1

Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) was there *WAY* before you. He wrote two epics in heroic measure articulating a naturalist epic of origins.

That would be the 18th C. Geez, get with the times! (j/k!)

Cheers,
PGE

2

Joe

"Once upon a time -- for no reason, and by chance -- nothing became everything."

Or, was it: "once upon a time -- oops, matter-energy is eternal in some form or other, however exotic -- the infinite chaos throwed out the cosmos we knew, which just happened to be fine-tuned for us, so it's no surprise that we are here to think about it."

Contrast: In the beginning, God . . .

Grace

Gordon

3

Yes Gordon, because everyone knows that simplicity = truth.

Goddidit. Must be true, because it's simple, elegant, and requires no actual inquiry into the nature of our reality.

4

Not bad for a bag of chemicals, Joe. If the festering stew in the Tupperware could do as well, I'd sell my TV.

But why bother? The children are nothing. They mean nothing. Would you bother to pen a fable for a pebble that happened to calve off an outcropping in the Rockies on a frosty day? In fact, you are nothing. So while away the few days you have stimulating your sexual organs and indulging the Skinnerian demands of your autonomic nervous system.

Immerse yourself in the ennui and nihilism of the warm primordial stew, man. Read some Foucault and the hell with the children. Let the village worry about the bothersome little bags of organized dirt. Free Mumia.

5

Jeff,

You represent the vast majority of atheists writing online today in your inability to grasp theistic arguments. Theistic arguments are not arguments from ignorance, but are inferences drawn from traits of the universe. If they were arguments from ignorance they woudl get weaker the more we know about our universe, but both the cosmological and teleological arguments have become much stronger in recent years because of the leaps forward that astro-physics has made.

What's more the initial creation of science by man was done in an attempt to study the creator by studying the creation. The statement " Goddidit. Must be true, because it's simple, elegant, and requires no actual inquiry into the nature of our reality" is nothing more than a nasty smear on the part of material atheists who would rather dismiss theistic arguments out of hand than actually contend with them in an intellectually rigorous way.

6

"Yes Gordon, because everyone knows that simplicity = truth."

Everyone wants answers, Jeff. That desire has fueled the invention of countless gods and origin myths. It is easier to make up answers or accept those made up for us than to seek them out empirically. The sad fact is that complex scientific theories are easy to lampoon but difficult to understand. Some folks have an easier time accepting simple absurdities.

7

Theistic arguments are not arguments from ignorance, but are inferences drawn from traits of the universe.

Oh - so they're science! Just that peculiar kind of science that doesn't require observable data or reproducibility, and frequently declares that the violation of scientific laws (but only in non-observable, non-reproducible circumstances) is as factual as their application, if it serves to uphold pre-conceptions that would be embarrassing if held to the same standards of proof as all the other parts of science. That kind of science. Right.

8

Uh, folks, I'm pretty sure this is just not the post to talk about "arguments" with. The story is obviously lampooning a position Joe disagrees with, and has little, if any, apparent intention of gaining assent by reason.

If you must respond, why not do so by trying (if you can do so tastefully) to suggest modifications to the story which better reflect your point of view?

Oh, as to Erasmus Darwin's pre-empting of Joe's narrative, check out The Temple of Nature.

A diverting snippet:

First HEAT from chemic dissolution springs,
And gives to matter its eccentric wings:
{21} With strong REPULSION parts the exploding mass,
Melts into lymph, or kindles into gas.
ATTRACTION next, as earth or air subsides,
The ponderous atoms from the light divides,
Approaching parts with quick embrace combines,
Swells into spheres, and lengthens into lines.
Last, as fine goads the gluten-threads excite,
Cords grapple cords, and webs with webs unite;
And quick CONTRACTION with ethereal flame
Lights into life the fibre-woven frame. --
{22} Hence without parent by spontaneous birth
Rise the first specks of animated earth;
From Nature's womb the plant or insect swims,
And buds or breathes, with microscopic limbs.

There is some talk of "GOD THE FIRST CAUSE," but it is mixed in randomly with the other [mock-?] epic machinery of Greek myth, faeries, abstract nouns, and other stuff--that is, everything Erasmus Darwin held to be (as we would call it) epiphenomenal.

Cheers,
PGE

9

My dad was once having a discussion with some kids on the street whilst out witnessing. The conversation turned to evolution vs. creation. As the kids started to lose the argument one of then blurted out, in frustration, 'we can't believe what you are saying, because if we do we have to change our lives'. Yep, spot on.

Atheists MUST believe in evolution, and will carry out all sorts of mental contortions to make the theories fit, hence the theories get complicated. Also, creation knocks them of their perch. The unsaid implication of evolution is that those who espouse it, western academics, are at it's pinnacle. It's an ego thing.

10

Heh. Speaking from the pinnacle of a process of change whose progressive nature and scientistic interpretation I disbelieve, I gotta say "oops!"

Erasmus Darwin only wrote the one epic, I think. My bad--his other major work is prose.

He was vastly influential, and is now nearly forgotten in favor of his grandson, who wasn't nearly so clever as his apologists and interpreters have made him out to be.

Cheers,
PGE
(a Western academic who thinks Genesis is true)

11

Joe, thanks for this mornings smile. You know when you take away the scientific window dressing from evolution and put the claims in simple terms it comes out a lot like you just wrote it.

12

The story is obviously lampooning a position Joe disagrees with.

It's interesting that making real science sound like the Bible proves it can't be true.

13

Kevin T. Keith: "Just that peculiar kind of science that doesn't require observable data or reproducibility, and frequently declares that the violation of scientific laws (but only in non-observable, non-reproducible circumstances) is as factual as their application, if it serves to uphold pre-conceptions that would be embarrassing if held to the same standards of proof as all the other parts of science. That kind of science. Right."

Sorry, Kevin, I got distracted for a minute there. Your were just talking about abiogenesis and emergence of new phyla which cannot interbreed with others from the population from which they emerged, weren't you? :)

Sometimes I have such a hard time keeping my nonscietific explantions about the way things are straight!

14

"Oh - so they're science! Just that peculiar kind of science that doesn't require observable data or reproducibility, and frequently declares that the violation of scientific laws (but only in non-observable, non-reproducible circumstances) is as factual as their application, if it serves to uphold pre-conceptions that would be embarrassing if held to the same standards of proof as all the other parts of science. That kind of science. Right."

You're either an idiot or being intentionally obtuse in order to keep from having to grapple with theistic ideas. At least the first option wouldn't be something you could help.

Let me give you an example. The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.{5} P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.{6} John Barrow and Frank Tipler estimate that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.{7} There are around 50 such quantities and constants present in the Big Bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it's not just each quantity which must be exquisitely fine-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Yeah, that sure sounds like "science". Well, actually it sounds like conclusions drawn from evidences which were produced by scientific processes. Which is exactly what every conclusion is.

Sorry, Big Kev, your feigned ignorance of theistic inferences won't cut it for anyone who is critically thinking their way through the nature of the universe. Which leads me to the question of why you'd want to shut down debate instead of engaging in it. But I think that's an inference we can all make with or without the help of science.

15

Sorry, Kevin, I got distracted for a minute there. Your were just talking about abiogenesis and emergence of new phyla which cannot interbreed with others from the population from which they emerged weren't you?

Um, actually, I wasn't. But those are both perfectly reasonable hypotheses, and both are supported by enough evidence to make them plausible.

In the former case, there is evidence that major steps in an abiogenesis pathway can occur, but no direct evidence as to which pathway did occur - and that is the claim any scientist working on the problem will make.

In the latter case, there are multiple examples of distinct species in which the specific genetic changes that would account for their mutual reproductive isolation have been identified - and any scientist working on that problem would argue that that evidence justifies a claim that these changes did account for the speciation event.

Anti-scientists, interestingly, would claim in the former case that the evidence that life could have arisen by natural mechanisms is irrelevant, and that life did arise without any natural mechanism at all. In the latter case, they would claim that facts that would have led to the results that are actually observable today (e.g., that Przewalski's horse is reproductively isolated from other equines even though its genetic difference from them consists only in one chromosome being found in two parts instead of whole), are also irrelevant and those phenomena also occurred by supernatural means even though natural means that would have inevitably resulted in the same outcome are actually observed.

Or, in shorter terms: the difference between science and religion is that science is sometimes wrong, and is then corrected by science, while religion goes to literally otherworldly efforts to be wrong . . . and is then corrected by science.

16

No, KTK, what's interesting is the ease with which materialist "explanations" are so easily revealed to be no less faith/assumption based than theistic explanations, and the inability of some evolutionists to see it.

17

. The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. . . . So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Certainly - this is all well known. Yet the probability that the universe actually exists is: 1.

So what do we conclude? Your answer, apparently, is that it all happened for unspecifiable reasons by unspecifiable means that are by definition incapable of proof - and that that constitutes a reason for believing in them.

Other possible answers: The actual values of the critical parameters for life do not vary randomly, as these calculations assume; or, the critical parameters are not as critical as they appear (i.e., those values hold only for "life as we know it", but other forms of self-reproducing, self-aware entities might be possible); or, this particular physically- and energetically-isolated system (the universe) is not the only such system. Belief in these answers is amenable, in at least some degree, to testing on the basis of confirmable knowledge about how the universe actually does work - and answers of these kinds have been proposed on precisely that basis.

Interestingly, you appear to regard answers for which there is evidence as inferior to answers for which there is none, for that reason. "Theistic inference" must be a lot of fun, on those terms.

18

KTK,
In the former case, there is evidence that major steps in an abiogenesis pathway can occur, but no direct evidence as to which pathway did occur

???? Really? So scientists have found more than one way abiogenesis could occur? And they are just having a hard time picking out one from all of the choices?

19

Sorry, Kevin, I got distracted for a minute there. Your were just talking about abiogenesis and emergence of new phyla which cannot interbreed with others from the population from which they emerged, weren't you? :)

Are you serious? Both ambiogensis & the emergance of new phyla can be tested through data collection and experimentation.

Let me give you an example. The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.{5} P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation

Nonsense, in order to properly calculate odds you have to know the population of all possible events. The odds of drawing a Red King from a deck may be 1 in 52 only if you know it is a deck of 52 cards with one red king. If it is deck of ten cards with 3 red kings then the odds are 3 in 10. Calculations such as above happily assume all possible numbers are possible for various essential elements of the universe and then from there calculate all possible universes and then see what portion of them are close to ours.

See here he goes:

There are around 50 such quantities and constants present in the Big Bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it's not just each quantity which must be exquisitely fine-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

We've discussed these before. Many of those quantities and constants are not independent. For example, when this came up some of those quantities included the average distance between stars, the average distance between galaxies, the speed of light and the strength of gravity. But these are hardly independent. If gravity is stronger then the distance between stars will be smaller, so will the distance between galaxies. If the speed of light is higher then it is easier for stars and galaxies to fly away from each other and vice versa.

With a little bit of work one will see that some of those 'quantities and constants' such as the distance between stars, between galaxies etc. will drop out and be determined by some of the remaining 'quantities and constants'. Some advanced work (beyond the scope of probably anyone here including this author) could probably drop those 'quantities and constants' down to less than ten. Even then there's no real way to prove that the true number of essential 'quantities and constants' may actually be only one or a few.

Once you go there you can you still have to demonstrate how much the remaining constant(s) could really range. There's no evidence that anyone has even come close to this.

20

Hey, Joe— howzabout we make a deal, me and you?

You don't try to write the mythology you think I should be telling my good materialist kid, and I won't try to rewrite the badly plotted stories about angry sky faeries you like to tell to yours.

Does that sound like a fair trade?

Pragmatism. It's not just for conservatives anymore.

21

???? Really? So scientists have found more than one way abiogenesis could occur? And they are just having a hard time picking out one from all of the choices?

I would describe it with an anology. Suppose you read that Bill Clinton was in NYC on Dec 1st and then on Dec 31st you read the he is attending a New Years Eve Party in LA. Obviously in the span of a month he went from NYC to LA. Now how did he do it?

There's a host of possible paths. Some can be eliminated (such as walking which probably couldn't be done in a month). Many will remain. As this is investigated facts will reveal themselves leaving one closer to the truth. For example, if we learn that he celebrated Christmas in London then we know the pathway couldn't have been a straight line from NYC to LA. We would know air travel would have to be involved etc.

Now the historian may study this and be able to say along the way that miracles were probably not involved. That certain steps had to have happened, that some theories are out there but they have unresolved problems with them and so on. Nevertheless, no one seriously asserts that the scientific method cannot be applied to this question & generate useful results even if it may not completely solve the question.

So what is the beef with ambiogensis? Seriously are you saying that theories cannot be formed and tested? That historical facts cannot be dug up? That the scientific method cannot be applied to the issue?

22

From Paul Doland's critique of Strobel's "The Case for a Creator"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html#collins

"Let me give one example that Dr. Craig referred to in Strobel's The Case for Faith: "Dr. Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball" (op. cit., p. 77). No doubt this ranks pretty high on the astonishment index; I can see how someone might conclude that the fact that we exist at all points to an intelligent designer. Yet when one contemplates how much power and intelligence would be required to design or control the universe with such precision, it seems that an intelligent designer must rank even higher on the astonishment index. Again, no matter how high the universe ranks on the astonishment index, God must rank even higher. Thus if the probability of the universe's existence is exceedingly low given the astonishment index, then the probability of God's existence would seem to be even lower."

It looks like brother Tim plagiarized Strobel/Craig without giving due credit.

23

My point was that abiogenesis has not been demonstrated in the lab. Sure, a lot of people guess that's the way it must have happened since they deny there is a God. But that's putting the cart before the horse. No one has found life spontaneously arising outside the lab...it's not something that we observe in nature. So you really can't claim life arose by natural means. You can't test or observe how life started here. It happened in the past and you weren't there. Can scientists create life in the lab? If they have, that's news to a lot of us on both sides of the controversy. Even if they did create life in the lab that doesn't necessarily mean that it happened in the wild anymore than building a car in my shop means one could arise through 'natural means'. Also, the means by which a car is made are different than the means by which it operates. So, by examining the car, I can't describe the means by which it was created. Not a perfect analogy, but it does convey the idea.

So Tim copied someone elses work. So what. Does that refute what he copied? Stick to addressing the arguements instead of name calling.

24

No Kevin, my answer is that based on the nature of the universe the cause of the universe must necesarily transcend space and time, be extremely powerful (at the very least powerful enough to produce a universe), extremely intelligent, and it must have a will (else a mechanistic cause falls into infinite regress).

You on the other hand look at this evidence and beg the question by saying "Certainly - this is all well known. Yet the probability that the universe actually exists is: 1."

I can see why you'd like being an atheist. No thought required. Simply accept pieces of evidence as there with no messy conclusion drawing needed! When faced with alternate philosophies simply re-affirm your own worldview by saying "yep, and here we are". Sheesh.

25

My point was that abiogenesis has not been demonstrated in the lab. Sure, a lot of people guess that's the way it must have happened since they deny there is a God. But that's putting the cart before the horse. No one has found life spontaneously arising outside the lab...it's not something that we observe in nature.

1. True people who believe there is no God may find abiogensis a good theory for that reason.
2. However, there's no particular reason to doubt abiogensis just because one believes in God. So belief in God should be irrelevant to abiogenesis.

Black holes have not been demonstrated in labs. To date their event horizons have not been observed (but it seems we are getting very close to being able to do so). Does this make black holes some type of fictional nonsense?

So you really can't claim life arose by natural means. You can't test or observe how life started here. It happened in the past and you weren't there. Can scientists create life in the lab? If they have, that's news to a lot of us on both sides of the controversy. Even if they did create life in the lab that doesn't necessarily mean that it happened in the wild anymore than building a car in my shop means one could arise through 'natural means'. Also, the means by which a car is made are different than the means by which it operates. So, by examining the car, I can't describe the means by which it was created. Not a perfect analogy, but it does convey the idea.

I refer you to my Bill Clinton analogy above. While we are on the subject we cannot rule out the 5 minute paradox either (that is, if you haven't been watching closely on other threads, the idea that the universe was created 5 minutes ago with all of its 'age' (including your memories) perfectly simulated like a piece of 'distressed' furniture that you would buy in an overpriced shop).

So Tim copied someone elses work. So what. Does that refute what he copied? Stick to addressing the arguements instead of name calling.

1. Theft is wrong. That shouldn't be a radical concept to hold on an evangelical blog nor should it be shared only by the non-evangelical members of the community.

2. Simply calling it out doesn't in itself refute the argument. However the argument was refuted by me and also it appears the original source.

3. I find it interesting how creationism inspires otherwise good Christians to toss ethics and morality overboard. Moral relativism is gobbled up like apple pie whenever evolution & creation is being debated by those with a theistic perspective. I wonder if anyone has ever seriously asked whether intellectually dishonest theories like ID have a corrupting influence on the minds of those who embrace them?

26

So Bill walked to NY. Sure--the method can be used to retrace his steps based on available evidence. But that evidence has to be interpreted. Facts don't speak for themselves.
But this still does not address how Bill came to be in the first place.
We can look at the evidence that has been left by many generations of life on this world and try to determine what was going on. There is nothing that has been found that even comes close to giving us a clue as to how it all started. Again, you are presupposing that the processes that we see and observe were responsible for the 'creation' of life...and everything else. What about that point in time at the beginning of the so called big bang when Sagan (I think it was him) said that all the laws of physics were suspended for that event to occur? What would cause all the laws of physics to be suspended? Can we test that in the lab? Do we observe that in the wild?

The materialist viewpoint is based on a certain amount of faith and belief in the impossible or what can't be proven or verified.

27

Boon,
as a selfproclaimed economist, you should know the difference between probability and results.
the probability that this world would be created is not 1. Yes, we are here. That's the result.
If I roll the dice and get a 5 the probability of that RESULT is not 1. It's still 1 in 6.

28

Actually, if you'll re-read post #20, you'll see it does contain a rebuttal of Tim's (or rather Craig's) argument.

The "fine-tuned universe" argument seeks to gain assent for a creator by stating the unlikelihood of all these factors coming together randomly. Doland's argument is that it is even more unlikely that a god powerful enough to control all of these elements exists.

I just enjoyed a snickerdoodle cookie brought today by one of my co-workers. What are the odds that someone would bring me food today? Maybe one out of ten. Of all the food, that could have been brought, what are the odds that it would be cookies? Probably one out of five. Of all the flavors of cookies, what are the odds that they would be snickerdoodles? Wow, maybe only 1 out of 30. Do you see where this is going? We could take it further and speculate about the odds that I would work where I do, live in the city that I do, have been born when I was, that my parents had me, that my parents even met, that my grandparents met, and so on and so on. What we would eventually determine is that the odds against me, ex-preacher, eating a snickerdoodle today at 1:00 p.m. in Fayetteville, Arkansas are so astronomical as to make it unbelievable.

In fact, the odds against any specific event taking place are unbelievably high. Yet, specific things happen all the time. The only way to calculate the odds of this universe existing is to calculate the odds of all the possible universes that might have ever existed. For all we know, there have been trillions or billions of universes in succession or in alternate realities.

All we know is that we are here. Really, the only thing that happened totally by chance was the Big Bang. Everything from that point has proceeded in a manner strictly according to the laws of physics. Of course, even the Big Bang may have happened according to a law of physics that we don't understand yet.

I like the way Clarence Darrow put it in "Why I Am an Agnostic":

"To say that God made the universe gives us no explanation of the beginnings of things. If we are told that God made the universe, the question immediately arises: Who made God? Did he always exist, or was there some power back of that? Did he create matter out of nothing, or is his existence coextensive with matter? The problem is still there. What is the origin of it all? If, on the other hand, one says that the universe was not made by God, that it always existed, he has the same difficulty to confront. To say that the universe was here last year, or millions of years ago, does not explain its origin. This is still a mystery. As to the question of the origin of things, man can only wonder and doubt and guess."

29

Kev - sorry to have to correct you, man, but, the probability of pulling a red king is 1/26, not 1/52.

30

Ex--
apples and oranges. You are comparing the random actions of people to things that are bound by physical laws.

And the post you referred to was hardly a refutation. Those parameters may not be independent but that doesn't change the point of the example. If you were to change one of them, life as we know it would not be possible.
I personally think the statistical models for both sides are not good arguements. Statistics are too easily manipulated and when you are talking about events that you have not observed it gets even more questionable. I think both sides would do good to focus on what we know.

31

No matter how much you whine about all of this, Joe's little story pretty much sums it up.
Your viewpoint sounds silly without all the scientific jargon to mask it's absurdness.

32

I just had this incredible vision... it's an object shaped like the full moon, or a nectarine, which, when attached to an axle, would seem to have limitless possibilities. This is big, it could change everything.

Kudos to Kevin Keith's patience. I'm off to drown some witches.

33

"You represent the vast majority of atheists writing online today in your inability to grasp theistic arguments."

"You're either an idiot or being intentionally obtuse in order to keep from having to grapple with theistic ideas. At least the first option wouldn't be something you could help."

"I can see why you'd like being an atheist. No thought required."

"Your viewpoint sounds silly without all the scientific jargon to mask it's absurdness."

Your ad hominems are growing quite tiresome, Tim. If you have the intellectual firepower you seem to think you have, you can surely make your point without resorting to them. I'm far more impressed with Kevin's comments than yours. I somehow doubt Jesus would approach this discussion in the manner you seem to favor.

34

Oh...the last one was Mike, not Tim. Sorry about the error, Tim. Shame on you, too, Mike.

35

Kev wrote: "the difference between science and religion is that science is sometimes wrong, and is then corrected by science, while religion goes to literally otherworldly efforts to be wrong . . . and is then corrected by science."

... except when macroevolution is called science in which case it is never wrong, cannot be challenged by anyone, and it goes to literally otherworldly efforts to pretend that it is right (no matter how embarrassingly)... and when corrected by science...science is ignored and called religion.

36

There are around 50 such quantities and constants present in the Big Bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it's not just each quantity which must be exquisitely fine-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

So what really are the odds? There are infinite possibilities for the relations of these constants. Don't mistake Hawking's point, people - he pointed out that there may very well have been failed universes of a number approaching infinity, but it only takes that one successful combination for us to actually be here arguing about it. When theists argue about the odds of life occuring without a god, or the universe occuring without a god, they seem to forget the fact that we have no way of knowing how many tries we had.

If you have a 1/26 chance of drawing a red king from the deck, don't bet your life savings. Unless they give you a number of attempts that approaches infinity...
:)

37

In the Beginning, God created the earth. Then he declared that eating shellfish was punishable by death.

38

Wulf asks: So what really are the odds?

Depends. If I can simultaneously run all possible combinations of the quantities, then the odds are absolutely certain I'll get a combination like the one we observe in Nature.

Your point?

39

If I can simultaneously run all possible combinations of the quantities, then the odds are absolutely certain I'll get a combination like the one we observe in Nature.
Your point?

My point is that Hawking's argument was invoked as though its logical conclusion is theism. But that's not what it really means. I have no problem with somebody believing that god(s) created the universe, but I do have a problem with them relying on an appeal to authority - and it's especially wrong to misparaphrase the man in the process. There is no statistical argument to be made for theism - the religious should stick to faith as their basis. You know, like Jesus told us to.

40

This story fills me with despair.

But at least the comments are civil.

41

But this still does not address how Bill came to be in the first place. We can look at the evidence that has been left by many generations of life on this world and try to determine what was going on. There is nothing that has been found that even comes close to giving us a clue as to how it all started.

Well the question was how did Bill get started on his trip to LA. If you want to ask how Bill got started you can go back and figure out how his parents got together. We can go back and figure out how the first living things most likely got started here on earth (of course the more you go back the harder it gets in terms of effort and you may have to reconcile yourself to the fact that some (many) answers will not be found during your lifetime if ever). Want to go back to the Big Bang? Certainly possible & some theories push back even before that. Whether those theories can ever be tested remains to be seen and if they can whether we will ever live to see them tested remains to be seen as well.

What about that point in time at the beginning of the so called big bang when Sagan (I think it was him) said that all the laws of physics were suspended for that event to occur? What would cause all the laws of physics to be suspended? Can we test that in the lab? Do we observe that in the wild?

I'm not aware that the law of physics are ever suspended. They do seem to change in extreme circumstances. Yes that has been tested in labs where partical colliders create such high concentrations of energy for fractions of a section in spaces smaller than an atom.

If I roll the dice and get a 5 the probability of that RESULT is not 1. It's still 1 in 6.

You cannot say that unless you know the die was six sided and the sides were numbered 1-6.

And the post you referred to was hardly a refutation. Those parameters may not be independent but that doesn't change the point of the example. If you were to change one of them, life as we know it would not be possible.

1. The fact that they are not independent means that you are artificially inflating your probability. That damages your validity.

2. Notice what you said when you typed "if you were to change one of them"? You are assuming the parameters have a freedom of movement. How much freedom? Could the speed of light have been 60 mph? How about near infinite? How about zero or infinite? How about negative? For all we know there are physical laws that ended up saying that the only types of universes that can ever be created are ones like ours.

... except when macroevolution is called science in which case it is never wrong, cannot be challenged by anyone, and it goes to literally otherworldly efforts to pretend that it is right (no matter how embarrassingly)... and when corrected by science...science is ignored and called religion.

Really? Macroevolution hasn't changed dramaticallly as a theory since Darwin? Genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium etc.? all of that was in Darwin to begin with?

42

To illustrate what I'm trying to say let's consider two theories. One imagine a Homer Simpson type 'universe machine'. It has 50 dials on it, Homer comes in slips and spins all the dials then hits the 'make universe button' and out pops a universe with those 50 random parameters.

Now imagine 'brane theory' which argues that in higher dimensions giant 'sheets' are floating about. Two of them collided and the result was the smaller 3-(plus time) dimensional universe we know and love today.

In this second theory the parameters of the universe are set as the result of the collision & the mathematics may very well dictate that those parameters must result in such a universe. Just like you put choc. cake mix into the oven. What comes out isn't going to be any random type of cake or pie but is going to be choc. cake (possibly burnt of course)

43

Ex;

"It looks like brother Tim plagiarized Strobel/Craig without giving due credit."

It's strange that you should talk of plagarism, since I recall seeing a few weeks ago that one of your more hashly worded, personal attacks on GM was lifted almost verbatim off a link at infidels.orc -- without quotation marks around it. As I was checking out various links at that site, I ran across this unusually worded missive and thought . . . where have I seen this before?

If one takes the time to put quotation marks where they belong, it is often labeled "spam," or worse, "quote mining" (another term lifted from the atheist's web sites), but the rest is fair game?

44

So who exactly was the first to prove scientifically that deities created the universe, the earth, and all the life forms that ever lived on earth?

I must have missed that Nobel Prize being awarded.

Or is there a big conspiracy to keep the amazing "findings" of Christian "scientists" out of the "mainstream"?

Seriously.

Who first proved scientifically that deities created the universe? And why was that person not awarded a Nobel Prize for his remarkable discovery?

45

Boonton:"... may very well dictate that those parameters must result in such a universe."

May very well...??? How would you test that?? How would you falsify that? You demonstrate a lot more faith in these untestable theories of yours than any of the theists on this blog have in God. If I remember correctly, you are the guy that unashamedly believes that spontaneous generation is a scientific, testable theory that most likely was the cause of our universe!!??
I love it when really smart people try to explain really bad ideas. For a person to believe what you defend shows many of us that you simply have prior philosophical commitments that you dare not part with... no matter what science or common sense may tell you..... much like the accusations made against theists.

46

"What we would eventually determine is that the odds against me, ex-preacher, eating a snickerdoodle today at 1:00 p.m. in Fayetteville, Arkansas are so astronomical as to make it unbelievable."

Just out of curiosity, ex-preacher, is that one of your "special" snickerdoodles?

47

So who exactly was the first to prove scientifically that deities created the universe, the earth, and all the life forms that ever lived on earth?

I must have missed that Nobel Prize being awarded.

Or is there a big conspiracy to keep the amazing "findings" of Christian "scientists" out of the "mainstream"?

Seriously.

Who first proved scientifically that deities created the universe? And why was that person not awarded a Nobel Prize for his remarkable discovery?

48

Wulf

"There is no statistical argument to be made for theism - the religious should stick to faith as their basis. You know, like Jesus told us to."

Yeah but maybe Jesus just sucked at math.

49

Howdy Terence.

You wrote: "one of your more hashly worded, personal attacks on GM was lifted almost verbatim off a link at infidels.org"

Care to be more specific? I have no recollection of either lifting a quote without attribution or of launching any personal attacks against Gordon. Please identify the thread(s) and post number(s).

Thanks!

50

It's strange that you should talk of plagarism, since I recall seeing a few weeks ago that one of your more hashly worded, personal attacks on GM was lifted almost verbatim off a link at infidels.orc -- without quotation marks around it.

Fair is fair, produce Ex's post here and the link to the post on the infidels site.

If one takes the time to put quotation marks where they belong, it is often labeled "spam," or worse, "quote mining" (another term lifted from the atheist's web sites), but the rest is fair game?

Well yea you have, in previous times, spammed us with huge lists of nonsense. I believe one of them was 'evolutionists in their own words'. I took just one of them and demonstrated how out of context it was taken.

If you must quote others extensively then you have no choice but to properly give them credit. If that means you must endure mockery from those who will tease you for not even being able to come up with your own crappy ideas but having to quote mine other crappy ideas then so be it. No one is demanding MLA style 'works cited' sections. We should however try to recognize that some rules are there for a good reason.

May very well...??? How would you test that?? How would you falsify that? You demonstrate a lot more faith in these untestable theories of yours than any of the theists on this blog have in God. If I remember correctly, you are the guy that unashamedly believes that spontaneous generation is a scientific, testable theory that most likely was the cause of our universe!!??

How would brane theory be tested. I imagine somewhat similar to string theory. As its mathematics are worked out it will make other predictions such as about the nature of fundamental particles. If those predictions check out then that's evidence in its favor, if not then the theory must either be chucked or modified.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about when you say spontaneous generation being the cause of the universe. Can you be more specific please?

I love it when really smart people try to explain really bad ideas. For a person to believe what you defend shows many of us that you simply have prior philosophical commitments that you dare not part with... no matter what science or common sense may tell you..... much like the accusations made against theists.

I'm not really getting any sense here that you've absorbed any ideas presented...good or bad.

51

I still would like one of the creationists here to tell me: who first proved scientifically that deities created the universe? And why was that person not awarded a Nobel Prize for his remarkable discovery?

All the hand-waving about how "bunnies are so cute they couldn't possibly have evolved" is really pathetic. It's 2005!

I read today that scientists estimate that a MILLION new species of ocean organisms have been collected and are now being described.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051215/NEWS06/512150407/1012

And the claim the creationists here are making is that they KNOW already that NONE of those new species could possibly have evolved? Every one was created by their deity? How? When?

And bear in mind that the million speces are all teeny tiny critters and those species are just a drop in the bucket compared to the number of species of microbial organisms that live in dirt.

So like 99.999999% all of the deity's creative work went into contstantly, continually tweaking the hundreds of millions if not billions of microbial organisms that have lived on earth for the past 4 billion years.

What's up with that? How come creationists never talk about this interesting statistical fact when they rave on and on and on about the mysterious "intelligent designers"?

52

Who first proved scientifically that nothing created the universe? It just happened by natural forces. And why was that person not awarded a Nobel Prize for his remarkable discovery?

53

Who ever said nothing created the universe? I'm aware of no scientific theory that ever claimed to have proven that. Please cite such a theory to me and I'll be happy to send the Nobel Committee a letter recommending them for the prize.

54

B4, when I read you, I smell spaghetti. http://www.venganza.org/

55

"Fair is fair, produce Ex's post here and the link to the post on the infidels site."

Ex has denied it?

"Well yea you have, in previous times, spammed us with huge lists of nonsense. I believe one of them was 'evolutionists in their own words'. I took just one of them and demonstrated how out of context it was taken."

Another gotcha moment!? You have a strange habit of trumpeting any previous exchanges as a triumph on your part. If I recall, I quoted Darwin about the dearth of any transitional fossils. You countered with Darwin going on about "punctuated equilibrium," seemingly unaware that PE is nothing more than half - baked gradualism, without the need for physical evidence.
It counters nothing and in no way diminishes the impact of the original statement.

56

Ex,

Does this quote by you directed at Gordon, look at all familiar? Begining with the ads . . . the only thing original about it is the part in brackets.

"I have detected what appear to be logical fallacies in many of your arguments, including but not limited to: ad hominem, ad antiquitatem, ad ignorantium, ad logicam, ad nauseum, ad verecundian (the Articles of Confederation? You must be joking!), dicto simpliciter, non sequitur, petitio principii, flooding the stage, and straw man."

57

Wulf explains: There is no statistical argument to be made for theism - the religious should stick to faith as their basis. You know, like Jesus told us to.

Then I can wholeheartedly support you on that. Yes, religious people should stay on their own intellectual turf.

58

You countered with Darwin going on about "punctuated equilibrium," seemingly unaware that PE is nothing more than half - baked gradualism, without the need for physical evidence.

No physical evidence for PE? Sure about that?

Ex has denied it?

It would seem so. More importantly he has requested that the evidence be posted.

Does this quote by you directed at Gordon, look at all familiar? ...

I don't understand. Are you saying the below quote was posted here by ex but wasn't original? Where did Ex post it here? Where was it posted elsewhere?

59

"No physical evidence for PE? Sure about that?":

Yes.
...

""I don't understand. Are you saying the below quote was posted here by ex but wasn't original?

Yes.

60

So who exactly was the first to prove scientifically that deities created the universe, the earth, and all the life forms that ever lived on earth?

I must have missed that Nobel Prize being awarded.

Or is there a big conspiracy to keep the amazing "findings" of Christian "scientists" out of the "mainstream"?

Seriously.

Who first proved scientifically that deities created the universe? And why was that person not awarded a Nobel Prize for his remarkable discovery?

61

Fyi, I can't remember if it's Terence or Gordon (or both) who cling to the Sternberg Martyr Myth like a drool-soaked blanket.

Anyway, someone has done a nice job of compiling the basic facts:

http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/2005/12/sternberg-saga-continues.html

Once again, the creationists are shown to be full of it.

62

I thought this was a dumb post before it was recycled.

My thoughts haven't changed.

When my son asks me where he came from, I tell him that Mommy and Daddy loved each other so much, that that love is where he came from.

He also knows that Santa Claus doesn't exist either.

And he giggles at Jack van Impe.

He's 4 years old, and wiser than most of the folks posting here.

63

Kevin: If abiogenesis were an empirically demonstrable hypothesis it sure would go a long way to end the creation/evolution debate. Merely saying that there is good reason to believe it happened is not the same thing as, well, you know...observable data and reproducibility. I agree with you that observable data and reproducibility are critical components of real science. It's just that we don't have either with abiogenesis or evolution of distinct phyla.

"Dr." Lord (tee hee hee): I think maybe you should post your Nobel prize challenge another two dozen times. No one seems to be noticing it.

Mummy: There you go again, trying to put huge intellectual burdens on your poor little boy. Crikey, would you please just let your little boy be a child rather than the prodigy you seem to feel compelled to make him be. You don't have to have Mozart or Albert Einstein as a son to be a good father.

64

Terence,

You said: "Does this quote by you directed at Gordon, look at all familiar? Begining with the ads . . . the only thing original about it is the part in brackets."

Certainly the quote is familiar as I wrote it. I did not lift it from infidels.org or anywhere else.

What I did do is go to the website that Joe has been using to explain logical and argumentative fallacies and identified the fallacies that Gordon had employed.

I also do not think that identifying someone's argumentative fallacies is equivalent to a "harsh, personal attack." To the best of my knowledge, I have not launched a personal attack (ad hominem) against anyone here. If you think I have, please identify it for me and I will make amends.

If you insist that I lifted a quote from infidels.org or anywhere else, please go ahead and provide a link (they have a search feature so it should be easy to find).

Otherwise, I think you owe me an apology. I remember reading somewhere: "Thou shalt not bear false witness." (that quote is lifted from Exodus).

65

""Dr." Lord (tee hee hee): I think maybe you should post your Nobel prize challenge another two dozen times. No one seems to be noticing it."

Seems like you noticed it, Cheesehead.

But for some strange reason you seem unable to answer the question.

It's a really simple question.

It's sort of like "Who is the scientist who proved that DNA is composed of two complimentary chains of nucleic acid?"

Or "who is the scientist who showed that DNA replication is semi-conservative?"

Or "who is the scientist who showed how mutations in DNA can lead to changes in the levels and/or timing of gene expression?"

Or "who is the scientist who showed that bacterial chemotaxis is controlled by a number of different genes?"

Or "who is the scientist who showed how energy and matter can be related"?

etc., etc.

Here on this thread we see people making claims that certain features of the universe or living creatures are so statistically improbably that they must have been created by one or more deities.

I'm asking: who are the scientists who calculated these probabilities and why doesn't the entire planet know their names?

It seems to me that such a discovery would be a very big deal, certainly the biggest scientific discovery of our lifetimes if not the biggest scientific discovery in human history to date.

But I somehow missed the headlines trumpetting this discovery.

My follow-up question is: why wasn't the scientific discovery of the existence of these deities widely reported?

I can think of one excellent explanation, Cheeshead, that I doubt you can refute.

But Cheesehead, I'd like to hear your answers to my questions first.

What's the problem?

66

Cheesehead tells Mumon how to raise his kid:

"There you go again, trying to put huge intellectual burdens on your poor little boy."

Yeah, Mumon. Don't waste your time teaching your kid facts.

Instead, you need to start brainwashing him about Satan, Hell, and the eternal pain he will endure if he doesn't listen to you.

67

"No physical evidence for PE? Sure about that?":

Yes.

PE makes predictions (such as new species should be detected when older sub-populations are isoloated from the rest of their kind) that can be tested both in the lab and in the geological record.

""I don't understand. Are you saying the below quote was posted here by ex but wasn't original?

Ok could you be so kind as to post where that ex post appeared on this blog and where it also appeared on the other site. I'm not really sure why ex can make and sustain his accusation in a single post yet we have to drag the evidence out of you.

68

Cheesehead

"I agree with you that observable data and reproducibility are critical components of real science. It's just that we don't have either with abiogenesis or evolution of distinct phyla."

Look at Cheesehead recite the script we've all seen a billion times before!

According to Cheesehead's logic, it's a matter of "faith" that the Grand Canyon was eroded or the continents drifted apart because we haven't "reproduced" those phenomenon.

On planet earth, we call this "willful ignorance" or "reality denial."

Are birds and reptiles "distinct phyla" Cheesehead? You really think that we don't have evidence that birds and reptiles evolved from a common ancestor?

Rest assured that no matter how many fossils are dug up, Cheesehead will keep reciting his script as long as the crowd he hangs out with encourages its recitation. When enough people start pointing out that his claim is absurd, he will just move the goalpost and claim that we haven't "reproduced" the evolution of "distinct kingdoms" of animals. That's how creationist apologetics works, as historians of creationism are well aware.

Cheesehead is just another rube in a long line of rubes playing his part in the sad history of self-identifying Christians smearing science on behalf of Jesus.

Maybe someday Cheesehead will realize that he's been duped and he will admit that mildly embarassing fact, just as another great Christian named George Bush has begun to admit his mistakes (why admit them now? because it's politically disadvantageous not to do so, of course).

When I was a kid I believed in Santa. Eventually I realized that my parents had played me for a stooge. I felt sorta stupid, ashamed and betrayed for a little while but I got over it.

Certain Christians seem to have a real hard time "getting over it" when it comes to creationist garbage.

69

I agree with you that observable data and reproducibility are critical components of real science. It's just that we don't have either with abiogenesis or evolution of distinct phyla.

Do we have it with the claim that some large stars end their life by becoming a black hole? Which lab has created a black hole? Where are the pictures directly showing a black hole forming after the collapse of a supergiant star?

70

Cheesehead -- I think you are confused about what is meant by "reproducibility" in science.

Reproducibility does not mean that an explanation is non-scientific if every single event over the time period covered by the explanation can not be exactly reproduced.

Reproducibility refers to experiments that scientists conduct which show that

For example, experiments like the Urey/Miller experiment are reproducible. The point is that Urey and Miller were not making shxt up when they said that you get some relatively complex organic molecules from simpler molecules "spontaneously" under certain conditions.

All of the assumptions which underlie evolutionary biology are reproducible and have, in fact, been reproduced many times by scientists.

The creationist game is to merely say that there are "limits" to what can evolve from a simple organism over the course of 4 billion years without providing any compelling rationale for these alleged "limits."

It's called "arguing from incredulity."

The funny thing about abiogenesis is that scientific research in this area is going to proceed and, if we wanted to, we could write down the creationist arguments which dump on the results that scientists are guaranteed to published in the not-too-distant future.

Now, please answer the questions I asked you about these allegedly scientific discoveries which prove the existence of deities.

71

Oops, left a paragraph unfinished:

"Reproducibility refers to experiments that scientists conduct which show that the assumptions and mechanisms which underlie scientific explanations (or theories) are not pure baloney. In other words, when a scientist claims to have shown a new molecular basis for evolution, his experiments had better be reproducible by others, regardless of whether those others are atheists, Christians or Satanists. Otherwise, no one should give a rat's behind. That's who science works."

72

The Education of the Cheesehead, Part II

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/12/16/space.buffy.reut/index.html

Here we see a report about Buffy, a recently discovered object that orbits the sun with a nearly circular orbit.

If asked whether Buffy was orbiting the sun 100 years ago, an astronomer would say: "Yes." If asked how certain he was, an astronomer would say "As certain as I can be about any event in the past."

But Cheesehead would say to the astronomer: "How can you say that? You haven't placed an object identical to Buffy out there beyond Neptune and tried to make it circle the sun for 100 years. So you're explanation is not reproducible and therefore it's not science."

The astronomer might look at Cheesehead and say, "Are you a creationist, by chance?"

Or the astronomer might just ask, "What the hell are you talking about?"

Fortunately for the astronomer, he doesn't have to worry so much about creationist think tanks smearing his profession and his work, and spreading baloney about how astronomical studies are based in atheism and therefore children need to be protected from it.

Biologists do have such worries. Cheesehead and other creationists are part of the plan to smear biologists. From where I'm standing, Cheesehead is what we call a "rube" or a "sucker". His thoughts have been manipulated by preachers who write and speak to him on TV about those bad, crazy, fraudulent, dogmatic and atheistic "scientists."

It's too bad, really.

73

I like it.

The author may have unintentionally hit on the exact truth. If he was trying to be satirical or sarcastic, what irony that his tale would be so suitable for this anti-christian pantheist's children, if I still had small children.

Incidentally, we hear today that the gene for skin color has been discovered. What a strange story. I hope that my neighboring rednecks are not shocked into their graves by the revelation that modern man basically descended from a Negro stock. I've known this for some time. "Adam and Eve" were black. Does intelligent design have a comment? Will the creationists step forward to explain this to me? Does the Fact of Evolution suggest to us that subsequent human designs have been improvements on the original?

Please forgive me if I am not politically correct. My allegience is to the truth.

The article I cite can be found in the NYT, or likely any serious news publication.

What ever happened to Intelligent Design anyway? Haven't heard much about this hot new revolutionary theory lately.

Jerry

74

Larry Lord :

Reminds me of the old Airplane song line, "Are you so old that you've no childhood, is your timeline so unreal..."

A kid armed with the facts - who knows there's no Santa Claus- is infinitely more confidently of his position amidst his peers than somebody desperately clinging to "beliefs" somebody told him... um... just why the heck do parents tell their kids about Santa Claus anyway?

Just what function does that serve?

I mean really?

My parents told me there was a Santa Claus, but long before they told me there wasn't one I was sure there wasn't one. The only thing "Santa Claus" did was make me think, "Why did they tell me such a silly thing in the first place?"

And again, so I tell my kid.

I have no idea what function an imaginary "Santa Claus" serves.

75

Boonton: "Do we have it with the claim that some large stars end their life by becoming a black hole? Which lab has created a black hole? Where are the pictures directly showing a black hole forming after the collapse of a supergiant star?"

What a silly analogy. Of course black holes cannot be reproduced in laboratory conditions, but they can be indirectly observed. That is how they were discovered. Biological processes, on the other hand are perfectly suited to reproducibility on a laboratory scale. Do you really not understand the difference?

"Dr." Lord: "The funny thing about abiogenesis is that scientific research in this area is going to proceed and, if we wanted to, we could write down the creationist arguments which dump on the results that scientists are guaranteed to published in the not-too-distant future."

For someone who is so opposed to supernatural revelation you sure do seem to have a direct line to some diety or other that tells you with certainty what will happen in the future. Larry, scientific research not only will proceed concerning abiogenesis, it has been going on for decades, so far always with the same results. Rather than prattling on about what scientists are going to discover, why don't we stick with the things that actually have been discovered. It's just a wee bit unscientific to attempt to support your position with evidence that you really, really think almost for sure someone is going to come up with, wouldn't you agree?

"From where I'm standing, Cheesehead is what we call a 'rube' or a 'sucker'."

Whew!! I'm glad we settled that one, "Dr." Lord! Coming from you, I'll take that as high praise.

76

Boot

"PE makes predictions (such as new species should be detected when older sub-populations are isoloated from the rest of their kind) that can be tested both in the lab and in the geological record."

These so called 'predictions' (based upon the premise of evolution, are that isolated species will make a quantum genetic leaps forward, and leave no fossil evidence behind. And lo, isolated systems do appear suddenly, and lo they leave no fossil record behind, and lo the geological record confirms this. Fascinating. What about the other 90% of the non-isolated species that also appear suddenly and dramatically? How does any of that salvage Darwin's admission, backed up by virtually every paleontologist since him, that the fossil record does not provide evidence for evolution? The theory of punctuated equilibrium popularized by Eldredge and Gould in the 70s is a joke that some people still don't get. It only affirms the creationist predictions of "sudden appearance" in the fossil record.

EX:

"What I did do is go to the website that Joe has been using to explain logical and argumentative fallacies and identified the fallacies that Gordon had employed."

Please identify that website.

77

Terence:

Actually, two websites.

The primary one was:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies

I'm still waiting for the link to the place at infidels.org from which you said I lifted the quote.

78

Joe,

This is the perfect creation myth for serious atheists to tell their children. Since the dawn of Darwinism they have rejoiced that they now had a creation story so that they could be intellectually fulfilled atheists. (Huxley or Dawkins I think said that).

I'm curious... what do atheists (mumon, are you an atheist?) tell their children while they sit on daddy's knee? If Joe has embarrassed you by parodying your beliefs, perhaps you could enlighten us cavemen (theists).

If you are intellectually honest with your kids you could say something like: "Johnny, it's all a great big accident that you or anyone else exists. You are a meaningless, worthless, but cute glob of carbon and seawater. There is no ultimate purpose to your or anyone else's life. When I ask you to be GOOD, I am only using a make-believe term that Christians concocted... good and evil don't really exist... all events are equal and just the natural order of a dying universe. So be happy and live hard because when you die, it will be as if you never existed. There is no hope no purpose no meaning and no rules, but above all, you must not believe the nonesense of those crazy Christians because they are really messed up. Only we atheists know the real truth about life. So have a great life son."

At what age do you tell these treasured truths to your children? Or is atheism only for adults?

79

B4: In fairness to Mummon he wouldn't call himself an athiest. He grew up Catholic, but took on Buddhism as an adult. However, he picks and chooses between different strains of Buddhist thought, rejecting some parts of Buddhism altogether, thus ending up with a sort of boutique, Hollywood-style Buddhism. The main parts of Buddhism he likes are the ones that say that Republicans and Bush are evil. Nevertheless the point you raise is a good one. Goo-to-you evolution sure doesn't provide much basis for a hopeful approach to life.

80

As an atheist, I'd like to respond to B4.

1. The thrust of your post seems to be "Atheism must be really depressing." We are not atheists because we believe it is the most happy, comforting position, but because we believe it is the truth. I'm reminded of George Bernard Shaw's quote (this is from memory, so pardon me if I mangle it): "To say that a believer is happier than an unbeliever is no more to the point than to say that a drunk man is happier than a sober one." I would rather know the hard truth than live a happy delusion.

2. Life can be full of meaning even without belief in a god. We find happiness and significance in our families, improving the world, enjoying life. In fact, when I went from evangelical to atheist, I found that my life took on a whole new meaning. Knowing that this life is all there is inspires me to make the most of it. It's as if my life went from black and white to full color. I became a more optimistic person and stopped dividing everyone I knew into "saved" and "lost."

3. You seem to think that one cannot have morality apart from belief in god. I'd encourage you to read any good article or textbook on ethics (even Wikipedia would work). You will find that there are a variety of solid ethical systems that do not depend on the existence of a god, such as humanism and Buddhism. One can build a coherent, satisfying ethical system using reason and experience.

Interestingly, I find a greater agreement on ethics among non-believers (see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) than among the various factions of believers who claim to get their morality from divinely revealed sources. One can even make a case that only atheists can be truly ethical, since believers base their moral decisions on commands from god. A believer is willing to obey those commands because he thinks he will go to heaven if he is faithful, but to hell if he is disobedient. A humanist tries to do the right thing apart from any selfish concern for reward in the afterlife.

81

What a silly analogy. Of course black holes cannot be reproduced in laboratory conditions, but they can be indirectly observed. That is how they were discovered. Biological processes, on the other hand are perfectly suited to reproducibility on a laboratory scale. Do you really not understand the difference?

Of course some aspects of black holes can be reproduced in a lab setting. For example, the speed of light can be slowed by passing it through different mediums. Some aspects of black holes can be simulated in this manner. Other aspects, as you point out, have to be observed indirectly. But we observe evolution indirectly and directly so I don't really know what you're trying to say.

These so called 'predictions' (based upon the premise of evolution, are that isolated species will make a quantum genetic leaps forward, and leave no fossil evidence behind. And lo, isolated systems do appear suddenly, and lo they leave no fossil record behind, and lo the geological record confirms this. Fascinating. What about the other 90% of the non-isolated species that also appear suddenly and dramatically?

In other words, new species should appear more often when populations are isolated. Few (certainly not no) transitional forms are left behind. This can be checked by seeing if new species do indeed pop up among isolated populations more often than non-isolated ones. You seem to think that fossils are the only ones. If God put all the new species in the middle of large populations rather than isolated ones certainly that would conflict with PE. So much for your claim that PE is immune to evidence.

It only affirms the creationist predictions of "sudden appearance" in the fossil record.

that's a creationist prediction? So like if slow appearances are found in the fossil record that would contradict creationist theory? Why no, that would just show the creator took his time! Creationism is a truely non-fallisfiable theory. Could you tell me what, if any, evidence could ever be found that contradicts it?

Please identify that website.

This is really improper. Ex was accused of plagerism. Isn't it a simple matter to provide the link with what he wrote here and the link from the supposedly plagerized site?

Needless to say that posts on athiesm are based on the logical fallacy of the false choice. That is either God or evolution. Evolution no more denies God than the periodic table or the laws of thermodynamics deny God. What a strange world some of you people live in.

82

Speaking of evidence for PE:

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.

As well as:

PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).

In other words, PE builds on top of evolution. It doesn't replace it.

83

I wrote:

It's strange that you should talk of plagarism, since I recall seeing a few weeks ago that one of your more hashly worded, personal attacks on GM was lifted almost verbatim off a link at infidels.orc -- without quotation marks around it. As I was checking out various links at that site, I ran across this unusually worded missive and thought . . . where have I seen this before?

Note: If it was my purpose to embarrass Ex, I would have done so early on. It was not until he openly accused Tim of plagerism 3 weeks later that I broke my silence. At the time I was aware that there was almost no chance that could relocate some obscure comment linked to infidels.orc. But it stood out for several obvious reasons - one being the narrative chain of logical fallacies; particularly the words "ad ignorantim" and ad nauseum." I had seen those words before directed at a highly intelligent men at the EO and it stood out because it seemed so out of character. It also stood out because it obviously reflected an abrupt change in substance and style - passive/aggressive:

Ex had written:

"I have detected what appear to be logical fallacies in many of your arguments, including but not limited to: ad hominem, ad antiquitatem, ad ignorantium, ad logicam, ad nauseum, ad verecundian (the Articles of Confederation? You must be joking!), dicto simpliciter, non sequitur, petitio principii, flooding the stage, and straw man."

Where did he come up with these gems?

Ex said in reply:

"What I did do is go to the website that Joe has been using to explain logical and argumentative fallacies and identified the fallacies that Gordon had employed. Actually, two websites.
The primary one was:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies."

The key point is that neither of the sites listed above contain the terms "ad antiquita," or ad ignorantium," or "ad logicam," or "ad verecundian," or petitor principii.

But guess where these words do appear? Infidels.orc.
I am not psychic, nor would I intentionally "bear false witness." It is only logical that if I had not seen them before in another format at infidels.orc I could not have identified where these obscure words could be found. Until today I was unaware of any site that enumerated them.

Infidels.orc -- Logical fallacies:

"Argumentum ad antiquitatem"
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam"
"Argumentum ad logicam"
"Petitio principii"

These words were first seen by me at the EO post #69,
and then at at an onscure link at infidel.orc in the same invective tone and style. If I find the original statement linked to this site , I will forward it. Until then all I can say is that Ex and I know what the truth is.

84

No Longer a Preacher:
You missed the entire point of my post. Both you, as an atheist, and I, as a theist, know one thing... Atheism and the logical conclusions that flow from that worldview... are unliveable. It is at odds with all that Man holds dear and makes his life worth living. Therefore, atheists spend lots of time coming up with amusing, semi-intellectual constructions of how there can be things like value, purpose, truth, and meaning even though there really is no ultimate value, purpose, truth or meaning. Joe demonstrated a nice little creation myth that you could use but you must create other myths to make your lives liveable. So....

1. It is very amusing to hear you guys try to reason your way out of the logical conclusions of your worldview and manufacture the things in life that make your lives worth living. Very amusing

2. But secondly, I have found that atheists never talk about how they practically live out these beliefs. We theists are skeptical that you actually live what you say you believe. So I was simply asking a few honest atheists to tell us what you tell your kids so that they grow up to be good atheists and good citizens. No one was trying to justify theism by saying that atheism is a rotten alternative. Theism can stand nicely on its own.

SO please Mr. Preacher, take us inside your family and life and tell us how you live out these truths. If your son says to you, "I don't feel like doing what you say today, Dad. After all, you are laying on me your rules and I choose to follow different rules... and by definition Dad, your rules are no better than mine because there is no ultimate right and wrong and I will never ultimately be held accountable for anything anyway. So let me live as I want!" What do you say??

85

Yes, Terence, I know what the truth is. As for you, I can't tell if you're lying or just deluded.

If you will go back to the datanation site you will find the terms I used. If you click on "Appeal to Authority" you will see:

"Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)"

If you click on argument from ignorance you will see:

"Argument from Ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)"

and so on for the others.

As I have stated before, if you have a link to the infidels.org quote that I supposedly lifted, please post it.

I see once again that you refer to the infidels.org site as "infidels.orc." Really mature of you.

86

I sure hope you are a nicer person in real life than you are on this site, B4.

I have three terrific kids, ages 17, 14 and 11. They are among the best-mannered, most responsible, kindest, and good-looking kids you will ever find.

My ethical system is built around reason and experience. I strongly believe that reason and experience both teach that one should treat others as one desires to be treated. Of course, you may recognize this as the "golden rule" taught by Jesus. What you may not know is that this same principle was stated by the Jewish Rabbi Hillel before Jesus, by Greek philosophers before Jesus, by Buddha before Jesus, and by Confucius 500 years before Jesus. It is found in all these cultures because it has been proven to work.

Though I do not believe that morality is divinely revealed, I do believe that it is both objective and universal. That is why representatives from all religions (and no religion) and cultures are able to agree on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (you can find it at the UN website).

In the same way that we follow the rules of traffic for our own benefit, we follow laws that we have commonly adopted as a society because they are beneficial. When the laws of the land go against what we know is right from reason and experience than we are obligated to work to change those laws. Of course, much of what we do that is ethical has nothing to do with what is legal. Legally, I can lie to my wife. But I know that this is a bad idea for many reasons. And the fear of going to hell is not one of them.

The subject of ethics is a huge one which obviously can't be covered in one post. That is why I suggested you do some research on what keeps non-theists such as myself from raping and pillaging.

But if your religious beliefs and fear of hell are all that is keeping you from murdering your neighbor and kicking your cat, then by all means please hold on to your beliefs.

I'll close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson. This comes from a letter he wrote to his nephew in 1787:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. . . . Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you."

87

Cheesehead, way to dodge the issues and -- as usual -- avoid admitting your mistakes. Don't fret, I know it's typical behavior for members of your cult.

You said:

"Larry, scientific research not only will proceed concerning abiogenesis, it has been going on for decades, so far always with the same results."

That's false. In fact, it's so obviously false that we can fairly call it a lie. Different experiments, different results, all building on the work of previous scientists. That's how science works, Cheesehead. Try to remember that. Science = building on prior knowledge. Religion = same as last year.

"Rather than prattling on about what scientists are going to discover, why don't we stick with the things that actually have been discovered."

Hahahaah. Um, yeah, that's the creationist wet dream. Stop everything. Let's all just pray. And maybe kill some Muslims and discriminate against some homos on the side.

"It's just a wee bit unscientific to attempt to support your position with evidence that you really, really think almost for sure someone is going to come up with, wouldn't you agree?"

I have no idea what you're talking about, Cheesehead. I said that work on abiogenesis is going to proceed but regardless of what scientists show, creationists who look at scientific knowledge as an attack on their religious beliefs will come up some bogus "answer" to belittle the scientists' work.

Do you doubt this, Cheesehead? I don't see how you can. I mean, this is your modus operandi in the here and now.

88

Ex:

"Yes, Terence, I know what the truth is. As for you, I can't tell if you're lying or just deluded."

Ex, let me remind you of your own words well before I had asked where you got your information:

Post #64 Ex:

"Certainly the quote is familiar as I wrote it. I did not lift it from infidels.org or anywhere else. What I DID DO IS GO TOTHE WEBSITE THAT JOE HAS BEEN USING has been using to explain logical and argumentative fallacies and identified the fallacies that Gordon had employed"

Note: None of the terms listed above could be found at "Joe's" site. Ten posts later, when I asked you to indentify which site you were referring to, you then suddenly remembered an alternate source, which was far more comprehensive than the first. Although I did not take the time to click on each English term to check out their Latin roots at the alternate site, I do recall that you suggested that all of these terms were found there.

" And so on