The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

101. Comment #11732 by Mark Taunton on December 7, 2006 at 12:22 am

To Tom Bennett: Tom, my brother in Christ, I was delighted by your contribution – thank you! - and by the calm response you gave to the cynicism and scoffing tone of "goddogit", whose vitriol and disdain seems to increase with successive posts. Keep it up: you clearly know what your foundation is. As those seeking to serve God, we are commanded not to strive but to be gentle towards all. You are indeed an example of faithful witness according to that pattern. Let no one despise your youth!

To all: yes, I am the same Mark Taunton who gave the talk advertised at the top of this page. I was truly astounded to discover this site, with the copy of our flyer on full display, and part of it even showing (in small print) on the site's front page. What most amazes me, as I have followed this thread for a while, is this - Here, on the official Richard Dawkins web site, is ongoing debate between (a) people who agree with his atheistic views, and (b) those such as Tom B, Jon, Drew, Shaunyboy and others, who believe in a Creator, the God who is also the author of the Bible. Can this be the same Richard Dawkins who has publicly stated that he refuses to debate with creationists, because he wishes to deny them the "oxygen of publicity"? Or has he now changed his position on that? Either he is unaware of what's going on (quite possible, he's clearly a busy man), or there seems to be a degree of inconsistency involved… (Indeed, many inconsistencies could be pointed out with regard to what his various supporters are saying and doing in the discussions here).

Of course, I'd certainly rather that the plug was not pulled, and that there continues to be opportunity in this forum for people such as I to present our Biblically-based position and the substantial reasons we have to hold it (of which just a few, out of many, have so far been brought forward by my fellow Christadelphians). Therefore I will use that opportunity while I can, and am glad that others have already been doing so.

To Steve, Davin and anyone else genuinely interested: I am quite willing to repeat to you in this forum the evidence (as advertised by the flyer) for the truth of the Bible and the reality of the God it describes. However I cannot realistically do so in the space of one post – my talk lasted nearly an hour, and even then I was only touching on a few example aspects. (I also dealt initially with some issues raised by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion", agreeing with some points he makes, but also pointing out some serious internal inconsistencies of that book). Time permitting, I will submit more comments later, to substantiate what I have said. Right now I must stop and send this in, as I have to go to work.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

102. Comment #11735 by goddogit on December 7, 2006 at 1:10 am

I will leave the classically disingenuous mass of Xians massing on this thread to their faux polite circle-jerk. Hide your shame in whatever darkness you like!
Happiness and peace do not exist in an individual who takes lies out of laziness and declares them to be truth. I will regain both in some measure when not engaging such dull idiots.
May your lives lead you to begin thinking, and thence to life as a real human being, instead of living, unfunny scarecrows.

[sigh]

Peace.

Other Comments by goddogit

103. Comment #11736 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 1:21 am

(250): "Here, on the official Richard Dawkins web site, is ongoing debate between (a) people who agree with his atheistic views, and (b) those such as Tom B, Jon, Drew, Shaunyboy and others, who believe in a Creator, the God who is also the author of the Bible. Can this be the same Richard Dawkins who has publicly stated that he refuses to debate with creationists, because he wishes to deny them the "oxygen of publicity"? Or has he now changed his position on that?"

---------------

Mark,

You will probably find that Richard was refering to high-profile public debates(?). You will also find that he very rarely posts on these message boards.

RD has provided discussion features on this site for the benefit of like-minded people who wish to discuss his various books and the topics they cover. When theists seek out this site and post their views, why should we not respond? Would you prefer that all posts by "believers" were simply deleted? In the name of "consistency"?

You are certainly as welcome as anyone else to present your position - but you do so in the full knowledge that your position will be subjected to intense scutiny and critical review. Your audience here consists not only of random atheists who have read some of RD's work, but also scientists in many fields, scholars, university lecturers, students and ex-theists. We are generally a well-educated bunch, we are not sympathetic to your cause and we have heard a great deal of the "evidence for the truth of the Bible" coutless times before. If we occassionally stoop to personal insults then that is regretable, and certainly something to be discouraged, but it is also predictable considering the complete lack of originality that theists bring to the table when they come to a site like this and expect to convert us with their cliche-ridden rhetoric.

Other Comments by derwent

104. Comment #11750 by BillySands on December 7, 2006 at 4:14 am

Hi Tom,
Your questions seem honest enough, but display an ignorance of evolution, but I think you genuinely want to learn. I suggest you read a good book on it. Try Evolution by Mark Ridley. On a more technical side, here is an article explaining evolution of the immune system http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html . We still have a lot to learn, but we can clearly see that things started off simple and were built upon (the link in the article is good http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html).
As for the bible being accurate on prophecy, that is not true. The tyre prophecy (and others) are dispued here http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/prophecies.html. Jeremiah's 70 year prophecy also failed. It is an undisputed fact that the Exile was only 49 years. Jerusalem was not desolate, and Babylon was not destroyed after 70 years. Historically the bible is pretty inaccurate, and the stories of the patriarchs are full of anachronisms (get a copy of "the bible unearthed" by finklestein and silberman). When the bible appears to be accurate, then it is often written after the event. The book of Daniel is a good example http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/daniel.html . Matthew and Luke also disagree on the time of the birth of jesus (as well as his family tree). The two timings are mutually incompatible http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html
There are loads more problems like messianic prophecies when read in context do not referr to jesus. I too was like you and assumed that the bible was historically accurate, and it never even occurred to me that some prophecies were actually written after the event. I also believed the lie that atheists are unfulfilled. This is not true. I still know some Christians whose life is messed up because of their faith. They feel guilt and think they are going to hell- not nice eh? Atheists don't think that.
I'm too busy to debate with you, but would like to encourage you to read some more, and don't believe that other Christian lie that all atheists want the bible to be untrue.

Other Comments by BillySands

105. Comment #11754 by BushYakker on December 7, 2006 at 5:10 am

Re: Coment #11701 by goddogit

Hear, hear! Well said.

To those that question, I can give answers.
To those that puzzle, I can give solutions.
To those that blindly believe, I can give only pity.

There is no value in debating the deluded and the ignorant.

My stock answer when I am asked if I believe in god is - Which god? There are so many different variations of such a theme.

Other Comments by BushYakker

106. Comment #11758 by heymrrain on December 7, 2006 at 5:56 am

I think maybe some people are being a little unfair on Tom here. He put forward his point of view, and asked some logical questions from someone holding that point of view.

If he genuinely wants to learn about what the beliefs (and I don't mean supernatural, in case someone misquotes me!) of atheists are and why they hold those beliefs, then I can only see that as a good thing.

Bear in mind, also that he has said that he is only 16, and by the sounds of it has been brought up in a religious family.

To accuse him of being stupid or ignorant is to ignore the fact that he may not have had exposure to the ideas and beliefs of any other group than that to which he and his family belong.

I have no truck with religious people being on here. Mark raised the question of whether RD's position on debating creatiionists has changed. I don't really see how that matters. Whether he debates with them or not is his prerogative. People do not come to this site expecting to blindly follow everything RD says and does.

I am quite happy to discuss my atheistic position with someone who holds the diametrically oppsed view. My one proviso is that it is done in a logical and rational manner.

To Mark and Tom, I am sorry if any insults have been directed at you. I think all people, religious or not, deserve the right to put their views forward on here, and provided they do not resort simply to 'The Bible says is so you're wrong' type arguments, then they deserve to be treated respectfully.

However, once certain boundaries are crossed, specifically deserting logic and reason in your arguments, then you're on your own!

Unfortunately, the experience of most on here is that it doesn't take long for the religious to abandon logic and reason! I pray (in a non-religious sense!) for that to change...

Other Comments by heymrrain

107. Comment #11767 by shauntheboy on December 7, 2006 at 7:18 am

237. Comment #11440 by Steve on December 4, 2006 at 4:00 pm re Shaunyboy comment 214

I've come back as "shauntheboy" instead of "Shaunyboy" due to some technical difficulties creating an account. I think I have evolved through the selective pressures of RichardDawkins.net....!

Steve, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, and thank you for the way in which you responded. Your points are well made and I understand the argument you are presenting.

Firstly on the DNA / RNA point. I agree that the copying process is not perfect. However, the copies are carefully checked and the errors managed to such a degree that the error rate is reduced to a level the organism can tolerate. These point errors only occur somewhere in the range of one in a billion to one in a hundred billion. That's pretty incredible proof reading ability! In fact it's the equivalent to me typing fifty million pages of text with only one error.

Even if we add in the effect of deletions, inversions, insertions and transpositions (which do not now appear to be as haphazard as once presumed), this process does not appear to be a veifiable mechanism that would bring about the scale of evolution required to change a humble single celled organism, such as a bacteria, into a human being. There simply hasn't been enough time since the beginning of the universe for that one cell to become 50 trillion, let alone enough time since the beginning of life on the Earth according to your model. Neither does it explain how inorganic matter developed into organic material and then developed this exquisite mechanism. And if we go back another step we have no idea (if we take intelligent design out of the equation) where the matter that is supposed have became organic came from. This is not a "God of the gaps" argument, it is merely a statement of the facts and the "hard" questions.

The experiments of Rice & Salt, Dodds or Dobzhansky, and many others are well documented and mostly they are rigourous, well conducted scientific studies. However, what are the "facts" that were produced by their research? I'm not asking the question "What assumptions are made from the *facts*?", for that would depend on which spectacles you have on when you consider the facts! Lets simply ask the question "What are the facts?"

In essence the facts that have been produced after more than 100yrs of fruit fly experimentation are that within certain upper and lower limits, and through the selective breeding and intervention of human beings changes occur. What kind of changes?
More bristles / less bristles; small balancers / big balancers; maltose eaters / starch eaters, and so on.

At the end of all of this the fruit flies were still fruit flies, and whilst by using a technical definition of speciation only of meaning to zoologists, you can argue a new species has been created, to promote this as verifiable evidence of the mechanism by which the complexity and diversity of life on our planet arose is not a reasonable conclusion. There is nothing to suggest that given any amount of time these fruit flies would have ever been anything other than fruit flies.

It is interesting that man through his experimentation with fruit flies over the last hundred years has, arguably, simulated many millions of years worth of mutation and natural selection. Even with this deliberate, intelligent action and a case to prove, no evidence has been forthcoming that proves a mechanism capable of producing anything other than relatively minor changes within a species, or bringing about a separate sub-set within a species.

I'm thinking of starting a protest group its called "Fruit flies Against Darwin" , the main aims of the group will be to speak up for the Insect Rights of fruit flies who have now been bombarded with radiation, put into mazes against their will and force fed for decades in the name of science!

These facts (although not rigorously tested) were effectively what we already knew from the action of selective breeding of plants and animals in agriculture, the like of which has been going on since the beginning of human history. The only people this evidence would convince is those who approach the facts from a naturalistic, "unintelligent design" perspective. Which goes way back to one of my original points about the difference between facts and opinions.

Other Comments by shauntheboy

108. Comment #11771 by BillySands on December 7, 2006 at 7:56 am

Hi Shauntheboy.
Your estimate of proof reading is incorrect. Some estimates are as high as 0.2% per locus per generation. Some organisms also contain hypermutable sequences.
Could you explain the logic behind the usual creationist claim that a fly is still a fly or a fish is still a fish. What do you expect? Godzilla from an amoeba in a single step? That is not how evolution works. I posted this article earlier that shows a 4 finned dolphin http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=23906&in_page_id=34 and challenged creationist to explain it. If it has 4 fins, then a) its ancestors had 4 fins, and going back a bit further, its ancestors may have had leg and so on all the way back to reptiles then amphibians .... b) It has 4 fins, then its offspring might have 4 fins. 4 finned dolphins (providing there is a selective advantge) may evolve. Evolution works on small changes over long times. The fossil record of vertebrates is quite clear.
No Fish
Fish (no amphibians)
Fish, amphibians (no reptiles)
Fish, amphibians, reptiles (no mammals or birds)
Fish, amphibians, reptiles Mammals and birds
At the right time and between each stage we find intermediates.
Hope that helps

Other Comments by BillySands

109. Comment #11783 by shauntheboy on December 7, 2006 at 10:27 am

Hi Billy

Thanks for your comments.

Does your 0.2% estimate equate to the approx 1 error in every 10,000 base pairs prior to the "proof reading" process? My understanding is that post "proof reading" the error rate is much less than this.

Even if we accept the 0.2% error rate I think you would still struggle to find enough time for a single celled creature to develop from inorganic matter, and then in turn for that single celled organism to develop into a 50 trillion cell organism. There simply hasn't been enough time.

I think we would probably agree that there is inherent in the genetic material of all living organisms the potential for variety within each species. Examples of this variety can be seen in dogs, sheep, humans and even fruit flies! I would understand the 4-finned dolphin in the same way I understand a six fingered human or a wolf with black fur. It's an expression of the variety inherent in the genetic material of the organism which could have been expressed for any number of reasons, and doesn't really provide proof of a mechanism capable of the changes proposed by evolutionists, even if it had 4.5 billion years.

Your analysis about the clarity of transitional series and what the fossil record tells us would probably be disputed by Eldridge, (the late) Gould and co.

Other Comments by shauntheboy

110. Comment #11784 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2006 at 10:48 am

Ahhh Shauntheboy, still talking nonsense, while dodging the real questions. You truly are a piece of fascinating psycology.

Billy, you are wasting your time with this one, he is clearly a hardcore "faith head".

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

111. Comment #11786 by goddogit on December 7, 2006 at 11:05 am

BillySands, etal - Give it up! You can't even hope to score a point off'n a master knothead like this Shaunyboy here, you mere mortals! You must first admit that all the facts (that he finds germane at the time) support whatever his claim is (at the moment) while you are simply reading your hopes and fears into the data!
Shaunyboy examines the data fearlessly. He begins with the known and indisputable fact that God (and, amazingly, it is the God of the Bible and not that Allah or Vishnu guy, or space aliens, or the Celestial Teapot, or FSM!) did it! He then simply follows the paint-by-numbers evidence to reveal the falsity of current evolutionary theory, finishing in mere seconds due to the intellectual power of his painting technique - he uses a roller and doesn't worry about all those "other" colours the numbers indicate (its all the same to Jehovah, y'know.)

Shauntheboy, do you expect anyone who has bothered to read a basic biology textbook to take your self-serving horseshit seriously? Somehow, I don't think you do, not really. I think you flog this 100+-year old skeletonized horse out of a religious fever that IS like a sort of disease, that IS a mania.
You clearly fear being merely human, and especially being mortal. You fear the fact that "you" don't exist in any but the most transient way. Like a wave crossing a patch of open water or a sand dune moving across the desert, "you" are a reality of a moment, if even that.
There are reasons that some wonderful people state that they believe in something like "God" (though I do not any longer, and I consider the very concept so poisoned it has becoome entirely unusable by the most spititual among us) but the one you postulate, and that you are willing to bend the facts about - outright lie, really - is obviously an impossibility; nothing but an infantile bit of fantasy. You worship a very silly, always self-serving, incorrect, stupid, unpleasuable, fear-creating myth!
I do hope you will stop kidding yourself someday, but please do us the favor of pretending you can kid us! We are all still ignorant about many, many things, but not scared children.

Other Comments by goddogit

112. Comment #11787 by Robert on December 7, 2006 at 11:07 am

You would have thought that Darwinism would have dealt a death blow to religion by now but sophisticated theologians dodge the bullet by acknowledging physical evolution but insisting on a spiritual dimension beyond the physical. In other words dualism in the Descartian sense. They also sometimes fall back on Berkeley's idealist philosophy. This is an intellectually coherent position that cannot be disproved until we have a purely physical explanation of consciousness including qualia. We're not there yet.

In the meantime could we stop calling all the religious people intellectual retards? Some of them may be but not all. There is a difference between liberal theologians and American fundamentlists and by refusing to acknowledge or show any respect for moderates Dawkins does himself no favours.

Other Comments by Robert

113. Comment #11790 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2006 at 11:20 am

In the meantime could we stop calling all the religious people intellectual retards? Some of them may be but not all.

As a previous beleiver I agree. However, guys like Shaunyboy who come to a site like this replete with overwhelming evidence that religion is nonsense, deserve no respect whatever. They may not all be retards, but they are all in the grip of a clear delusion to those on the outside looking in.

God cannot be both omnibenevolent, and omnipowerful, and whether an entity approximating the monotheistic god exists or not, he certainly doesn't deserve worship. A savage, uncompromising kick up the arse maybe for making such an amazing shit of things.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

114. Comment #11799 by BillySands on December 7, 2006 at 12:17 pm

Hi Guys, Having read some of Shauns previous comments I agree. I can't take anyone seriously who misrepresents gould et al. Having said that I have come accross some people here who have deconverted on the basis of some arguements on this site.
Anyway, Shaun the rate is after proofreading. In some viruses, the rate is really high. 3.5 billion years is an awful long time (as is the precambrian). That's all I will say on the matter. Polydactyly is not the same as the dolphin. That requires fingers. The dolphin had nothing there to begin with. Why would the dolphin have genes for ventral flippers unless its ancestors had them? Any way, wait untill it is fully characterised and we will see. Another well characterised mutation is one where chickens develop teeth. Listen to this link on fossil DNA http://richarddawkins.net/article,232,The-Fact-of-Evolution,Sean-Carroll--NPR-Science-Friday

You may care to ponder this. If you could prove evolution was wrong (150 years on and it gets stronger all the time), how would that provide evidence for your god (4000+? years of yahweh, and there is still no positive proof of his existance - incidentally, Hinduism has been going on at least as long incase you think the length of time people have worshiped him is evidence.
Anyway, goodbye and take care

Other Comments by BillySands

115. Comment #11801 by ryuile on December 7, 2006 at 12:39 pm

Morning all. I'm no scientist so I won't even bother trying to get involved in that side of things, somebody is sure to fling a bunch of long words at me (or insults, like Mr. Godogit) However, I have been reading the Bible daily for about six years, longer than any of the atheists on here, and so although I am again no expert I'd really like to clear up a few things some folk are saying, wrongly, about it.

1) A few people have mentioned Luke as contradicting Matthew with regards to Jesus' family tree. They obviously haven't looked at it properly - Matthew gives us the line of his family through Joseph, the man who married Mary and helped bring up Jesus. Luke gives us it in the other direction, from Jesus back, and goes through the line of Mary. The bit you are misinterpreting is in Luke 3:23 -

"Jesus...being(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli"

This "son" of Heli is referring to the fact that Joseph was his son-in-law, essentially in those times another son, a member of the family. This makes perfect sense and has nothing to contradict the record in Matthew.

2) A quick one - Inquiring's post no. 232 talks about children being eternally tortured if they don't follow God's teachings. Again, you haven't read around. The Bible does not teach that wrong-doers will be perpetually punished.
The references to Hell, and fires burning forever, are referring to 'Gehenna,' the rubbish tip outside Jerusalem, where the fires were never extinguished. The things thrown on it (notably the bodies of criminals - this is where the parallel is drawn from) did not burn continually - they burnt until destroyed, but the fire kept burning. So we are not being threatened with sitting in a fire for the rest of eternity, we are being told that those who are judged unworthy will be totally destroyed, in the sense relevant to the people of that time, that of the Jerusalem rubbish heap, which was about as total as destruction got.

And 3) There have been several questions as to "Why God is such a poor communicator." Shaunyboy has replied to that, I'd just like to add a bit. In the chapter I was reading the other night, Micah 3, God tells us that there will be a long period when basically he will not communicate directly with us.

Micah 3:6 (NKJV)
"Therefore you shall have night without vision,
And you shall have darkness without divination;
The sun shall go down on the prophets, and the day shall be dark for them."
v7:
"So the seers shall be ashamed,
And the diviners abashed;
Indeed they shall all cover their lips;
For there is no answer from God."

This is clear evidence from the Bible that God hs told us in advance that he will not send prophets or visions or anything until the return of Jesus. Poor communicator? He's said he won't communicate directly and that's what he's doing. We have to use the Bible.
Of course, if you don't believe in the Bible that won't help you, but then you won't believe in God anyway so there's not a problem.

Got to go now so I'll stop there. Like I said, I am no expert on science and little bits of molucules mutating, although I have seen and heard enough evidence to convince me of Creation even when not factoring in the Bible. But hopefully I've pointed out some of the mistakes you made in taking passages out of context or misinterpreted.

Please don't just rip me apart because you disagree with me - I can understand logical debate but hurling insults gets nobody nowhere.

Thanks, Roy. Night night.

Other Comments by ryuile

116. Comment #11804 by Tom Bennett on December 7, 2006 at 12:46 pm

Hya I would just like to make some points about the Levitical law and its relevence today as in earlier posts from people Id noticed that people were making a mockery of it.
Firstly the levitical law was supposed to be the pointer towards the sarifice of Jesus. When man originally sinned there was a barrier placed between him and God that meant sacrifices of animals had to take place to cover the sins of the people. However these sacrifices could not be permenent, only the sacrifice of a human who was perfect could do that. Jesus was perfect in every way so this could be the cover for peoples sins. After Jesus was sacrificed the old Levitical law was expounded upon by the love of God so following all the perhaps trivial ones was no longer nessecary. today however we can take principles from these old laws.
These laws showed very great understanding in medicine for the time period. For example not eating pigs was wise because pork does go rotten very quickly even in fridges today so this would have been unhygienic.
I imagine that no matter what i say on here will be responded to with sarcasm from this "goddogit"
but id like to let him know that all his sarcasm is doing is fueling my faith and passion.
I do appreciate those who have responded in a human way to my posts even though we disagree.

Other Comments by Tom Bennett

117. Comment #11805 by Thrall on December 7, 2006 at 12:46 pm

Ok, Seanboy, if you can see how a dolphin with 4 fins can happen.. follow this thinking...

An animal lays eggs. One animal in this species gets a genetic defect that allows that animal to give life birth, therefore decreasing the number of eggs that are destroyed (mobility helps save the offspring). So, now this mutation gives rise to a lot of children with a lot of the same "defect" that is allowing for live birth. All of the sudden, this animal thrives and either

A) Replaces the original animal due to lack of food or

B) Co exist and become two varied species.

Now, we have 2 species. This can happen within the span of 150 years, which is amazingly fast for such a mutation.

This is the major component of evolution. Why do you have such a problem with it?

Other Comments by Thrall

118. Comment #11807 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2006 at 12:50 pm

In the chapter I was reading the other night, Micah 3, God tells us that there will be a long period when basically he will not communicate directly with us.

You are satisfied with that are you? The bible, the word of god (on its own recommendation), has an obscure passage that talks about communication and thats sorted for you? I'd need a little more.

Even if the passage as you understand it were applicable, it hardly gets god off the hook. In summary it's simply, I'm crap at communication because I said I would be. WTF?? You'll need to do much better than that.

Billions will die and go to hell (by your reckoning), simply by virtue of the blind chance of their birth. Surely god has failed these people? Why would you respect, let alone worship such a maleovlent, despicable entity?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

119. Comment #11808 by BillySands on December 7, 2006 at 12:50 pm

ryuile
HEARD THE MARY STORY BEFORE AND REJECTED IT. The messianic line must also come through solomon, not Nathan. There is also a slight problem of a moabite ancestor and jehoaikim. If you have read the bible as much as you claim, then you would know these things (ONLY 6 YEARS EH? THAT'S THE SWEEPING ASSUMPTION OF YOUR SECOND SENTENCE KNACKERED THEN!)
lUKE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A SON IN LAW. THAT IS WISHFUL THINKING, AND mARY WAS FRON THE TRIBE OF LEVI, NOT JUDAH. OOPS! TRY ANOTHER 6 YEARS AND THEN SOME.
HAVE A NICE LIFE

Other Comments by BillySands

120. Comment #11809 by Thrall on December 7, 2006 at 12:50 pm

@ryuile:

Hell doesn't exist? Says who? Don't some people who read the bible say it exists? How can you two people reading the same book get 2 different interpretations, and then live your life by the "word"? Just curious.

Other Comments by Thrall

121. Comment #11813 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Tom, If god were even somewhat loving and even half as smart as a modern fourth-grade schoolchild, he could have saved millions by putting verses like the following in his scripture.
Book of Hygiene:
1:1 Wash your hands after going potty.
1:2 Wash your hands before cooking.
2:5 Don't walk around barefoot in pigshit.

Book of Safe Food Preparation:
2:4 Sure, it's OK to eat pork, just cook it well first.

Book of How to be a Human Being:
1:4 Slavery is wrong, always, forever, under all circumstances, period, no if's, and's or but's.
4:9 Humans come in a variety of shapes, sizes and colors.
4:10 If a being looks like you, except for shape, size or color - even if that being acts different from you, it's a human being, just like you.
6:13 All humans are related and should treat each other with compassion.

But the allegedly loving, smart god could not offer this advice because god's creators did not know it.

Evil exists. If god can stop it but does not, why call him good? If god abhors evil, but is powerless to prevent it, why call him god?

With apologies to Epicuris.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

122. Comment #11818 by BillySands on December 7, 2006 at 1:11 pm

Good point, well made Brian. He could also have written everything else in clear undisputable ways, like what really is required for salvation, should homosexuals be bishops - oops, wait a minute, he did say something about that...oh yes, stone them.
Catch you later

Other Comments by BillySands

123. Comment #11824 by goddogit on December 7, 2006 at 1:21 pm

Tom B. says: "I imagine that no matter what i say on here will be responded to with sarcasm from this "goddogit"
but id like to let him know that all his sarcasm is doing is fueling my faith and passion."

Other Comments by goddogit

124. Comment #11828 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 1:30 pm

The content of the Bible is really not relevant in a debate about the existence of god(s), and I don't understand why so many atheists allow themselves to get sucked in to arguing about it with Christians. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a collection of ancient documents - no more (or less) compelling or believable than any other historical documents. Christians only attach high value to their particular collection of documents because they've been instructed that they are the word of their god. (And, of course, they believe in God because of what's in the Bible - this circular reasoning in inescapable, no matter how much they try to hide it.)

Stop engaging with theists on their terms. Physical evidence, direct observation, logic and scientific inquiry outrank random ancient documents.

Other Comments by derwent

125. Comment #11829 by Thrall on December 7, 2006 at 1:33 pm

Let me just say this. If god exists, he didn't write the bible (due to the innacuracies, and god is infallable, he either wrote it himself, or gave it to a human to write, and that human wrote it wrong, in which god had an error in judgement about who should write it, therefore, bible:innacurate::god:innacurate). So if god didn't write the bible, then why should I worship him and call him god?

Other Comments by Thrall

126. Comment #11832 by S on December 7, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Please Note: S=Steve

To Shaunyboy:

A DNA polymerase is a major protein that assists in DNA replication. This is the little molecular duplicating machine that tracks along a single strand of DNA, generating a new complementary strand of DNA.

DNA polymerases vary from organism to organism. Some have proof-reading abilities, some not. So the error rate can vary quite considerably.

The environment can cause the error rate to increase hugely. There are many substances that get stuck in the DNA strands and derail the polymerase, causing mistakes. Good examples of these, are substances called carcinogens that can cause cancer if the particular mistake is in a gene that regulates cell growth. What quite often happens is that the growth gene is mutated into the 'on' position making the cell grow and divide uncontrollable fast. This activity can lead to a tumour. Tobacco smoke contains many carcinogens, this increases the error rate and if unlucky, mistakes are made in the growth control genes.

One of these machines in humans, DNA polymerase-eta makes one base error for every 18 to 380 nucleotides synthesized, an error rate of between 0.2-6%. Very high. Not all human polymerases are this bad, but you get the idea.

Plus you have these duplication errors made in thousands/millions/billions/trillions of individuals of the same species at the same time. This parallel processing means your chances of a beneficial mutation is high, relatively speaking.

I could go on, but I'll leave this biology lesson for now.


JonG wrote:

'How ironic then that the 'free thinkers' of this world are starting petitions against 'free thinking'..?! Are you against education all-together or just religious education?'


An absurd conclusion to the point of the petition (ref - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/). The point of the petition is to prevent the one-sided indoctrination of the young that occurs with religion. This type of brainwashing, however innocent, is not teaching in the good educational sense. The young suicide bombers of the Middle East are the extreme manifestations of this cultural indoctrination.
Teach comparative religion/philosophy, giving equal spaces for all the major religions and the alternative based on physical evidence, direct observation, logic and scientific inquiry. Let children have all the information to allow them to make an informed decision when they're older. Telling children not to think by drumming the idea that blind faith is a virtue is deeply offensive and immoral.

Other Comments by S

127. Comment #11847 by shauntheboy on December 7, 2006 at 5:01 pm

Roy, don't be put off by personal insults or ridicule, they usually come along when there is nothing constructive contribute to the discussion. During the course of your studies, both Biblical and secular, just keep asking the difficult questions.

It strikes me as a little strange that we keep coming back to this issue of God not communicating very well, and usually in the same breath discounting the extensive communication he has left, namely, the Bible. If we choose to reject God because His message and instruction don't fit our personal world-view then that's the operation of free will, but you can't accuse God of not communicating just because you don't like what He has to say and choose to ignore His message!

The criticism of Him messing things up keeps rearing it's head too, and yet those in authority governing our world, running our educational institutions, etc, by and large, have no regard for God and his Word. God is not allowed in our Schools, most of us don't want Him in our homes and we certainly don't want Him involved with govt. Then when we see intolerance, injustice, cruelty and suffering, who do we blame? God of course! it's all His fault the world's the way it is - nothing to do with human greed, pride, selfishness and a general lack of regard for the Royal Law that we referred to earlier; "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and your neighbour as yourself"

Someone asked what problem do I have with being mortal? None really, I recognise it as a fact clearly taught in scripture. I believe that life will be far more fair and just under Christ's rule when He comes, and I put my hope in the resurrection and His mercy that I might have the opportunity to share in it.

The same person was dead right when they referred to our life being like a vapour that appears for a little while the vanishes away (James 4:14).This is a Biblical teaching. Man who is in a position of honour (through having the ability to ask the questions "why?" and "who?"), if he does not take that opportunity and act upon it, he is like the beasts that perish(Psalm 49). He dies and that's the end of him. If you are happy with that then I have no problem, it's your choice, but to ridicule and abuse those who decide to look "outside the box" is bad form. I accept that not all of you are behaving in this way.

The naturalistic view is rather like all of us sitting in a room together with no windows and doors. We decide to investigate how we came be in this room. First of all we set some rules, we are only allowed to talk about or measure things inside the room because that is the total of our physical experience, we are not allowed to introduce anything outside the room because we can't measure it empirically. We find out all sorts of incredible facts through the course of our investigation, all of which are true and can be verified empirically. We then start to develop theories based on these facts, but only within the rules "we" set at the beginning. In other words any theory that refers to anything outside our room is invalid because its outside the room, and those are the rules we have set ourselves. Some of us decide we started of as small specs of inorganic matter on the seats and over long periods of time developed into the creatures we see today. Others propose that we materialised from the walls and curtains and so on.

All of these theories are valid in their own right and based on facts because they stick to the rules we set ourselves at the beginning. However, that doesn't make them true or right once we look outside the room, but by the rules we have set ourselves they work fine just as long as we stay in the room. But in reality these theories are wrong. They will never find the answer because they don't look outside the room, and there is a whole world outside the room that explains why we came to be there and who was responsible.

I accept this is a philosophical argument and whether you ridicule it or accept will depend on your perspective. Do you believe life arose spontaneously and unintelligently or do you believe it arose as the result of a purposeful intelligent act?

Other Comments by shauntheboy

128. Comment #11848 by shauntheboy on December 7, 2006 at 5:15 pm

Steve,

You counter my points re duplication errors with a valid argument, but the examples you describe all relate to disease processes that are fatal and for the most part not heritable. Are these really examples of the evolutionary mechanism at work? What type of cell is the polymerase you refer to involved with?

I think your point about the scale of beneficial mutations being high is arguable. There's not really any evidence for such large scale mutations simultaneously occurring is there? I haven't come across any anyway.

Other Comments by shauntheboy

129. Comment #11849 by Joadist on December 7, 2006 at 5:44 pm

Hi Tom Bennet,

Thanks for polite and reasonable comments.

Two Points:

First: Understanding the bible...There is no standard of undertanding. It is just like watching "The Matrix". Fans of that movie can discuss its plot, character, special effects ad nauseum...but the fact remains, they are all experts as to their opinion of the movie.
Anyone who has read the Bible is equally an expert with the most studious Theologian. My review of "The Matrix" is just as legitimate as one by Sikel&Ebert. Just like them, I watched the movie.

Second: Prophecy...
I prophecize that after I finish this post, I will log off. So much for Biblical prophecy. The sad part is that it took nearly 2000 years of dedicated effort to fulfill a prophecy. I would assume that a real prophecy would be much easier to fulfill.

The Bible proves God in the same manner that "Dracula" proves vampires.

Other Comments by Joadist

130. Comment #11850 by shauntheboy on December 7, 2006 at 5:45 pm

When I looked back to last Friday's comments where I posted (comments 139 & 141) quoting Darwin, Gould, Nilsson, I see that my reply to Brian's vehement criticism about lack of context, is gone. I presume this must be due to a glitch with the work that has been going on with the web-site.

In order to counter the accusation of dishonesty levelled at me I would like to clarify what I intended those quotations to illustrate (and I think that can be clearly seen if time is taken to read the point I make alongside the quotes).

My sole intention was to show that there was a genuine debate amongst atheistic evolutionists about what the facts of the fossil record actually tell us. Of course these men then go on to propose alternative naturalistic solutions to the problem of gaps and lack of transitionals. My point was not to prove that these men believed in God, it was to illustrate that there is not the unanimous agreement, as we are perhaps led to believe, about what is *contained in* and *proved by*, the fossil record.

If you doubt that there is debate about these issues, then look at the quotations for yourself and come back to me.

As for your most recent comments questioning my integrity, I'm not really sure what to do. I think I'll sleep on it :-).

Other Comments by shauntheboy

131. Comment #11853 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 5:55 pm

Regarding your "room" metaphor:

1) "However, that doesn't make them true or right once we look outside the room"

It is not POSSIBLE to look outside the room. That is the whole POINT. We don't even know if there IS anything outside the room. We can speculate, but that's all it is - speculation.

2) "But in reality these theories are wrong."

According to you, who can not see outside the room any better than anyone else.

3) "They will never find the answer because they don't look outside the room, and there is a whole world outside the room that explains why we came to be there and who was responsible."

Again, it is not possible to look outside the room. You can not know, from within the confines of the room, that there is "a whole world out there". More pure speculation. You also ASSUME that the answer must necessarily be outside the room.

We may never discover how the room came to exist, we may not even fill in all the holes in our "theories" about how we came to exist within the room, but this doesn't mean you can just make up random "answers" and then present them as truth.

Some people claim that there is a book in the room that explains everything... Interesting... You have a book that tells you what's outside the room? And who made the room, and all of the inhabitants?

Well, it turns out that this book was written a very long time ago by previous inhabitants of the room, who also could not see outside. In fact these previous inhabitants couldn't even see INSIDE the room, because they hadn't invented the electric light. (I know, stretching the metaphor, my point is they knew less about the "room" than the current inhabitants.) So they made up some stories which some of the current inhabitants choose to interpret as fact and truth.

The authors of the book received divine inspiration? How do you know that? Ah, it says so in the book!

If you choose to belive that this book of yours contains acurate, factual information about what is outisde the room, that is your choice. If you choose, in the process, to ignore all the other books with similar claims, again that is your choice. And if you also choose to ignore the growing body of evidence that suggests we DID in fact develop from inorganic specks on the seats, yep, your choice.

Even if all our "theories" about how we came to be in the room are COMPLETELY wrong, that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of your book. Disproving one does not prove the other.

If the only thing you have to support your beliefs is the book, and other people don't belive the book (because they quite simply have no reason to)... Guess what? Game over.

Other Comments by derwent

132. Comment #11857 by JonG on December 7, 2006 at 6:18 pm

275. Comment #11832 by S on December 7, 2006 at 2:14 pm

'The point of the petition is to prevent the one-sided indoctrination of the young that occurs with religion.'

Thats a pretty broard stroke don't you think?

I don't feel that I experienced any one-sided indoctrination but even if i had, what about the one-sided indoctrination that exists in other areas of belief, such as science and politics. Both equally as dangerous I would have thought.
For every religious nutter carrying a bomb presumably there is a scientific nutter giving out instructions to make it.

And, yes, extremes do exist in the world but since when did we organise blanket bans on that basis? On your rationale England would ban Soccer because some 'alleged' fans has taken to hooliganism!

To me it smacks of paranoid, restrictive, narrowmindedness - and I thought *we* had the copyright on that behaviour! ;)

Ahhh, i'm off to bed...

Other Comments by JonG

133. Comment #11858 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 7:00 pm

> "On your rationale England would ban Soccer because some 'alleged' fans has taken to hooliganism!"

The idea is not to ban "soccer". The idea is to stop parents restricting their children's "sporting" activities. Children should be free to explore many sporting options and decide for themselves which one(s) they want to play - if any.

Other Comments by derwent

134. Comment #11859 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 7:08 pm

> "To me it smacks of paranoid, restrictive, narrowmindedness"

I don't see how promoting choice and free will constitutes narrow-mindedness. Restrictive? Only on parents and religious leaders, in that it would restrict their brainwashing activities. Paranoid? Of course the theists will paint it that way and play the victim / persecution cards that they always play in order to get their own way. But no, the threat is very real. Enough is enough.

Other Comments by derwent

135. Comment #11861 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 7:22 pm

Having said that, I do find some of the petition wording a little ambiguous. A "broad stroke" as JonG puts it.

>"..children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching..."

To me there is an implicit "...in one specific religion..." at the end of this, but others may not interpret it that way. If a child spent alternate Sundays learning something about several different religions (e.g. Christianity / Islam / Judaism) would this still be classified as "indoctrination"? (Perhaps Christianity / Hinduism / Atheism would be a more balanced mix.)

And what is "regular"? I know they want to cast a wide net, and perhaps rightly so, but I think this wording is just... too open. Maybe just nit picking...

Other Comments by derwent

136. Comment #11869 by Mark Taunton on December 8, 2006 at 12:33 am

To derwent (252): Firstly, thank you for the reasonable tone of your comments to me, a first-time contributor to this forum. Thank you also for explaining your understanding of the nature and rationale of this website. Certainly I would prefer not to see the present open posting policy reversed. It just seemed strange that Richard Dawkins' own approach in regard to debate with creationists is not reflected on "his" website. Your suggestion about what type of debate he (may have) meant could well explain the difference.

I certainly believe that reasoned and considerate discussion is appropriate here (and in general, between fallible human beings seeking truth). It is disappointing, but no great surprise to me, that so many choose to use abrasive and crudely dismissive language against others they disagree with. Please point me back at this comment if you ever see me doing the same, though I hope no-one will ever need to…

I would seek always to avoid "cliché-ridden rhetoric". However in case people think (I suppose some might), that a quotation from the Bible, cited in support of my argument, comes into that category, I would have to disagree. Please note that in such a context as this forum, I would not quote the Bible in the mode some have supposed, namely "this is what the Bible says, God wrote it, so it must be true". In making a case for some position, it is a logical error to presume its truth unconditionally in your argument. RD makes that point in TGD (p 360)when criticising a particular piece of Catholic theology, and I agree with him there. The problem I perceive is that in a number of places in the book, he himself seems to break that rule – please ask if you want examples.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

137. Comment #11870 by Mark Taunton on December 8, 2006 at 12:43 am

Joadist wrote (278):

"… Second: Prophecy...
I prophecize that after I finish this post, I will log off. So much for Biblical prophecy. The sad part is that it took nearly 2000 years of dedicated effort to fulfill a prophecy. I would assume that a real prophecy would be much easier to fulfill. "

Where is the logic in this, or are you trying to make some kind of ironic joke? Please think about that again. You dismiss Biblical prophecy, on the grounds that you (or anyone) can make a trivially short-term and easy prediction, which you then immediately fulfil. You seem to be arguing there's nothing hard about fulfilling any prophecy - anyone can do it - hence nothing special about the fulfilment of Bible prophecies.

You go on to identify correctly that it's much harder for (at least some) Bible prophecy to be fulfilled. It's indeed impossible for any individual or group to have "fulfilled" it (in his sense of deliberately making it happen), not least because the timescales so far exceed a human lifetime.

You doesn't explicitly say so, but it seems you are alluding to those Bible prophecies predicting the subsequent long history of the Jewish people, that Tom Bennett and others have already mentioned. Nearly 2000 years of that has taken place after the last part of the Bible was recorded, and hence – unlike your trivial example - out of any possible control by those who wrote down the prophecies, since they were all long dead. (By the way, that aspect also explicitly breaks the "circularity" of purely internal reference that derwent alleges (273) about the Bible's logic.) Those predictions have been accurately fulfilled, not just about the outcome – (briefly summarised as) the re-gathering of scattered and largely secular Jews from all over the world, to form once again a single Jewish nation in the land of Israel, despite fierce opposition from their nearest relatives, the Arab peoples, who lay claim to the same territory and to the city of Jerusalem in particular – but also in regard to what happened to the Jews in the interim. I can give multiple Biblical references to back up every aspect of the foregoing – just ask, and I'll happily list them out. Alternatively, see for example http://www.theevidence.org.uk/accurate4.htm for a small selection.

Yet somehow all then goes haywire in your reasoning, and you imply it ought to be _easier _to fulfil a "a real prophecy"? That is completely upside down. The less probable or obvious the prediction, or the more accurate, the stronger the reason – if the prediction comes true - to pay attention to it, who made it, its context, and the logic around it. In other words, to give it credence, to believe the predictor. To quote from a source you approve of:

"Quantum mechanics ... makes brilliant successful predictions about the real world. … This predictive success means that quantum theory has got to be true in some sense; as true as anything we know … Yet the assumptions quantum theory needs to make, in order to deliver those predictions, are so mysterious, that [Richard Feynman said something like] 'if you think you understand quantum theory … you don't understand quantum theory'. Quantum theory is so queer, that …"

Despite the enormous intellectual challenge it presents (not only evidently to Richard Dawkins, but to pretty much everyone), despite the mysteriousness and queerness of it, quantum theory's predictions are remarkably successful, and therefore scientists are obliged to take it into account, to consider it at least in some sense as "as true as anything we know". Many of the Bible's predictions are likewise exceptionally improbable and hard to swallow, set in a context that challenges natural human thinking, for example by God explicitly pointing out that their fulfilment is a deliberate demonstration of his existence and the truth of the Bible. Yet they have been demonstrably proved true, in brilliant and substantial detail (not just in a vague broad brush sense). Why then do so many choose to disregard it, dismissing it as merely (to quote derwent) a collection of "random ancient documents". If it is indeed just "random", how come it is so right, not only on these but also on many other things we can ourselves observe in the real world?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

138. Comment #11873 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2006 at 1:36 am

.... how come it is so right, not only on these but also on many other things we can ourselves observe in the real world?

Thats the problem Mark, hardly anyone of substance agrees with you on this. That aside, the myriad of disagreements, within christianity itself, on even substantive dogma completely invalidates this position.

If the bible is such a wonderful and overwhelming demonstration of the power of god, why are billions of us left comprehensivley unimpressed? By my count roughly 66% of the human race, but by your more exclusive measure, I'm guessing practically everyone.

The standard response to this is "hardness of our hearts" blahh, blahh, blahh. This is simply nonsense. Why should I consider an entity god that can't even make a decent case for itself?

The creator of the universe,with complete foreknowledge, makes a creature that is imperfect, then blames it for that imperfection, killing his own "son" as a sacrifice to "pay" for that inbuilt and foreknown imperfection.

Now, we must exercise our "free will" to accept this sacrifice our be damned for eternity.

All of this based on nothing more than a book, cobbled together by clerics with an agenda 1700 years ago, which has been torn to shreds at every level in the last 150 years?

It is utter lunacy. Wake up and smell the coffee!!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

139. Comment #11877 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2006 at 2:00 am

My sole intention was to show that there was a genuine debate amongst atheistic evolutionists about what the facts of the fossil actually tell us.

Gee ... I'm amazed, scientists that disagree? At least that's how the method functions, what excuse do you religious types have?

We of course know this, I simply object to the context you are attempting to shoehorn these comments into. That is the bollocks, not the fact that these people disagree.


Of course these men then go on to propose alternative naturalistic solutions to the problem of gaps and lack of transitionals.

Exactly, thats the bit you people consistently leave out.

As for your most recent comments questioning my integrity, I'm not really sure what to do. I think I'll sleep on it :-).

It may not be intentional, you may be genuine, but the shameless misrepresentation and disingenous quote mining from creationists circles is a scandal.

It is also silly for you and I to discuss a moving target as complex as evolution. We might just as well debate quantum theory, or gravitation or relativity. We rely on the expertise of those in the relevant fields to inform us. We do this every single day, in hundreds of different ways.

So I insist on bringing the conversation back to the nature of god, because that exposes that the whole endeavour as pointless, in that context, any discussion on evolution is a total sideline.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

140. Comment #11941 by shauntheboy on December 8, 2006 at 11:18 am

Brian

Thanks for at least a partial desire on your part to give me the benefit of the doubt on this issue. As a gesture of good will I'll pander to your request to type the context of the passage in question. So apologies in advance for the length of this post. Additionally, I could get some photos taken of me and the book together, and then get the local police dept to fingerprint it and run some DNA tests on it, just to make sure I really have had contact with it!! :-) You demand a much higher standard of evidence on this issue than you do for Evolution!

Prof Tim Berra unintentionally presents an intelligent design argument in support of macroevolution, but because of the numbing of his mind by the solely naturalistic paradigm he inhabits he obviously failed to see this. I don't make these remarks as any kind of personal attack on him I merely make them to illustrate a mind-set evident in many who only consider naturalistic answers when examining the world around us.

Berra's book is published by Stanford University Press, not some backwater publishing house without rigorous checks and balances. Undoubtedly, this book would have been proof read and peer-reviewed by more than one academic in the fields of zoology or biology, yet none of them saw anything contradictory in the example he used. This reveals a great deal about the thought processes of those given solely to naturalism. Design is everywhere in everything, you cannot avoid it. The evolutionist believes that there is only the "appearance" of design because of the purely naturalistic rules he operates within, and that a theory of unintelligent forces explains how these things arose from natural selection pressures on random mutations. Those of us who believe in the God of the Bible, believe that the natural world looks like it was intelligently designed because it was. Is that so irrational or illogical? Is it a reasonable conclusion to reach from the available evidence? I would suggest it is, but I'm sure you will disagree.

I quoted from chapter 4 which is entitled "The Evolution of Life and the Rise of Humans". The chapter begins with the "big bang". Interestingly the source of this sudden injection of energy which spawned our universe and life, and what may have been before this event is circumnavigated. Another example of a failure to deal with the difficult questions and what they might tell us. However, I appreciate that this reluctance is due to the uncertainties surrounding these issues if you adapt a purely naturalistic approach to life. Why talk about something if you can't experiment on it and empirically measure it? The chapter then charts the process of evolution from inanimate chemicals to single celled life to human beings in 47 pages. Pretty impressive! I'm not going to give you the whole of the preceding paragraph because that would be too time consuming and I can't type the following paragraph because there isn't one.

"The accelerating pace of hominid fossils is truly dazzling (me: !!?)……..If the australopithecines , Homo habilis and H. erectus, were still alive today, and we could parade them before the world, there could be no doubt of our relatedness to them. It would be like attending an auto show. If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette side by side, then a 1955 and a 1956, and so on and so on, the decent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious (fig 41). This is what paleoanthropologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people (me: he puts the preceding sentence in italics too emphasise that you are not reasonable if you beg to differ!). There are quibbles about individual relationships ( me: see how he trivialises the dissenters and makes you feel inferior if you disagree with his point), but each new discovery helps to fine tune our increasingly detailed knowledge of human evolution.

Figure 41. Evolution of the Corvette. Everything evolves in the sense of "decent with modification," whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars or organisms (me: yet all of these except the organism, according to Berra, happen as the result of intelligent processes with an end result in mind. Hmm..) The revolutionary fibreglass Corvette evolved from more mundane ancestors in 1953 (above left). Other high points in the Corvette's evolutionary refinement include the 1962 model (below left), in which the original 102 inch wheel-base was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe stingray model was introduced….. (me: okay I'm getting bored now so I'm going to jump to his final point which comes at the end of all the modifications)…..The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process guides the evolution of organisms." (me: yeah, but its still a car isn't it! And the process was guided by intelligent beings with an end result in mind!)

(Berra T.M 1990; Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford University press.)

Hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.

Next, the nature of God then!

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

141. Comment #11945 by shauntheboy on December 8, 2006 at 12:41 pm

Brian

The difficulty in talking to an atheist about the nature of God is finding a point from which to begin. If our understanding of the nature of the Creator of the universe is based on personal experience, or lack of personal experience, or special revelation or lack of special revelation, then we are going to struggle to have a coherent discussion. There is no counter argument to "I don't believe, therefore he doesn't exist," it's a bit like an inhabitant of remotest part of the Amazon jungle in Brazil saying he doesn't believe that the United Kingdom exists. In his little world the statement is absolutely true. He has searched for evidence of the UK by a rational and systematic process in the forest around where he lives. He doesn't find any empirical evidence of the UK and so he is convinced of the correctness of his view. In his world, even though some claim to believe in the UK because they have read it in books, the UK indeed does not exist. And so he carries on through life oblivious until he dies. Alternatively, whilst he is still living, one day a logging firm arrives and cuts down all the trees to grow palm trees for the bio-fuel market in the UK. Suddenly he discovers that in fact the UK does exist and it has a very real effect on his life, if only he had not been so restricted by the definitions he set himself about was admissible evidence, if only he had read the book that those others had read, he might have been able to take action to prepare for what was coming.


This is an imperfect analogy, but I use it to make the point that my view on the nature of God is based on what I read in the Bible, the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Your view is that the Bible is a collection of next to useless old documents invented by men. I believe them to be God's message to us. So, any description I give you of my limited understanding of the nature of God will be as the result of passages of Scripture that I have read and absorbed. I don't claim to have any mystical personal experience or revelation, if an opinion of what God's nature is like is not supported by the Word of God then it is impossible to substantiate, it's purely subjective and personal. It's back to "I believe because…." or "I don't believe because…." and no useful discussion ensues.

That's why I, and my Christadelphian brothers and sisters, try to be careful to make sure that any claims we make are supported from Scripture. Whilst we are all falible human beings and we will differ in opinion on many things, we all agree on the authority of God's Word and certain key beliefs we base upon it. This means we have a common point of reference that we base our views on. If I were to discuss my understanding of God's nature with you the problem is that you would say, "the Bible is nonsense" and "I personally don't see any evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist." And in your own world you are absolutely correct, but that doesn't alter the fact that He does exist and will intervene in human affairs as promised, at that point, if you are still living He will suddenly be very real.

So if you are willing to accept that any attempt to describe or understand the nature of God given to you by me, Mark, Drew, JonG or any of the other Christadelphians from across the globe who may contribute, will be couched, in and accompanied by passages from the Bible, we will be more than happy to talk to you about the benevolence and omniscience and personal reality of the God we believe in.

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

142. Comment #11946 by BillySands on December 8, 2006 at 1:18 pm

Im not posting this for debate. I have heard the christian arguemants concerning thes verses, and find them to be lacking in any credibility. I am posting it to balance the view that god is living and benevolent for the benefit of those christians who haven't read the bible properly. This is what the bible ALSO tells us of god. He is an infant killing (Ex.11) merciless (Num. 39), genocidal (book of Joshua), misogynistic (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14), homophobic (lev. 20:13), slavery promoting (as long as they are not Israelite (Lev. 25:44-46)), human sacrifice accepting (well its ok, its only a girl and god doesn't like them any way (Jud. 11:29-40)), creator of evil and harm sending (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, and 1Sam. 16:33 to name a few), liar (2Chron. 18:19-22) who leads people to destruction against their will (Ex. 14:1-31) and forces people into cannibalism (Lev. 26:29, Jer. 19:9). But he does have a sense of humour, he make bears kill some boys for calling someone baldy (2 kings 2:23-34)

Pretty sickening really! And that just a few of his less proclaimed deeds. This is why I (and others) reject claims of a loving god. That and the fact that the bible tells us man was punished for the actions of 2 people who didn't know they were doing wrong. They only knew that after they ate the "forbidden" fruit. Again unfair. I never tire of this quote from David Attenbourugh:
"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy."
If you actually look at the amazing survival strategies that parasites have, you realise the god of the bible has gone to a great deal of trouble to subvert our immune systems and cause untold suffering.

Or as Eric Idle put it:
All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot

Each little snake that poisons
Each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom
He made their horrid wings

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The Lord God made them all

Each nasty little hornet
East beastly little squid
Who made the spikey urchin
Who made the sharks, He did

All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul, and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all

AMEN

Other Comments by BillySands

143. Comment #11947 by BillySands on December 8, 2006 at 1:20 pm

3rd sentence should read loving and benevolent

Other Comments by BillySands

144. Comment #11953 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2006 at 2:25 pm

Shauntheboy, thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to my posts. My mind is not changed as regards god, but I've clearly misjudged you, and for that I apologise.

As regards the reading you cite, it's fairly uncontroversial and commonplace for examples of this nature to be used. The audience understands how evolution works, and is not confused or distracted by the incongruity of using a designed artifact to explain the process.

The problem with claiming the bible is the word of god is that it is merely one of a competing plethora of texts, all claiming the same thing. It is not a matter of "faith" that the bible is nonsense, it is patently obvious to anyone with an open mind on the subject who gets past the first 2 chapters of Genesis. The first glaring contradiction is already right there. In addition the utter failure of the thousands of christian sects to agree on what this stuff means is surely damning evidence of the very human source of the content of the bible.

I used to be a christian, I even spent about 4 years touring with a christian theatre group called "covenant players". In the course of the last 5 years of Bush, Blair and Iraq, I began to question my faith, pull at the threads and eventually to hammer at the superstructure until the whole thing came crashing down. I think that anyone who genuinely subjects their faith to rigourous scrutiny will attain the same result. I'd recommend you get away from your Xian buddies for a few months and really let your faith have it, you'll be better for it in the end.

It is madness to base your life on the circular logic of a book that is the word of god because it says so.

It is madness to base your life on vague personal "spiritual experiences" when we now know that the brain can conjure voices, images and tactile sensations from thin air. MRI scans have been conducted and mapped the activity while it was happening.

Any omnibenevolent, omnipowerful god is a logical impossibility in the world we see. Thousands of books have been written to explain this inconsistency, when the obvious simple hypothesis ... there is no god, fits the world we observe perfectly.

Good luck, and good night:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

145. Comment #11967 by S on December 8, 2006 at 3:59 pm

A response for Shaunyboy:

'…the examples you describe all relate to disease processes that are fatal and for the most part not heritable. Are these really examples of the evolutionary mechanism at work?'

Yes. Several points here. Just because something is fatal, doesn't mean it can't be inherited (breast cancer is a good example), thought I see that you understand the selection process. I used a disease process to aid my explanation of the molecular events that take place. Changes in the DNA sequence are just that – they are merely changes – there is no motive. Whether that change is beneficial, detrimental or inconsequential is another matter. The selection process tends to favour the beneficial changes, tolerates the inconsequential, and removes the detrimental.

'I think your point about the scale of beneficial mutations being high is arguable.'

To reiterate, the mutation when it happens, is just a change – there is no motive either way. This, to my molecularly-oriented mind, is the blind unknowing designer you're looking for – not god. And by a process of trial and error, the good ones tend to get passed down; the bad ones tend not to. Similarly, the corvette evolved by trail and error. The designer here is man. But the process that is the same – trial and error.

The lack of understanding at the molecular level (or of trust in the scientific community), really hampers your ability to conclude that the imperfect replication of DNA (and RNA) is the true designer you seek.

'There's not really any evidence for such large scale mutations simultaneously occurring is there?'

Different mutations are occurring all the time in many ways, in all organisms. Yes, many are corrected by DNA repair enzymes and other processes such as apoptosis – but more so when it is detrimental.

By the way, all tissues tested, including the testis, contain DNA Polymerase eta.

Other Comments by S

146. Comment #11968 by Joadist on December 8, 2006 at 4:28 pm

Mark Taunton,

I assumed that my point was so obvious that I could address it by satire.

The problem with prophecy is: Once you make a prophecy, it is no longer a prophecy. It is a Game Plan.

There is also the corollary to prophecy, which is seeing it fulfilled everywhere. Comparing everything to the prophecy to see if it might be the fullfillment.

Post Hoc Ergo Hoc

Go read some HG Wells or Jules Verne. Their books are filled with prophecies.

Other Comments by Joadist

147. Comment #11971 by Joadist on December 8, 2006 at 4:34 pm

Shaunyboy,

You are correct. The eye is far too complex to be a product of this universe.
Therefore, this universe is a product of the eye.

The eye, being far too complex for a random universe, required that a universe be designed specifically for the eye.

So, in the beginning, there was the Eye. And on the second day, God created a universe where the eye could function.

Other Comments by Joadist

148. Comment #11972 by BillySands on December 8, 2006 at 4:41 pm

S,
A good example is the sickle cell haemoglobin gene. 2 copies and you are stuffed, 1 copy you have improved resistance to malaria. This is a selective pressure that maintains this gene in the population despite the consequences of homozygosity. About 2 million people a year die of malaria (in this age of chemotherapy) so it is a strong pressure. Some genes like the cystic fibrosis one confers no advantage, and toddles along at a low rate in the population.

Time for bed I think

Other Comments by BillySands

149. Comment #11994 by shauntheboy on December 9, 2006 at 3:59 am

Torbjorn:
I apologise first for my "scientifically" lazy language re matter organic and inorganic. Despite this I think the difficult question still stands: How did stuff which is not alive become alive? and Where did that stuff come from in the first place?

These two questions are linked to my point re Tim Berra's book that, even though it's a biology book, he makes no effort to deal with these very important questions, even in passing.

Cosmology is, I agree, the science that deals with this question. Many of those who study cosmology, whilst not being religious in the sense that I am, comment on the fine tuning of the universe for life and speak of "God" or "intelligence" in an impersonal way relating to what they see.

One of my favourite web-sites is Space.com, it has some incredible stuff on it. One of the articles on this site relates to some research that was done by an Austrian chap (whose name I can't remember off-hand). He spoke of some experiments he had done relating to the extremely delicate balance that exists in the universe which allows life to flourish on our planet. He goes on to say the universe is like a giant (understatement!) life creating machine with thousands of dials all just at the right setting to allow life to exist. If the gravitational constant were to be altered in the slightest - no life, and so on through a whole list of examples. He says that it almost appears that our universe was designed for life, but of course rejects that notion on philosophical grounds. He suggests the "many universes" hypothesis, in other words to get this one universe where life exists there must be many millions upon millions of universes where there is no life. Interesting thought! The lengths some people will go to to avoid the obvious conclusion!

My belief is that if it looks like the universe was designed as a giant life creating machine, then maybe, just maybe, it was. Surely to rule it out when you have no evidence to the contrary is unscientific?

Other Comments by shauntheboy

150. Comment #11997 by shauntheboy on December 9, 2006 at 4:14 am

Steve:

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. Though you obviously are convinced that this is the mechanism by which life evolved, I and many others (including some of your colleagues perhaps?) still find two huge sticking points. Firstly, there simply has not been enough time since the beginning of the universe for the mechanism you describe to go from nothing to everything in all it's variety and minscule detail. Secondly, the randomness of the process required to bring about the beneficial copying errors which have to be heritable and which must survive. Even if such a copying error were to provide a miniscule initial advantage the liklihood of the "characteristic" surviving beyond the first one or two generations is small. I suppose in very small populations the odds of the characteristic surviving would be increased. This process appears to have significant limitations.

Other Comments by shauntheboy