Comments by Mark Smith

Comment #201270 by Mark Smith on June 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm

What goes on at the quantum level seems to really mess with our traditional ways of thinking. Classical arguments like the one from Lane Craig summarised above just don't seems to come to terms with it.

202. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201259 by Mark Smith on June 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Our observation shows that events have causes, it is merely custom and habit that we assume that this is so for things of which we have no experience.

Though to be fair, the success of scientific investigation over the past few centuries based on the assumption makes it seem more than just an assumption.

203. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201243 by Mark Smith on June 29, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Corylus
Thanks for the link to Steve's comment. I like to think that was contained within number 7 of my list above!

204. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201235 by Mark Smith on June 29, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Robert
1. Other people may have encountered something(s) which did not have a cause
2. There may be things we have not encountered yet which do not have a cause
3. There may be things which we can have no knowledge of; such things might have no beginning (I assume you think god is one such)
4. Even if every thing else we knew of or could know of that had a beginning had a cause, there might be one thing that did not
5. Everything we know of is 'within' the universe. What might be true of everything within the universe, might not be true of the universe as a whole
6. We do not know that the universe began to exist (or that such a statement has any meaning in any case)
7. Etc Etc

205. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201209 by Mark Smith on June 29, 2008 at 12:36 pm

as I said

206. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201205 by Mark Smith on June 29, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Corylus
If you look at Robert O'Brien's previous comments, he doesn't look like the kind of guy who likes discussion. He prefers to snipe and run.

R O'B
No reason why you shouldn't change your approach of course. Why not move forward from the start Phil Rimmer has given. For example, I'd be interested to hear why you think we should accept Lane Craig's premise 1: 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause'. I agree that everything I have ever encountered which had a beginning appears to have had a cause, but doesn't going any further than that beg the question?

[Edited for clarity]

207. A War On Science

Comment #200007 by Mark Smith on June 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm

theologians like Turner who are the ones who truly have faith - they realise that there is no rational foundation for their beliefs

The previous, and notorious, bishop of Durham was one of these I think - he couldn't believe in a literal resurrection, because it was merely 'a conjuring trick with bones'. It is a 'faith in faith' position. Allows for all kinds of ambiguity and sophistication.

208. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #199981 by Mark Smith on June 26, 2008 at 3:15 pm

I really don't know how they mashed reality and mythology together.

The answer is in the preceding phrase (or at least it is in the similar people I know):

both believe the Bible is the word of God and inerrant

They see the world through this lens. Everything is interpreted to fit.

209. A War On Science

Comment #199936 by Mark Smith on June 26, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Lane Craig is more in the American Apologetics tradition than the European theological tradition. Apologetics is essentially an exercise in providing whatever arguments you can in support of what you are already committed to being true in faith. In other words, I think somebody like Craig thinks it is appropriate to offer the arguments he does in order to remove obstacles to faith. It is not that he thinks the arguments themselves lead to truth. Only faith can do that. Thus, the example you give.

As to the lack of self-awareness and embarrassment. I suspect they do feel some embarrassment. But you have to remember, Evangelicals are brought up with the notion that it is their first duty to spread the gospel and this makes them guilty about feelings of embarrassment and they push them away. (At least that is how it was for me.)

210. A War On Science

Comment #199897 by Mark Smith on June 26, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I agree. Religions seem to want to indulge in special pleading. They want to excuse their gods from the sort of processes of good thinking we are talking about and that have served us so well.

(And I can just imagine some Christian apologist reading that and thinking 'Ah, but how does he know what "good thinking" is? He doesn't realise he needs God in the background to establish what is good'!)

211. A War On Science

Comment #199886 by Mark Smith on June 26, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Carto

Yes, the razor seems to produce good results, and overall is more a tool for weeding out likely theories than for justifying which is true, but why should the most parsimonious explanation necessarily be the best one?

There is one major flaw with this argument, which is that Alister McGrath used it in his debate with Peter Atkins.

Sorry: that was inexcusably facetious.

Could we not say that it is best to go for the simplest explanation unless there are good reasons to go for a more complex ones? Such a policy will not guarantee that any particular explanation is correct but, over time, it will produce more correct explanations than any other policy.

212. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198241 by Mark Smith on June 23, 2008 at 12:31 pm

txpiper

No, I am not original. I didn't write prophecies concerning human history being irresistibly steered towards a conclusion that was forecast hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. But the pieces of the puzzle seem to be falling into place rather quickly.

You have bought in to a worldview that leads you astray, not just when you look at science, but also when you look at the Bible and the modern world. When I was a teenager, I held beliefs like yours. They caused me to make life choices I later regretted, based as they were on the thought that the world might soon end. So I appeal to you, if you must continue to hold them, please keep them to yourself.

I would also suggest you learn to read the Bible better. That is what set me on the road to realising I had been misled. No doubt you read the Bible every day, but I don't think you read it very well. Forget about looking for hidden codes and instead understand it for what it is. Try listening to what the historians, the textual critics and the language specialists have to say about it. But I don't suppose you will. They are too like the scientists you despise. They do peer-reviewed research, and they don't make stuff up when it suits them.

213. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196645 by Mark Smith on June 20, 2008 at 9:27 am

Jethro
I don't brand all 'people of faith' with the worst excesses of organised religion, and I suspect plenty of others on this site also don't do that. I used to be a 'person of faith' myself. I have to say that I think the majority of the 'people of faith' that I knew and still know are pretty much like myself, except they don't allow themselves to set their minds free and they sometimes feel weighed down with guilt. Not to say that there aren't some religious people who do bad things and the other religious ones are often tempted to go along with it.

In terms of your 'perception horizon', I would say it is more that religion brings a lack of perception. It tends to cause people to see what they think they should see and blinds them to the rest.

214. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195601 by Mark Smith on June 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm

clearthinker/David Robertson
This probably won't do any good, but here goes. You said:

And yet if I leave out any posts I get accused of not being able to answer, cutting and running etc.

You don't seem to understand the real problem with your approach. It is true that you don't answer some people's queries/challenges etc and this often appears as 'cutting and running'. But much importantly, the real issue is how you deal with the ones you do respond to. Your modus operandi is not to take seriously the challenge and instead twist words to suit you. A good example is in your #195589 just above. You quote Phil saying he was angry with a Francis Collins book and then you say

And so you were angry. Is this because he challenges your presuppositions and belief system?

And yet he told you precisely why he was angry, namely because Collinns's book was 'Badly re-packaged C.S.Lewis and zilch of his own of any merit.'

Can't you see how manipulative and deceiving you are? Perhaps you can't, but many who read your comments can, and as a result it is not surprising they become rather negative toward you.

215. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195024 by Mark Smith on June 17, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Well done Alister McGrath I say!

Do you think he knows about his latest convert?

216. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #195008 by Mark Smith on June 17, 2008 at 2:23 pm

ketch22

It is a common known fact that the majority of skeptics and theologians alike maintain that the Gospels are an accurate historical account of the man, Jesus.

Oh dear. This most certainly is not 'a common known fact'. I don't know where Philip studied, but I studied at one of the world's leading departments of biblical studies and I too, like William Lane Craig, have a PhD; and I can tell you that only a small minority of academics (namely the most highly conservative ones) maintain the gospels are accurate historical accounts. The rest believe to varying degrees that the modern historian can use the gospels and other historical sources to arrive at a historical sketch of the actual man Jesus. The sketches they come up with are usually very different from any of the 4 pictures of him presented by the biblical gospels.

Rudolf Bultmann, who is recognized as one of the most skeptical New Testament critics of this century

No he isn't. He is one of conservative Christianity's bete noirs, but he is far from being one of the most skeptical critics. Rather, he tried to rescue Christianity from the onslaught of modern historical research while recognising the valid conclusions of that modern historical approach.

They now believe that the role of Jesus as a miracle-worker must be understood against the backdrop of 1st century Palestinian Judaism, where it fits right in.

This is true at least, but only to some degree. They now believe that greco-roman, Egyptian and other mythology was prevalent in 1st century Palestine and that the New Testament has to be understood against the whole melting-pot.

William Lane Craig is clever man, but at heart an apologist trying to defend Christianity against the inroads of modern history. He is a modern day Rudolph Bultmann, but not as good.

[Edited for clarity]

217. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194963 by Mark Smith on June 17, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Steve
I was reading your post #194942 and thinking, No, he should say 'appearance of design'. Then I got down to your edit. But I'm not sure if you meant, 'Read 'appearance of design', but my argument is still correct'?

Seems to me that the point is that the likes of RtG can only say there is 'appearance of design'. Given that we have non-designer explanations for that appearance, it is for them to provide evidence that it is actual design. This is the sea-change which Darwin brought. Before him, it was entirely acceptable to infer actual design from the appearance of design. I thought that was what Brian was getting at anyway.

[Edit for clarity]

218. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194360 by Mark Smith on June 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm

ketch22
(By the way, it is helpful if you put the name of the person you are quoting)

I simply came here wondering why it is so difficult to believe in evolution and a creator.

It isn't difficult. Plenty of people believe that. Clearly it is is possible to conceive of a creator setting the universe on its way and then leaving evolution to take its course. You need to get over the conceptual difficulties of how that initial creative act could have taken place, or alternatively resort to 'mystery'. But that aside, no it isn't difficult.

I would say it is vastly more difficult to reconcile such a creator with the traditional Christian god, though. But that is a different matter.

By the way, are you prepared to concede that your experience of god might not be what you think it is/was? Or is that non-negotiable?

[Edit - don't worry, nobody understands Clearmind]

[Edit - got to go to bed now]

219. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194312 by Mark Smith on June 16, 2008 at 3:35 pm

RtG is a wind up merchant. Probably another of those guys here on a bet.

[Edit - not that it hasn't been entertaining. Thanks RtG, you've given me plenty of laughs]

220. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194140 by Mark Smith on June 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Steve

Here is my new view, after much thought.

Knowing what this site is, and who set it up, if anyone comes here claiming special privileged knowledge of the universe, we point out to them that this is not acceptable.

Seems to me that we should still try to educate them as to why it isn't acceptable. The simple fact is that Christianity (conservative versions, at least), with many other religions, makes these claims and so its followers think they are right to make them too. If we just tell them it is unacceptable, full stop, they will go away and continue to spread their views. I understand where you are coming from when you tell them to respect science, not be arrogant etc, but I still think there is call to reason with them (for those who can bear it - I'm not saying it is your responsibility).

221. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194003 by Mark Smith on June 16, 2008 at 9:21 am

ketch22/Mark
At post 67 above I explained I would be happy to debate with you if you were prepared to confirm that your statement that

because God created us, He is outside any man made logical prose and debate

might not be correct and does not trump all discussion. You have not been prepared to do so or even respond in any way, and so you are tending to confirm my suspicion that you are not here for the purpose of reasoned discussion. Complaining that people won't take you seriously is not the way. What you have to do is show an attitude that deserves to be taken seriously. Pre-empting all debate with an unanswerable claim that god has shown you the truth no matter what we say etc is not the way.

And if the cussing etc bothers you, just ignore it.

222. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193934 by Mark Smith on June 16, 2008 at 8:18 am

Well d'uh. Why do you think he needed a flood?

He's the god who couldn't do maths?

223. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193930 by Mark Smith on June 16, 2008 at 8:14 am

please will you explain what the fine detail is of why some people 'don't get it'.

The short answer is a good answer; because they don't like it.

You really think that personal preference is stopping so many intelligent people understanding and accepting your points?

The reality is surely found in your 'longer answer':

I could make a long answer out of it and go on and on about predestination, foreknowledge and election [snip]

Your opinion is that (though it is hard to understand - the gist of the part I have snipped) god stops them from seeing the truth.

The dividing line you ask about is whether or not we find the need for atonement appealing

In other words, to do science properly, we need to be saved. Why not come out and say it?!

224. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193917 by Mark Smith on June 16, 2008 at 8:03 am

tx
Thanks for answering seriously. The contrast with RtG does you credit.

Right now, there are about 59,000,000 square miles of exposed land surface, which is almost 38 billion acres. I believe the evidence shows that at one time, the earth was tropical or semi-tropical from pole to pole. If it was, it would have accommodated a lot of single family dwellings.

If one person needs on average 1 acre, then on god's original plan (no death, be fruitful and multiply) the earth would be full with 38 billion people. Assuming he wanted a nice heterosexual couple with 4 children as the 'family unit', 38 billion people is just 40 generations. So at 20 years per generation that gives 800 years from creation until the earth was full.

Doesn't it strike you that god's original plan was a little impractical, and that it has gone rather a long way astray?

225. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193428 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 3:17 pm

ketch22
Also, I would be happy to discuss things with you, but you claimed to have experienced god, to which I asked

Does your experience involve anything more than strong conviction, regularly reinforced by worship, prayer and mutual assurance from other believers?

It would have been polite if you had acknowledged my question to you and provided a response to it when you asked a question of me.

226. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193426 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm

ketch22

I would like to know how you come to this conclusion... if you wish to share.

I would like to share, but somehow I don't think you would really listen. That's because when you came back from church you said:

because God created us, He is outside any man made logical prose and debate

It is clear that in your mind, no matter how logical my prose, how convincing my debating points, God made us and that is that. If you really would like me to explain why the world makes more sense without god, please first confirm that your statement quoted above might not be correct and does not trump all discussion. If you are not prepared to do so I will have to conclude you are not here for the purpose of reasoned discussion.

227. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193308 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 8:31 am

Perhaps he got his 72 virgins early.

Ah, I was wondering why he hadn't responded.

228. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193297 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 8:17 am

ketch22

I find it interesting that when a person, such as I, has had an experience with God, I tend to know/believe that a creator has to be involved

Does your experience involve anything more than strong conviction, regularly reinforced by worship, prayer and mutual assurance from other believers?

229. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193295 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 8:11 am

ketch22
On your substantive point, I (and I imagine Border Collie also) am well able to conceive of a creator. Indeed, I often do. And each time I do so, I conclude that the world makes a great deal less sense with a creator than without one.

230. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193292 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 8:04 am

ketch22
When you disagree with someone in a discussion, may I suggest you stick to the ideas expressed, rather than using rhetorical putdowns like 'You sound bitter'. They don't help and are likely to alienate others by your presuming to know something you clearly cannot.

231. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #193285 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 7:54 am

Clearthinker
So you haven't come back to me on my entirely reasonable requests for clarification last night. You make high-minded and moralistic claims elsewhere, suggesting people on this site are abusive and not as rational as they would claim. But what do you do: make a drive-by post unjustifiably tarring people with a rather nasty brush, and when given the opportunity to clarify signally fail to do so.

Sad.

232. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193282 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 7:37 am

ChristiansTogether
It seems to me most likely that what you are doing is trying to bring a version of the American 'Teach the Controversy' strategy over here. Can you deny this is not the case? Why would either an atheist or an 'evolutionist' want to help you? What could possibly be in it for them?

233. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193277 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 6:49 am

Was Behe telling the truth about Richard Dawkins here, when he claimed that Dawkins would not consider a waving statue a supernatural event?

A waving statue would be just that, a waving statue. Interestingly, most 'professional theologians' distinguish between amazing events and 'true miracles', the latter being ones which have an accompanying message (explicit or implicit) from the divinity and tending to do good. Behe might have been better picking something like an amputee 'miracled' a new leg.

234. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193077 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

txpiper has given us a date for the flood, and thereby a date for the creation of Adam and Eve, at (I think) around 4,200BC. So has tx or his like done the maths? Death is the result of sin, right? And god didn't intend Adam and Eve to sin. But god did create them with replication apparatus. So presumably he expected them to have sex and their descendents to have plenty of sex and replicate at average rates. As none would die, the earth would gradually fill up with humans. It must be possible to calculate the date at which god expected the earth to fill up. I wonder what tx thinks god expected us to do at that point. Perhaps god was planning to hand out condoms?

235. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #193026 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 1:08 pm

clearthinker

Surely the desperation to prove that the more intelligent you are the less likely you are to believe in God, should not lead one to post an article by such a racist?

"Christians are on average stupid, as are many ethnicities.
The truth is hard and not always compatible with political ideals. "

Please tell me that does not mean what it seems to mean - that white atheists are the top of the intellectual tree?

Is this a request for clarification from the person that posted the comment you quote? If so, can I suggest you preface the quote with their name, particularly bearing in mind it is way back in the thread. If you aren't talking to that person specifically, please clarify what your point is.

[Edit - seems to me you might be trying to tar people here with the same brush; perhaps suggesting we are elitist and racist?]

[Edit - you haven't come back since my earlier response to your post. Makes you seem like a drive-by poster, without ever any intention of debate]

236. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #193001 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 12:24 pm

I have no wished to get involved in this particular thread

Clearly you do want to get involved, or you wouldn't have written the post.

Did you mean to say something like, 'I would rather not have got involved in this thread, but I felt I needed to save you from your incipient racism'?

237. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192992 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 12:00 pm

all you have is evidence that retroviruses know where in the genome to go, and what to do when they get there, which can either be beneficial or destructive to the host, more unexplainable deliberation at the molecular level

You are apparently suggesting that there are entities at the cellular level which are capable of intelligence/thought. I challenged you on this before, comment #190214 which you didn't answer, to the effect that you are equivocating between the appearance of intelligence and actual intelligence. If you genuinely think that such things really have intelligence please say so. And then go on to explain the mechanism for this intelligence.

238. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192985 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 11:38 am

tx
You haven't responded to my post #192194, as to why you think we are unable to see the truth you are explaining to us. Would you mind doing so please? It is an important issue.

239. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192897 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 6:49 am

How will the creationists react when we find out for sure, you ask? Oh, I think we can hazard a pretty good guess at that. At that point they'll argue that THAT has no meaning, because we still can't say what caused Big Bang.

They will also say (and some already do) that the conditions had to be set up right in the first place for the DNA (or whatever) in ice (or whatever) to get there. I.e. some version of fine tuning.

240. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192849 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 3:53 am

Mphil
Virus v meme: Can I take you up on your distinction? You seemed to suggest a virus (at the cellular level as opposed to say in computers) is a real entity, whereas

"memes" are a metaphor for structures/processes - and are as such not entities.

But even at the cellular level, isn't 'virus' just a word we use for describing various similar processes that take place? I can see how the individual 'bits' that inject themselves into cells are real entities, but that seems to be a different matter.

241. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192235 by Mark Smith on June 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm

fizhburn
In the circles tx probably moves in they often buy in to St Paul's ideology of the gentiles/unbelievers having been given over by god to 'futile thinking' and 'darkened minds' (Romans 1:21). They love to apply v22, 'Claiming to be wise, they became fools', to scientists and philosophers. The ideology is often not made very explicit (witness tx's reluctance to explain the point), but it is there nonetheless.

[Edit - by the way, couldn't get your link to work]
[Edit edit - now found a link that did work, on the previous page.]

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192194 by Mark Smith on June 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm

txpiper
There has been some speculation on why you remain so confident in your beliefs despite such extensive and consistent opposition from others. I notice at #191395 you said:

But I have to say, that my theological and doctrinal views are very developed. One of the fine details, which I will not discuss here, is about why some people get it and some don't.

Would I be right in suspecting that you think some or all of our minds have somehow been, or are in the process of being, rendered unable to see the truth, and only the action of the Holy Spirit on us will counter this?

If you do hold this sort of belief it no doubt enables you to remain secure in your own beliefs despite all apparently-sound arguments offered to you by the non-believers.

If I have misunderstood you, please will you explain what the fine detail is of why some people 'don't get it'.

243. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191237 by Mark Smith on June 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm

txpiper
You clearly have quite an appreciation for the natural world and for science. I want you to know that if you will only take your 'Genesis glasses' off you will be able to appreciate them all the more. You will set your mind free to enjoy them properly. For a time I thought I had to be loyal to Genesis in a similar way to you, and I have to tell you the sheer joy and relief when I gave it up was immense. Go on, let yourself see the world as it truly is. It can be a frightening prospect, but it is worth it.

244. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190771 by Mark Smith on June 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm

There are a great many things which humans look at and think 'That must indicate intelligence'.

Yes, and they really should. That is a reasonable, rational conclusion to draw.

No it isn't. One trait we appear to have evolved is the tendency to perceive the presence of other intelligences where there is none. No doubt this served our ancestors better than a tendency not to perceive the presence of such beings, enabling them to take action to protect themselves. But now rationality enables me to explain to my sons that despite their instincts to the contrary, the shadows in their rooms are just that, shadows, and for them thereby to overcome their fear.

By the way, is your selective quotation of me to try and prove a point opposite to the one I was making symptomatic of a general approach?

245. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190753 by Mark Smith on June 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

read Prof. Mark Ehrman's books

Its Bart, not Mark, if anyone is looking him up

246. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190214 by Mark Smith on June 8, 2008 at 2:39 pm

txpiper

If soma cells are "intelligent" enough to direct germ cells, it does not logically imply that an intelligent supernatural agency is needed to direct the "intelligent" soma cells to direct the germ cells.

Of course it does. Purpose and intent don't just imply or suggest the need for an organizing agent. They demand it.

You are equivocating between activity within individual cells which you think appears to be intelligent and actual intelligence (and then you further equivocate between this and 'purpose and intent'). There are a great many things which humans look at and think 'That must indicate intelligence'. Ancient Egyptians apparently thought the sun's movement through the day was evidence of a being pulling a chariot across the sky. Your inability to perceive a non-intelligent cause for the soma cell activity does not mean there is not one.

247. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189147 by Mark Smith on June 5, 2008 at 2:33 pm

txpiper, you said

Tiktaalik (which after all is said and done, was still a fish)

This could well be at the heart of your misunderstanding. You want to see 'fish' as some sort of 'thing-in-itself' that god defined at the start and which a creature must be or not be. No doubt this is in some sort of misguided attempt to be faithful to Genesis 1:21, creatures made 'according to their kinds'. But the category 'fish' is just that, a category (like all others) imposed by humans to help us make sense of things. It could be defined differently, in which case different creatures would be in and others out.

We might, for example, define 'birds' simply as 'creatures which fly in the air'. Then bats would be birds. (In fact this is what the creation poem that is Genesis 1 seems to do: splitting all creatures into 3 categories according to whether they live in water [being 'the great sea monsters' or things 'with which the waters swarm, v21] or in the air ['the birds', v22] or on the earth [v24].)

The point is that, in contrast to Genesis, there is no absolute, 'god-given' type to which a creature must conform. Instead there is a continuum. The classic example being the herring gull (quoting Wikipedia):

The taxonomy of the Herring Gull / Lesser Black-backed Gull complex is very complicated, different authorities recognising between two and eight species.

This group has a ring distribution around the northern hemisphere. Differences between adjacent forms in this ring are fairly small, but by the time the circuit is completed, the end members, Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull, are clearly different species.

So when people talk about one 'species' evolving into another, what they are actually talking about is a continuum of creatures with small differences between parent and offspring, such that with each birth it makes no sense to say the parent is species A and direct offspring is species B (or indeed that offspring is 'transitional form'). But on the other hand, it does help us make sense of the world to say that the group of creatures with such and such features are species A, while those with certain other (perhaps similar, but nevertheless different) features are species B.

If you can come to terms with the way our need to categorise things can sometimes mislead us you might begin to understand evolutionary theory better.

248. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188777 by Mark Smith on June 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm

txpiper, you said (quoting me first)

They also know that there are nevertheless enough helpful ones to bring about tiny changes which add up to significant changes over time, such that the whole of the diversity of life is explained.

This is just what some biologists, and you, believe. They do not know any such thing.

Ooh goody, semantics and epistemology! Quite often the last resort of the desperate. Knowledge, for scientists, historians and anybody who is at all reasonable, is always somewhat provisional. I like to think of knowledge as well-justified belief. It is always open to the possibility that such belief may become less justified in the light of new evidence and better interpretations. Presumably you are working with some other definition of knowledge, something which allows for assertion without evidence and also allows the discounting of other peoples' well-evidenced assertions.

Currently, biologists hold the well-justified (by all criteria accepted in scientific and academic disciplines) belief that the whole of the diversity of life is explained by evolution by natural selection (though undoubtedly there are certain other 'sub-mechanisms', e.g. genetic drift, that have caused some diversity to some degree). You, on the other hand, appear to hold the highly unjustified beliefs that (a) natural selection causes diversity within species but cannot cross some mysterious ill-defined boundary to bring about new species, and (b) every species which ever existed was created intact by a supernatural and ill-defined force using a mysterious and entirely undefined mechanism. I consider neither of these beliefs should be regarded as 'knowledge' in any useful sense.

249. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187109 by Mark Smith on June 1, 2008 at 9:51 am

epeeist

Is it really growing or does it only appear so because the CofE and the like are becoming irrelevant and all we are left with are the vociferous nutters? Alternatively, could it be growing in response to and increasing Islamic presence or influx of money and lunacy from the States?

My understanding of the statistics, admittedly a few years old (unfortunately I don't have up-to-date ones to hand) is that it is growing both inside and outside the CofE. I assume it is most successful because it fits best in the modern situation (ie is the type of religion that is more likely to appeal to certain modern sensibilities than, say, liberalism). As a result, it has gained converts, but on the other hand, other kinds of Christianity have lost people at a greater rate, with the overall result that Christianity is declining in the UK.