1. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199863 by Shmeezers on June 26, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Steve,
Einstein wrote in clear words that he did not believe in a personal god, and yet saw the need for a mind of some sort to account for the rationality of the universe. You have a point: how could there be a mind which is not a personal god? Einstein was able to conceive of it quite clearly. Perhaps it is simply a rational mind that produces rationality by necessity (something like Aristotle's First Cause). A rational mind does NOT by necessity imply a personal god. This is an assertion that you will need to defend (especially coming from you, who is so hot n heavy about evidence).

I certainly don't think you were justified in calling me an 'idiot', unless you also think Einstein, and many other scientists, were likewise idiots. And furthermore, it is simply childish, and does not befit someone who attempts to adopt the level of sophistication that you do. But anyhow...atheists will be atheists.

Quetz,

We start by positing a rational mind, as many other scientists have done. This does not broach the question of purpose, meaning, or whether we should worship this mind. My point is that atheists are just so closed-minded that they cannot even admit this obvious fact.

Perhaps you should read Anthony Flew's new book. His account is honest. It would do everyone here a lot of good.

2. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199832 by Shmeezers on June 26, 2008 at 11:58 am

hey Steve,

Perhaps you are having trouble reading. I'll quote what I wrote: "They all recognized the need to ground the rationality of existence in a rational base, although they could not take the leap of faith to posit a personal God (which is another issue). "

Did you read it? I wrote quite clearly that they did NOT believe in a personal God (although Newton did, on second thought). What I was trying to say is that they believed in the necessity of grounding the rationality of the universe, which is what I have been trying to put forth ever since I came to this website.

And I don't have a clue what you are trying to insinuate with your time machine thing. Perhaps try being a little more direct.

3. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199807 by Shmeezers on June 26, 2008 at 11:29 am

Hey atheists, or should I say "brights" (haha..cough, mm, sorry):

You guys are projecting your thoughts onto theists. I never made any mention of being the chosen of God, or being in the middle of the universe, or whatever else you mentioned. All I said was that the complexity and rationality that we observe points to a rational mind. Guess what? Many scientists admitted as much (Einstein, despite Dawkins' propaganda about him; Newton; even Darwin - yes!). They all recognized the need to ground the rationality of existence in a rational base, although they could not take the leap of faith to posit a personal God (which is another issue).

They were honest. Perhaps you would likewise call them arrogant?

4. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199660 by Shmeezers on June 26, 2008 at 6:57 am

the arrogance of the atheist comes out in stark clarity...

5. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199169 by Shmeezers on June 25, 2008 at 9:05 am

AJ,

I agree with you that some "evangelists", like the televangelists, are absolute morons. But it is way too reductionist to claim that all preachers harbour bad intentions.

6. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196242 by Shmeezers on June 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Calil,

Your post is extremely verbose, and unfortunately I don't have the time to respond to it now. I will make the effort soon. But try to me more succinct and to the point next time. No use quoting all that stuff. It would have sufficed to give a short, concise explanation of what you think, supported by some statements by Nietzsche.

Until next time.

7. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196170 by Shmeezers on June 19, 2008 at 11:55 am

Quetz,

You are quite right that moral absolutes cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method. Recall that my statement above was proclaiming the fact that to ground moral absolutes, one must insert God into the picture. Otherwise, they cannot be justified.

Now, concerning a post above that discussed the moral precept, "Thou shall not murder." The author of that post brought up a hypothetical example of a girl over whom Bundy was standing with a bat, and inferred (quite reasonably) that it would be ridiculous to claim that she cannot kill him. Ok. But that is why moral precepts are contextual. To "murder" is to unjustifiably kill someone in cold blood. That girl would be justified, because there is an imminent threat, and she needs to protect her life. In the context of capital punishment, some would argue that it is justified to kill the criminal because justice needs to be done. Whatever. The point is that it is a contextual analysis (not in the sense of being subjective, but rather that the absolute moral functions as a variable within a context), and I argue that absolute morals CAN exist. Whether they are justified, that depends on one's faith in their absoluteness. No justification can be found within a purely materialistic outlook, which was Nietzsche's (and many others') observation. One certainly cannot, as sam Harris would have it, rely on reason, or the pursuit of happiness, to ground morality.

Assigning characteristics to God is based solely on faith. I do not purport to bring forth any arguments in this regard here. The main focus of the debates here is the existence of God, or not. That is a different issue. If you want to talk theology, I would be completely happy to do so. But I doubt you have any interest in the matter.

8. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #196048 by Shmeezers on June 19, 2008 at 8:46 am

MPHIL,

You wrote, "Nietzsche thought that you have to abandon all previously held morality in order to establish new, adequate moral values. He never thought that morality itself has no meaning without god."

Nietzsche did not believe in morality, in the sense of dictates that emanate from an outside source, and to which we must be obedient. Rather, "morality" for him emanates from the ego. Beyond good and evil - to what? Good and bad, in the sense of good implying the strong, and bad implying the weak. His whole contention with Christian morality is that it reversed this (what he thought to be) fundamental equation of life - that the strong prevail over the weak, and that they dictate what the standards should be.

Of course, such an analysis is a reflection of a Darwinian outlook, and it does not seek to posit anything objective. Rather, it is subjective, based on the whims of the strong, who prevail.

Now, this is what you atheists should be arguing, already. As such, where is the room for compassion, charity, etc. Perhaps you all love these virtues. If so, you need to re-evaluate your philosophy.

Where is the justification for rights given to all - to express themselves, to enjoy life, etc.

Hey philosopher king, please explain these things to me.

9. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194666 by Shmeezers on June 17, 2008 at 6:48 am

Well, I suppose people will believe what they will believe. Humans have contructed these scientific theories to try and take control of nature. You have all fallen into it. Just remember that none of you will have any excuse, because God's attributes are clearly demonstrated in front of you everyday.

And concerning Nietzsche, what he understood is that without God, there could be no binding, objective morality. That was my point. And objective morality makes complete sense. For example - the statement that everyone has inalienable rights (to life, to a fair trial, to express their beliefs). Just remember that you atheists got your chance to express your views precisely because theists decided to conceive of the right to freedom of expressions as absolute. Had they not, your nonsense would have been stopped long ago. (And look at what it has brought us...multiple universes, life arising on it's own...ugh. Whatever.)

Objective morality is the basis of our rights in this society, and the moral claims that we make. It is surprising that this is not obvious. Anyhow. Carry on in your self-delusion. By all means.

And as to the arrogance debate, I still think you guys are talking nonsense. Your desire to explain life using strictly materialistic theories is premised on arrogance. It is not so much that God' existence is not manifest (which it most certianly is), but you choose to rule it out from the beginning - by assuming a strict materialism. YOU ARE THE ARROGANT ONES. But this falls on deaf ears, because criticism is shunned by atheists.

How about you heed your own advice and read some books from the "other side". Oh wait, you guys are just too damned smart, coming up with all those theories and stuff. Yeah, no one should question you, because you have all the answers. Talk about arrogance...

10. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #192144 by Shmeezers on June 12, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Steve,

It is quite funny the way you reverse things. I find that atheists are the arrogant ones - presuming that complexity and beauty can arise through chance, instead of recognizing the extremely probable proposition that a designer exists. You calling me arrogant is simply preposterous. Like, just idiotic. I am positing the existence of a greater Being who has power over me. How is this arrogant? You are arrogant in presuming that your theory of evolution can explain everything about this life.

I don't think your analogy about the computer is hitting the mark. Your argument is equivalent to saying that a computer can develop a MIND of its own (we are not talking about capacity to work mindlessly, but rather an independent mind with intention), and rebel against its programmers. I don't suppose you hold to this idea...

I don't know why you are bringing in Buddhist theology. If that is what Buddhists believe, then they are just as wrong as atheists. I see don't see how this argument is compelling in the least.

Concerning your statement, "There are no absolute standards for other things in life, like love. Does that mean love does not exist?", no, it doesn't mean that love doesn't exist, but it DOES mean that love does not exist objectively. I thought this was the point we were arguing. If morals do not exist absolutely, you can tell me that Hitler and Stalin were bad people, but I can simply retort that I disagree with you, and that would be that. But if you are to say that they were (objectively) wrong, then that is a different matter.

Concerning empathy, it's fine that we have empathy for one another (I suppose you would call it something like 'reciprocal altruism', or 'gene survival', but anyhow), but the whole point is if empathy for one another can be posited as an absolute value. In a materialistic context, it cannot.

Finally, you ended off your post with, "I am not after that." Did you mean to say, "I WILL not after THIS."? (I don't mean to be facetious; I just don't understand ;) ).

11. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #192114 by Shmeezers on June 12, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Steve,

Dawkins argues, in The Selfish Gene (which I have read, almost regretfully), that genes are the primary actors in natural selection. Everything started out by genes, who eventually congregated into survival machines, and evolved over time. (A fairy tale, even more fantastic than the story of Noah's Ark.) When you argue that we can be influenced by culture, outr environment, etc, you are missing the point. How does it make sense that we have this ability to act against our genes? Sure, our genes are influenced by the environment. But if you are going to argue (as Dawkins does) that we can rebel against our genes, you are pre-supposing the existence of two distinct entities. That is dualism. If all our thought processes - all of our beliefs, reasonings, etc - are merely products of neurons in our brains, then there should be no rebellion of any sort, unless we are under a gross illusion.

As to my own method of finding truth, I apply to other faculties available to us. For example, reason, and intuition (I am talking about objective reasoning - probabilities, for example - things that all would concede to be reasonable). So when I see the appearance of design (the utter complexity of existence, with all its beauty), I reason that there must be a designer, unless proven wrong. However, you cannot reason like this, because you have committed yourself to the proposition that only natural means can yield truth. So, unable to prove the existence of a designer using natural means (which I whole-heartedly concede), you simply say one does not exist. That is the problem. You confine yourself before you even embark on the search for truth. I do not.

Third, you still haven't answered my question. It is perhaps because you lack an answer. I do not know. I'll re-state it: Along the lines of Nietzsche's reasoning, morality cannot exist devoid of an absolute standard, which we call God. Materialists do not recognize the existence of any absolute standards. So how can they argue for the justification of morality - for example, that it is wrong to kill someone? How can Hitchens condemn Mother Teresa, or Hitler, etc, without making application to a higher standard? Please answer, and stop evading the question. Note that I do not need to provide a proof that morality emanates from God in order for you to be equipped to answer the question.

Finally, I promise to make an effort to read some of your blogs. Please make an attempt to provide an answer to my questions above, especially the last one. Thank you.

12. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #192085 by Shmeezers on June 12, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Steve,

I would appreciate a more elaborate answer to my inquiry concerning the effect of our genes. I don't understand what you are trying to convey. Let me re-state. If we are purely the products of our genes, as Dawkins would have it, how can we ever be able to rebel against them? It seems that it could only be an illusion.

Second, you are not getting my point about "truth". If you mean that a cell functions in a certain way, and that we can observe it, I concede that this is true. However, what modern science tries to say is that the ONLY way to get to truth is through natural means. This has not been proven. I am not required to set out a variant method of obtaining truth in order to make this statement.

Finally, you said: "You don't get away with this. You need to prove that God exists and he somehow generates morality. Of course, that is nonsense in itself. If morality needs God to generate it, then it isn't absolute." Concerning the last sentence of your statement, it is that morality emanates from God - who is absolute; God has no choice but to dictate the morality that he is made up of (so to speak). It is all based on necessity. But that is not what is important. What is important is the following: You agree for a strictly naturalistic worldview. Whence the justification of morality, then? Please provide me with your argument. Unfortuntely, whatever gymnastics you might come up, morality cannot be justified within a purely materialistic outlook. Perhaps you should read Nietzsche's account of how our society would be in the aftermath of the "death" of God. He was a TRUE atheist, unlike Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and many people here, who want to have their cake and eat it too...


Galactor...
Ok, let's see: the compulsion of morality; the breaks in the fossil record; the fact that every species seems so damned conveniently unique (and not in "transition") today; the profundity and creativity of the human mind (how is playing music conducive to survival...oh wait, here comes some mumbo-jumbo evolutionary psychology that is more fit for comedy shows than scientific inquiry). Here's one that may appeal to you:

The "neutral theory" view, which advocates that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nealry neutral mutations.

And another:

"The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms," says Emile Zuckerkandl, "seems so far to have largely eluded analysis."

Also, see my objection in my previous post, about the fossil record.

Oh, and enough with the links, Steve. It's one thing if you were to provide a short and concise explanation of what you are arguing, and THEN provide the link. But your method or argumentation now is way too evasive.

13. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #192026 by Shmeezers on June 12, 2008 at 10:48 am

Hey dragonfirematrix,

Perhaps you did not read my post properly. I never advocated the abolition of scientific inquiry. Science has existed alongside religion for centuries.

My problem is the dogmatic adherence that our mdoern scientific establishment has to Darwinian evolution, despite its (not scant) shortcomings. Isn't science supposed to be dispassionate and unbiased? This doesn't seem to be the case.

Kirkland. You say such a claim is not worth your time. Others, however, would beg to differ. Take, for example, a paper published in 2007 by Eugene Koonin, of the National Center for Biotechnolofy Information at the National Institutes of Health, entitled "The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution." What does he say? Nothing less than that "The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution."

The point is not settled, and your comment - that it is not worth your time - betrays an arrogance that is misplaced in the context of scientific investigation.


On another point, I have a question to pose concerning Dawkins' doctrine of the selfish genes, and I pose it in all honesty, desiring an honest response. He writes, in The Selfish Gene, that we, along with all other survival machines, are products of our genes. How then can we fight against them (a claim that Dawkins does make in his book)? How are we able to liberate ourselves from our selfish genes? Are not our brains, and our thought patterns, the product of our selfish genes? Are we then to liberate ourselves from ourselves, or is this claim of liberation simply an allusion brought on by our genes? Does this claim by Dawkins betray the existence of an entity that exists APART from our material selves?

14. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #191712 by Shmeezers on June 11, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Steve,

Let's render the discussion a tad more simple. Here is the argument. We observe natural phenomena. That is the role of science. It is to observe and make theories that can make predictions. This is admitedly the problem with invoking the existence of an intelligent designer - It does not (according to the traditional conception of It) conform to natual laws, and so is out of our grasp. Ok. I am not advocating a position whereby we relinquish our curiosity about natural phenomena - for example, claiming simply that the cell works by the constant intervention by God. No, the cell is self-sufficient, and science has done a superb job at figuring this out.

However, then come the leaps of faith. Take the multiple universes philosophy - which tries to circumvent the improbability of life arising on its own by positing something which is, by all accounts, extremely preposterous (can you give me evidence for any universe beyond our own?). In any case, it's a leap of faith. And this is precisely it. We are confined to making leaps of faith. The only difference between you guys and religious people is that your leaps of faith confine themselves to the empirical realm. But they are still leaps of faith - assertions that cannot be demonstrated strictly on the basis of empirical evidence.

Take evolution for example. We observe evolution; species adapt. So, although the fossil record is scant, and although we have problems like the Cambrian explosion, we suppose - using our rational capabilities - that everything must have evolved from one organism. We rationally extend the process of micro-evolution to encompass all biological organisms existent(maco-evolution). That is a leap of faith, because the evidence, against the arrogant assertions of Dawkins ("Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either stupid, ignorant, or whatever..." What pomp!), is far from compelling.

Why don't you guys just admit it, though? Why pretend like you make no leaps? Listen, I understand you don't like the idea of God. NEither do most people. But have the decency to admit it, already.


On another note, simply because you cannot prove th existence of God by natural means (I concede this) does not mean He does not exist. Can you prove to me, using strictly natural means, that using natural means is the only way to ascertain truth? I'd like to see it.

And what is the logical denouement of materialism?
Let's take the moral precept that dictates that it is wrong to kill. Please provide a strictly natural proof to me that it is wrong to kill. Oops, you can't. Does that mean it is not wrong to kill?

You might answer that these are simply things we came up with to live peacefully in societies. Ok. Then whence the moral superiority adopted by avowed atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris? Whence do they find their justification? What can they appeal to?

15. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #191156 by Shmeezers on June 10, 2008 at 9:52 am

"It is not by conclusions, but by its methodological starting point that modern science excludes direct creation. Our methodology would not be honest if this fact were denied...such is the faith in the science of our time, and which
we all share."

[C.F. von Weizsacker, in The Relevance of Science]

Well, not I. But scientism should be honest enough to understand this. It is a faith system, like any other. Science has never proved that God does not exist, nor that God did not intelligently design anything. Rather, it simply excludes such a possiblity from the outset, which naturally leads to its dogmatic adherence to Darwinian evolution.

16. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #186523 by Shmeezers on May 30, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Edouard said above: "Organic matter is carbon containing matter, and it has been demonstrated in a lab by multiple scientists how carbon based compounds combined with early-earth conditions could have eventually lead to the formation of organic life. What a dumbass."


You're a dumbass. They have never proven that life can have evolved from non-life. You wrote, "could have eventually lead to..." Right. That's the whole theory of Darwinism in a nutshell. Could have... And then the Darwinists argue that, since they are putting forth a possible empirical theory, and ID theorists are not, theirs is more convincing. Wrong. The theories put forth by Darwinists, especially with regard to the origin of life, are simply ludicrous! Dawkins' account of the origin of life in The Selfish Gene and the God Delusion is a complete joke, just as your misplaced confidence is. Keep on fooling yourself.

17. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #186519 by Shmeezers on May 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm

It amazes me how the atheists are so worried about the idea of intelligent design being explained to students. Would it not benefit the students to understand both sides? Why do the atheists want to hide the opposing side from people? Are they scared? Overly dogmatic? A mix of the two? It's hilarious. They commit the same sin that they accuse religionists of committing. Hypocrites!

18. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177182 by Shmeezers on May 8, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Dawkins is wrong. Dinesh does raise his voice (he is quite passionate), but it is nothing like Shmuley's rants. You should go see this guy sometimes; he talks a load of nonsense. That is certainly why he yells - an appeal to the audience's emotions. He really doesn't have anything good to say.

19. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #142396 by Shmeezers on March 12, 2008 at 12:46 pm

And what are you supposed to feel, Goldy, about the fact that there is no ultimate justice? Well, I suppose despair. And why? Because our existence is nothing more than a mere fluke, with no purpose, no end. Just one long thread of nothingness.

Man, it is so short-sighted. I always compare materialists to babies; babies only perceive as "real" what they see in front of them. As we grow older, we should come to see that there is more out there; we should take indications from nature to see these things. But some of us ignore them.

I don't actually think, however, that atheists are convinced of the non-existence of God; rather, they have an agenda in mind, and convince themselves of it. And they invent their own myths. Because we all need a worldview...

20. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #142392 by Shmeezers on March 12, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Goldy,

You say that we are able to see random mutations bringing about the existence of new species. OK. A few examples, please. And don't give me any micro-evolutionary changes, please. Those are quite real, I know. I'm talking about the huge changes, like the fish growing legs, or whatever. And if you say that it takes millions of years for that to happen, then you cannot say that we see it happening.

21. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141523 by Shmeezers on March 10, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Roland,

You are right. Perhaps many have come to the same conclusions as Hitchens and others do. But I don't feel like the debate about the existence of a god is that simple - i.e, simply dismissing it by saying that there is no empirical evidence for a god (which is not a conclusion that is straightforward). What about the existence of consciousness in Man (as opposed to animals), and reason (as opposed to animals)? And finally, what of the astounding complexity of existence? I know, I know, the appearance of design does not necessarily mean that there is a designer. But to say that random mutations (mistakes) can account for the order that we find in organisms today is just as much a leap of faith as anything else. Further, what about the universal constants of the universe? I know, I know, they could have just happened that way, by some fluke or other... Again, that is a leap of faith.

What I am saying is that the debate is reduced to a simple nothing; it is simply thrown out the window, as if there is no debate. And it is fuelled by people like Hitchens, who come with their arrogan rhetoric. He is a 'spiritual leader' of our time. As is Dawkins...


On another note, I have a question to ask here; any atheist is open to answer it. Let us say there is no God, no good nor evil, etc. How do you feel about the fact that someone like Hitler (who killed himself before justice could be served) or Stalin will end up in the same place as you and I (i.e., nothingness)? How do you come to terms with the fact that there is no ultimate justice? I am very curious about this.

22. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141241 by Shmeezers on March 10, 2008 at 7:44 am

Ah, but Dr. Zara, please enlighten on everyone's opinions here as to Maher's and Hitchen's views of Jesus, and religion in general. This is my point: these arrogant people just present us with these sweeping statements - i.e., Jesus is a fake, everything supernatural is not real - let's laugh at all of it! And guess what? People just buy into it. I liken it to the religionists of the past centuries: just feeding the population with weak ideas, sweeping statements. There is no desire on the part of Maher/Hitchens to explore the substantive issues; no respect for the millions of people who do believe in it. Just simply setting it aside as ridiculous.

Now, if people here were to discuss the issues, and ask: Is Maher/Hitchens correct? Do their views on religion make sense? Then I would hesitate to qualify my statement. (Forget about Maher's views on Medicine, or Hitchen's views on Iraw - they are or no importance in this discussion). But it seems to me that the tendency found in so many religious people today - i.e., a blind following of their leaders, is quite present among atheists, and quite evident in the discussions here.

23. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #140548 by Shmeezers on March 7, 2008 at 8:35 pm

This clip just shows how arrogant these people really are, and how clouded their judgment becomes because of it. Carry on, you sheep; buy into it.

24. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #135710 by Shmeezers on February 29, 2008 at 8:25 am

Hey,

Sorry to interject into a very interesting dicussion, but I have some questions. Maybe someone can indulge...

I was asking before about the fossil record, and where the transition fossils are. Then someone (I forgot whom) responsed that all fossils are transition fossils. Ok. So here are some quotes from Darwin and Gould. Any comments would be much appreciated.

Darwin said:

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous."

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

However, he argued that eventually the fossil record would substantiate his theory.

Now Gould, working in our time, said:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."


Now, I know there is a debate between gradualistic vs. punctuated evolution. I am curious what people here find to be more compelling. Also, whether people agree with Gould's conclusions viz the absense of intermediate fossils (in light of the comment above, by I forgot whom, who said that all fossils are transitory. Is the latter not based on a pre-conceived assumption?).

25. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134478 by Shmeezers on February 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm

OK. So. Evolutionary theory provides a few explanations as why such complexity suddenly appears: an increase in the level of oxygen, fluctuations of carbon isotopes, small increases in genertic complexity. OK. All very interesting, but speculative.

I have a question, though. Let's say there was more oxygen around to cause organisms to evolve more quickly (or whatever other explanation you want to insert). Where are the transition fossils? Why should there be an "explosion" of any sorts at all? As I read, I saw that this issue is the subject of a lot of controvery among scientists. I am curious as to what people here think about it.

Disclaimer:

I just want thoughts. Note to Goldy and Reverend: I AM NOT MAKING FUN OF YOU. PLEASE DON'T FEEL OFFENDED, AND START SWEARING LIKE A BUNCH OF TEENAGERS. Thanks.

26. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134450 by Shmeezers on February 27, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Goldy, you need to relax a little bit. I have never set forth any particular god here, but simply the idea that a designer must exist. I never made any assertion that any particular Holy Book contains the truth. Just let your defences down a little bit, and relax.

I think the problem generally with people such as yourself is that you are so set in your ways, in your mindset (just like religionists all over) that you simply cannot entertain other ideas.

What is also interesting is that a lot of people here simply reject the observations of many others who do not agree with natural selection, and all its phiosophical/"scientific" baggage. You treat them as fundamentalism, instead of trying to understand them. It's like, if it has to do with the metaphysical in any sense whatsoever, it is suspect! It must be false! Let's insult the person, and close him down! He must be a cretin! So immature. Ugh. Anyways.

Thanks for the links. I will read up on it.

27. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134264 by Shmeezers on February 27, 2008 at 1:56 pm

DOCTOR Zara,

Yes, please. I am very interested to hear your thoughts on the existence of consciousness, and how natural selection could have brought it about.

Also, it would be nice if you can provide some preliminary comments on the Cambrian explosion, which is what I was referring to when I said "the instantaneous appearance of complex life." Thanks.

As for you Goldy, your post is so utterly preposterous, so immature, that I really do not know how to respond. You are at liberty to disagree with me, but to start insulting me to such a degree is just so futile! Anyhow. Carry on, if you must.

28. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133813 by Shmeezers on February 26, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Reverend,

Listen. This is the point of contention: The evidence does NOT point to Darwinian evolution. The idea of evolution is an idea imposed on nature. And for good reason. Once having rejected God a priori (as the majority of Darwinians are apt to do these days, and certainly all of you), the only other way to account for nature is through a common origin; you guys are not at liberty to posit the instantaneous coming about of complex life (which, I might add, is what the fossil record indicates), because that would require a designer (things don't just appear in the realm of pure materialism).

So, if you look at all the evolution scams in history - Piltdown man, Nebraska man, the Archyopteryx - you will see an effort by man to impose this theory on nature.

So, for example, you take the fact of genetic mutation, and blow it out of proportion. You say that just because we can observe genetic mutation that will affect the colour of the organism, or the size of its beak, this must mean that it can do even greater things - like make a fish grow legs, or whatever. No proof. No proof in the lab; no proof with fossils. Nothing. Just an assumption based on a worldview.

This is not honest.

So keep pretending like you are in control. Please do! It's amusing, Reverend. It really is. You are nincompoop, however. You should know that. And an arrogant one as well. And for good reason. Arrogance is the mark of atheism, the latter being an attempt to assert man greatness over his creator.

29. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133199 by Shmeezers on February 25, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Aright guys. First I want to thank all of you - especially Goldy and our good Reverend - for their very mature responses. Maturity is a mark of confidence, and I am glad to see that everyone here posseses that.

ALright. Enough with the links. Please provide me with a good example of how anyone has proved that completely new information has entered the genome. Now, I am not talking about genetic mutations of info that is already there (ex, that we have so many types of dogs), but of how new, foreign info came in. Presumably this has already been proved in the lab. Or maybe not.

Maybe I can appeal to Mr. Zara to provide this example? He seems to be the most composed out of all of you. And Goldy, if you are going to be as arrogant and disrespectful as your posts portray you as, then please add a bit of humor (as Reverend has), because otherwise it's just lame.

And I am really interested in this. Seriously. Because many people claim that such proofs do not exist. Are we able to prove that?

30. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133167 by Shmeezers on February 25, 2008 at 6:38 pm

And reverend, where did you learn to put things so crudely, but yet so creatively? It's quite a skill you have there. I am almost in awe.

31. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133166 by Shmeezers on February 25, 2008 at 6:35 pm

What I meant by the statement "Darwinism is a religion" is that it takes its own leaps of faith.

How so? Please tell me. Has anyone ever been able to witness new material being added to the genome - i.e., the process of macro-evolution? No. We have only been able to observe MICRO-evolution - genetic mutation, mutations of genetic information that was already in the genome (i.e., the potential was there; it was a matter of something switching on/off, etc). But Darwinists simply extrapolate from that - i.e., they take a logical leap - that since micro-evolution occurs, so must macro-evolution! Yes.

Well, that is a leap. Sorry guys, but you fail by your own standards. You erect this strict empirical standard, and cannot stand by it.

Another leap of faith: God does not exist. Simply to say that creationism is not science is not saying much at all. Why isn't it science? Because Darwinists don't want it to be. That simple. Creationist scientists do science from the standpoint of the Biblical story. They are not simply saying, "God made everything, and that's it." They observe natural phenomena from the lense of the BIble; so for example, they will describe gold deposits with the idea that the Flood occured. Darwinists will attempt to examine natural phenomena through the lense of macro-evolution.

So, for example, they will say that whales evolved from land creatures because of dental similarities, etc.

You see? It all has to do with the underlying assumption. And guess what? Underlying assumptions are leaps of faith. Darwinists have faith in the "fact" of macro-evolution, and they proceed from there.

And that is why popular science magazines reject science from a creationist perspective: because they ASSUME (i.e., take a leap) that anything transcendent is non-existent. That simple.

32. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132869 by Shmeezers on February 25, 2008 at 10:43 am

Al-rawandi,

The fact that these essays are not published in popular science reviews says nothing. I wouldn't expect evolutionists to publish something that puts their theory into question. This observation is rather elementary. Please understand that Darwinism is a religion, and it does not tolerate any dissent. (This blog demonstrates that quite clearly.)

33. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132531 by Shmeezers on February 24, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Reverend!

Hahaha...you make me laugh, I swear. I must say, I think you are an utter nincompoop, but your posts are hilarious! Please keep writing them. They provide a great source of entertainment for me.

34. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132529 by Shmeezers on February 24, 2008 at 11:30 pm

OK guys...I need some insight here. It is argued that the earth is conclusively 4.5 billion years old. I have been perusing the net, and came upon an article. I reproduce the relevant part for you, which argues that there are assumptions underlying this view. I would appreciate some commentary (however, no garbage from the reverend, or the irate guy). Thanks!


"Evolutionist (but anti-Darwinian) Richard Milton has summarized essentially the same argument: "[If] a deposit was composed of half uranium 238 and half its daughter product lead 206, then one would draw the conclusion that the deposit was 4,500 million [4.5 billion] years old. [This] is the average figure that is found for the Earth's crust" (Milton, 1997, p. 41). There are two arbitrary assumptions in this reasoning. It can never be known that the pairs of isotopes in question were ever present on earth in comparable amounts, as both Gamow and Milton assume. Further, the mere occurrence of radioactive decay implies nothing about how long it has been happening. This is the fallacy of confusing the time to complete a process with the interval over which the process has been occurring...Indeed, Gariepy and Dupre (1991, p. 216) have emphasized that "in all ancient rocks" it is impossible to know the initial abundance of uranium isotopes "since uranium is easily remobilized"; i.e., uranium minerals are transported by natural processes the effect of which is impossible to evaluate over the history of the earth."

http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

35. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #129783 by Shmeezers on February 19, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Reverend, you said: "This question has already been answered in terms of natural selection - it takes a great deal of energy to build honeycombs, therefore those bees that do it most efficiently have a natural advantage over those that do not."

This is hardly an explanation. Wooter is asking how Bees came to be able to construct such marvelous structures. Explain that, using the only tools at your disposal: chance, chance, and more chance, and even more chance, and arbitrariness, and nothingness, and purposelessness,...

And there was a comment above, asking Wooter to perform creationist experiments in the lab. This is absolute nonsense. The problem with you materialists is that you only recognize the truth of things that can be shown empirically.

How about you prove a simple evolutionary procedure of proteins into life? You can't do it. It's hilarious! You talk and talk and talk, as if you possess the truth, but there are so many assumptions underlying your arguments that I don't even know where to start. Arrogance. That is what I see here. A huge lack of respect. I don't see any desire to engage in conversation, to entertain other people's views. You just reject them all, poke fun at them. This is very childish.

This is the atheist's argument: "How can you still believe in God?"

Garbage. Guess what, boys? There are very smart people out there who disagree with you, who "do" science according to other assumptions. But hey, just pretend that they're all crazy, and that will be enough to disprove them, right?

36. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128156 by Shmeezers on February 16, 2008 at 11:25 am

Mr. Zara,

You said, "We think that the "house" certainly does require a designer. That designer is Natural Selection."

I don't really understand this statement. Saying that something requires a designer is saying that something required a CONSCIOUSNESS of some sort, a living intellect of some sort, that intentionally designed - i.e., thought up something creatively, and brought it into existence - something. I don't see how natural selection can fit that criteria. Natural selection does not denote an entity of any sort, but rather a process that was ultimately (at least at the beginning) governed by chance and trial and error. Such a process cannot be described as having "designed" anything, but rather simply to have fallen upon it, by some fluke. And this is the problem. Complexity requires a designer. There is complexity. Who is the designer?

I think the bottom line is that some of us choose not to acknowledge the possibility of a transcendent designer, for whatever reason.

Ephiphrine said: "The unfalsifiable claim of the existence of a god is the claim that needs to have proof. Evolution can be observed, and could be falsified; the existence of god can't. If we had to accept any proposal unless we could disprove it you would have to believe in every god, in leprachauns, faeries, magic, psychic powers and so on, all without evidence,"

No. I am not making any specific claim as to Who the designer is. That is strictly a matter of faith and divine revelation. What I am saying is that there IS proof a designer, because we see a complex design. The proof is there. Again, some refuse to acknowledge it. The only way to rationally refuse to accept it is if a proof can be found to explain such unlikely occurences without a designer. You may think evolution can do this. It cannot. It cannot explain the inception of the world, and the inception of life. If someone wants to be a materialist, then he/she has to provide a plausible explanation.

And Epiphrine, I think your statement that you do not rule out the possibility of a God is a very honest one, and I do appreciate it. Dr. Dawkins, on the other hand, seems to think that anyone who does believe in it is deluded, which in other words means that it is totally preposterous to believe in one, which means that one certainly does not exist. I personally believe that it is totally preposterous not to believe in a God, but that is my opinion. I suppose we can agree to disagree on this one.

It may have ramifications, though. I hope you'll forgive me for quoting from the New Testament here, but I cannot resist the temptation.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

Ok, I won't do it again, I promise! Happy Darwin Day, everyone!

37. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #127047 by Shmeezers on February 14, 2008 at 7:50 pm

The fact that people used to be superstitious, and now rely more on reason, does not say anything about the existence of God. It merely explains the psychological development of mankind. And Anna, you write, “things that once were considered unexplainable except by the supernatural are now perfectly explainable by natural causes�; if you are referring to our supposed evolution, this is not “perfectly� explained. In fact, far from it. There are so many unanswered questions, so many diverging opinions, and even significant rejection by many people, of the theory. It is not obvious. It is only obvious to those who want it to be obvious. Let me explain.

Evolution puts itself out as simple science. This is not quite true. Why? Because evolution does not simply say, "Let us look at nature, and see what it is all about." Rather, it says, "THERE IS NO GOD. Now let us look at nature." Evolution never provides any empirical argument as to why God does not exist. Furthermore, assuming that God does not exist IMPLIES that we came here by purely natural means - in other words, by chance, at least initially.

Here is where INTUITION sets in. If I feel that it is intuitive to posit the existence of a designer, it is because it is REASONABLE to do so, not because I have been ingrained with it from my youth. And it should be reasonable to everyone here as well. Just let your guard down for a moment. The old argument has merit to it: complexity, and the improbability of life, point to an active hand, a guiding mind of some sort. Attributing the improbability of life, and the ensuing complexity, to chance, is like claiming that it is possible for the same poker player to get pocket aces one thousand times in a row. Sure, it’s possible, but extremely unlikely. It would be much more reasonable â€" and intuitive â€" to claim that the dealer and the player were in cahoots. (On a side not, I really think that Epinephrine’s argument â€" that our existence takes away from its improbability â€" to be sophistry. Just because an improbable event occurs once does not make it inherently less improbable. This reasoning ultimately makes the notion of improbability superfluous, by saying that unless something is impossible, it cannot be improbable; but if something is impossible, it obviously isn’t improbable.)

If you want to say that a designer does not exist, then you have to provide a better explanation. This has never been provided. THUS, if evolution were to be honest with itself, it would say, "Maybe a designer exists. I don't know. I will not rule out this possibility unless I can assuredly say one does not exist." You cannot simply throw away the need to answer this question. It is fundamental to evolution’s worldview.

The burden is on evolution to prove an alternative explanation, because it assumes something that flies in the face of reason.

(Sorry for the long post.)

38. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126836 by Shmeezers on February 14, 2008 at 10:11 am

Thanks for the responses. I would like to respond to Philip's argument. He wrote: "if you postulate that the planet was designed by something, then you have to find a designer for the designer and the designer for that too - that simply does not work. Its too complex and doesn't explain anything."

I recall coming across this line of reasoning in The God Delusion. It doesn't convince me, however. Sure, if you posit a designer, that leaves the question as to who (or what) that designer is. But why does that need to be answered in order for the argument to stand? We are simply trying to determine how complexity came into existence; we say it is through a designer. Logically, that designer must be just as, if not more, complex than its creation. But the inability to explain the designer doesn't derogate from the fact that complexity requires a designer.

Furthermore, the evolution story suffers from its own complexities. No one has yet to date been able to prove how life first came into existence. (The primordial soup explanation has yet to be proven, and is extremely unlikely.) This is a HUGE question, and cannot simply be thrown awa. But this of course does not stop people from positing evolution.

The point is that no one will ever be able to explain certain things about existence. We need to be honest with ourselves.

This brings me to the point of the value of intuition. It has been argued that intuition is not a good guide. Now, a materialistic view of the world simply assumes that there is no God. It would be one thing if there were valid arguments as to why a God could not exist; but none are posited. (The existence of evil is not a good argument, because there is also good; and that argument seeks to understand the character of God, rather than making any claim on its existence.) In other words, there is no reason to go against one's intuition in this respect. The only time one should do so is if there is evidence to the contrary. Can someone provide me with a valid argument as to why it does not make sense to posit the possiblity of a God? Recall that you cannot argue here that there is no evidence, because that simply leaves it open, and then intuition can come in.

I appreciate everyone's curiosity!

39. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126768 by Shmeezers on February 14, 2008 at 7:50 am

This is just crazy. Richard Dawkins posted a bunch of links, and in one of them is contained a quote from Darwin. It goes like this: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

What about the universal constants that are so perfect as to allow life on this planet? Admitedly, you could say that they came about by chance (whatever), but it certainly points, intuitively, to design. In other words, we should expect that there should have been a designer, no?

Someone please enlighten me on this.

40. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125357 by Shmeezers on February 11, 2008 at 9:25 am

Richard Dawkins wrote the following:

"But intelligent design (ID) is the polar opposite of a powerful theory: its explanation ratio is pathetic. The numerator is the same as Darwin's: everything we know about life and its prodigious complexity. But the denominator, far from Darwin's pristine and minimalist simplicity, is at least as big as the numerator itself: an unexplained intelligence big enough to be capable of designing all the complexity we are trying to explain in the first place!"


This argument could be turned on its head. I don't see what is so simplistic about assuming that random gene selection (which, according to the theory, eventually became non-random) brought about the complexity of existence today ove rthe course of billions of years without a consciousness of some sort guiding it. This is NOT simple. To be sure, it neither proven; no one has proved anything close to it. But it seems to be to be a lot more simple, and less assuming, to say that an intelligent designer was at the root of it all. But carry on. An irrational devotion to materialism brings people to say very strange things...

41. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #123104 by Shmeezers on February 6, 2008 at 1:08 pm

I think the morality argument is being missed here. The point is that we have this fundamental sense of right and wrong. There really is no justification for this if we got here by slaughtering each other for millions of years (or whatever the story says), having concerned ourselves simply with passing our genes on. We could possibly have instituted such morals for the benefit that they offer us, but then there is no justification for giving them any importance beyond this. But I would wager that many atheists, just like many believers, truly believe that it is wrong, for example, to kill somebody in cold blood, or to scam someone out of their honestly earned income. I would wager that these atheists believe this not simply because they think such moral notions are important in order to keep peace in society, but because it is inherently wrong. This is the essence of the argument. Where did this moral sense - this moral intuition, as Margaret Sommerville emphasizes so much - come from? I don't think you can argue that it came out of the context of "survival of the fittest". But this is precisely what Darwinians must argue. It is neither here nor there that any particular atheist feels this moral sense to a greater extent than a believer in Christianity does. The point is that we ALL feel this moral sense, to a greater degree in certain cases, to a lesser degree in others. This is what must be explained, and Darwinism cannot do it.

42. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114010 by Shmeezers on January 21, 2008 at 8:01 am

Mr. Zara,

Read The Selfish Gene.

43. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113998 by Shmeezers on January 21, 2008 at 7:29 am

I find it to be a very curious phenomenon how atheists close their minds to the 'religious' nature of their views. The BAD thing about religion is its coercive influence on our ability to think - and not its metaphysical claims. Darwinian evolution makes its own leaps of faith (just read the God Delusion - I think Dawkins takes three leaps), but it claims to distinguish itself from 'religion' because it allows people to think freely. Quite the opposite. By calling believers stupid, and claiming they have a mental illness, atheists are in fact destroying this freedom. The point is that the religious background of the US has given people the prerogative to think as they please. Atheism, at least as it has developed today - as a demeaning, condescending, arrogant diatribe - is the new religion of our day.