesis? That is absurd to say the least! The burden of proof is on you Billy. (I could however delude myself into actually accepting a falsified theory so that atheists would label me a "Critical Thinker")

Theo, we are back at the god of the gaps again here. The genetic similarities in all life argue against creation, The decaying remnats of ancestral genes do too. Mutation is random and most are harmful. The forces that cause speciation - climate change, continental drift, volcanism etc all have physical explanations. How does that indicate the presence of god?
Here are some evolutionary predictions.
organisms on one continent are more simmilar to each other than to ones on different continents - Proven true!
the most similar organisms have the most similar genes - Again true!
New groups appear in the fossil record at different times - Very true!
Transitional forms appear at an appropriate time in the fossil record - True! (the record is better than you seem willing to believe)
We inherit pseudogenes and repetetive elements from ancestral species groups - true - read about hhuman specific, ape specific and promate specific lines and sines and the evolutionm of the globin genes of primates. All show evolutionary progression.
ETC ETC ETC (i AM BORED WITH THIS!)
You are in denial about evolution. You have provided no evidence against it

How does your evidence of "creation" compare to this?

BTW there is a difference between an atom and an electron

God is bigger than an electon, and we have evidence that electons exist

Going to try not to come back - nothing personal, it just eats up too much time

Other Comments by BillySands

684. Comment #24873 by LeeC on March 9, 2007 at 2:20 am

Responding to Mark (832. Comment #24428)

Hi Mark,

I promised myself I would not get involved in discussions about the bible (nothing personal, just I do not know enough about the bible to quote it and it proves nothing to me about the existence of god) but I have to reply to a comment you made.

That the Bible presents a God who is substantially out of step with humanist ideas, and what is commonly considered acceptable and appropriate behaviour on the part of men and women, seems to me good reason to question the atheistic assumption, that the God of the Bible is merely a delusion, a human invention. Surely if that were so, mankind would be more likely to invent a God who conforms to, and commends, natural human preferences and desires

Not sure I can agree with your argument.

I think the type of god described in the bible was perfect for the time it was written. "You must follow me, your one true god… kill the non-believer…"
(A brief summary – As I said I can not quote the bible as well as yourself.)

This proves that the book was a historical book, written long ago.

Morals and opinions on right and wrong have just changed… the bible – being "faithfully copied" from a point in time long ago – has not changed

You can find examples of this in English history (and probably most other cultures)… E.g. Henry V is a favourite King of mine and Agincourt probably the most famous battle in English history, yet if you read original texts describing what he did and ordered on that day with 21st century eyes he was a cold blooded barbarian. Not so by the writers at the time though, and this included French writers. He did what he had to do.

The bible is not showing us an example of an evil god to prove he is not a human invention. It is the very opposite… the people at that time needed an evil blood thirsty god to control their people (You must not change your god etc etc) and maybe also to put fear into others… this to me proves he was a human invention of 3,000+ years ago.

It also shows me, that the Bible and the Old Testament is a bad place to look for morals for the modern day.

The bible is stuck in it's view – but of course man has be reinterpreting it and picking out the "good bits" (or is that bad bits?) for his own personal gain ever since.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

685. Comment #24950 by Theo on March 9, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Hi Lee:

Which is more probable, a penknife being assembled by blundering chance or a penknife being assembled by an intelligent designer?..
..the origin of life on earth points to a designer rather than blind chance


This is a classic reply, as you know, to the creation Vs evolution and has, I am sure, had a reply already. So I will not repeat earlier responses. Merely that I disagree with the logic (I will expand on this only if you need me to repeat others)

No it has not been answered already. The classic reply is given as natural selection, but I am dealing with the first cell and therefore the principles of evolution do not apply here. Hence the penknife analogy still stands Lee.

I will however turn the logic back on you as I have before.

Is this single cell more complex than your god?
Which is more likely to come out of a blundering chance experiment? A complex god or the simplest form of life?

Sorry to burst your bubble Lee but you using my logic against me would have actually worked if the Creator had an origin, which you would have probably noticed later down.

An infinite regress does not, by definition stop anywhere... it goes on indefinitely - it is impossible to say therefore something came before it - the creator of the creator just goes on and on and on - forever. It never has a beginning, there is never a first creator because with "Infinite Regress" something created it.

Infinite regress is a term used to point out the so called problem creation would encounter in the scientific arena i.e. who created the creator? An Infinite Being would not be affected by infinite regress because He Himself would have no beginning. An Infinite Being by definition does not have beginning to relapse.

To create your god on this logic would require an infinite amount of time... I can not wait that long to find out... erm, but I am here asking the question so an infinite amount of time has not passed. So therefore, with your logic - god cannot exist!

Fundamental Flaw: you cannot create an infinite being, a created infinite being is paradoxical.

This hurt my head I have to tell you... thinking about infinity has that affect on me.

Don't hurt your head, just transfer the very same idea of the singularity and apply it to the Creator.

I said

I do believe that S.G. has been given special license...

I will wait until you reply to it in detail before I comment

Later,
T.O.

Other Comments by Theo

686. Comment #24951 by Theo on March 9, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Billy

The belief in evolution was never a prerequisite for atheism. Atheism was around before Darwin. My argument is that even if evolution was true, it still does not validate atheism. Sorry you wrote a whole post about something I was not arguing about.