A new, more accurate name for this group.
Tropical Tim
To title this bunch as a group interested in the origins of life is a
joke. The discussion of origins is the least talked about subject
here.
I finally figured out what angers me so much about the pap that is
spewed from the members of this group. Conceit! There is enough
conceit within this group to make any reasonable person vomit.
I've allowed myself to be angered to the point of vulgarity and
threats against this bunch. Shame on me. Instead, I should have
expressed the pity I feel for the narrow mindedness shown to be the
norm for this group.
I'll continue to scan the posts to see the infrequent postings from
people who have their brain turned on. I apologize to those people for
my lowering of my standards to a level that could be understood by the
majority of the fools in this group.
Lane Lewis
"Tropical Tim" <bank...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5d054692.03090...@posting.google.com...
We don't discuss origins that much, it's more about the Evolution vs.
Creation debate, however please do submit your views on the origin of life,
if you like.
Lane
John Wilkins
<*plonk*>
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Thomas McDonald
TT,
Feel better now?
Tom McDonald
ReidRover
>
>Tropical Tim <bank...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
>>
Sorry Tim..its more like the scientifically literate ( be they
athiest,Christian ,Muslim or pagan) against the creationists.
Like many I have seen you cannot accept that most Christians ARE NOT
creationists..in the YEC sense.
David Jensen
<5d054692.03090...@posting.google.com>:
>Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
I think you meant YECreationists against everyone, whether Christians or
atheists.
>To title this bunch as a group interested in the origins of life is a
>joke. The discussion of origins is the least talked about subject
>here.
Not really.
>I finally figured out what angers me so much about the pap that is
>spewed from the members of this group. Conceit! There is enough
>conceit within this group to make any reasonable person vomit.
And it really makes me sick to see what people claim when they hide
behind (their interpretation of) scriptures
>I've allowed myself to be angered to the point of vulgarity and
>threats against this bunch. Shame on me. Instead, I should have
>expressed the pity I feel for the narrow mindedness shown to be the
>norm for this group.
Help those poor YECreationists learn about science. Stop them from lying
about it again.
>I'll continue to scan the posts to see the infrequent postings from
>people who have their brain turned on. I apologize to those people for
>my lowering of my standards to a level that could be understood by the
>majority of the fools in this group.
I don't think you could get as low as Hovind.
AC
Tropical Tim <bank...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
That's odd, because I see a number of non-Atheists here who accept
evolution.
You apologized and then lowered your standards. Has the possibility ever
crossed your mind that you, in fact, have very low standards to begin with?
--
Aaron Clausen
Pithecanthropus erectus
You are welcome to lurk as much as you like, but if it only serves to
aggravate you, what is the point?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
Patrick James
(in message <5d054692.03090...@posting.google.com>):
> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
And, given that large numbers of us, including little old me, are Xian?
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Bobby D. Bryant
> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
You apparently don't follow the discussions very closely, because if you
did you'd realize that what primarily goes on here is "evolution deniers
vs. the facts", which provokes an 'antibody' from athiests _and_ persons
of various religions who are concerned with the truth.
Granted, that's accompanied by lots of name calling and other unnecessary
material arising from parties on both sides of the central debate, to say
nothing of the outright trollery that's thrown into the mix. But that
noise does not obscure the fact that you have misrepresented the basic
process that goes on here.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Sarah Berel-Harrop
"Patrick James" <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB807248...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 14:56:24 -0500, Tropical Tim wrote
> (in message <5d054692.03090...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
>
> And, given that large numbers of us, including little old me, are Xian?
Ah, but are you a *true* christian?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
Lane Lewis
>
Just one note about the fools in this group, in the last thread the you
butted into you made a strong assertions which you refused to back up with
any references and then refused to retract you statement. You then condemned
the group for not checking the web for you. I would like to remind the group
of "atheistic fools" here to not discuss any thing with you until you agree
fully to this condition.
Lane
Patrick James
(in message <3f5b2977$0$67770$a726...@news.hal-pc.org>):
>
> "Patrick James" <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BB807248...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 14:56:24 -0500, Tropical Tim wrote
>> (in message <5d054692.03090...@posting.google.com>):
>>
>>> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
>>
>> And, given that large numbers of us, including little old me, are Xian?
>
> Ah, but are you a *true* christian?
There's no sugar on _my_ oatmeal...
Pithecanthropus erectus
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.07....@mail.utexas.edu...
My guess is that Tim has a position and he ain't movin' it for Nothin' or
Nobody.
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Pip R. Lagenta
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
>Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
>majority of the fools in this group.
Got spanked, did you?
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
us...@example.com
>Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
>
>To title this bunch as a group interested in the origins of life is a
>joke. The discussion of origins is the least talked about subject
>here.
>
>I finally figured out what angers me so much about the pap that is
>spewed from the members of this group. Conceit! There is enough
>conceit within this group to make any reasonable person vomit.
>
>I've allowed myself to be angered to the point of vulgarity and
>threats against this bunch. Shame on me. Instead, I should have
>expressed the pity I feel for the narrow mindedness shown to be the
>norm for this group.
Never in any Usenet newsgroup does a week go by without a clueless
newbie posting his little rant about how everyone in the newsgroup is
mean and arrogant.
At least this cluebie used paragraph breaks.
Frank J
> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
I'm not an atheist, and some of my favorite people are Christians.
>
> To title this bunch as a group interested in the origins of life is a
> joke. The discussion of origins is the least talked about subject
> here.
If you mean abiogenesis, ther'e a good reason - very little is known
about it other than when it occurred (3.8 billion years ago - do you
agree? If not YOU are against most Christians)
>
(snip)
>
> I'll continue to scan the posts to see the infrequent postings from
> people who have their brain turned on.
Name some.
> I apologize to those people for
> my lowering of my standards to a level that could be understood by the
> majority of the fools in this group.
And, since you have taken the time to post (and hopefully not run like
most trolls), would you please tell us what your origins model (what
happened and when) is? You don't even need to present a theory or even
a hypothesis. You may even take an existing position, such as that of
mainstream evolution, or perhaps one of those unsuccessful alternates
such as "saltation" or "independent origins." We are all open to new
ideas. Perhaps you might be the first find something to support the
alternates.
Frank J
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.09.07....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:56:24 +0000, Tropical Tim wrote:
> >
> > > Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
> >
> > You apparently don't follow the discussions very closely, because if you
> > did you'd realize that what primarily goes on here is "evolution deniers
> > vs. the facts", which provokes an 'antibody' from athiests _and_ persons
> > of various religions who are concerned with the truth.
> >
> > Granted, that's accompanied by lots of name calling and other unnecessary
> > material arising from parties on both sides of the central debate, to say
> > nothing of the outright trollery that's thrown into the mix. But that
> > noise does not obscure the fact that you have misrepresented the basic
> > process that goes on here.
>
> My guess is that Tim has a position and he ain't movin' it for Nothin' or
> Nobody.
Under a bridge, perhaps?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by bank...@bellsouth.net
(Tropical Tim):
>Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
....except that a fair number of the regulars aren't
atheists, but have no problem accepting the evidence
supporting evolution. So your assumption is incorrect (as
you'd have known if you actually read a significant number
of threads).
>To title this bunch as a group interested in the origins of life is a
>joke. The discussion of origins is the least talked about subject
>here.
It's an essentially-unmoderated newsgroup; nearly everything
is off-topic. So?
>I finally figured out what angers me so much about the pap that is
>spewed from the members of this group. Conceit! There is enough
>conceit within this group to make any reasonable person vomit.
Been reading the fundies' posts, have you?
>I've allowed myself to be angered to the point of vulgarity and
>threats against this bunch. Shame on me. Instead, I should have
>expressed the pity I feel for the narrow mindedness shown to be the
>norm for this group.
>
>I'll continue to scan the posts to see the infrequent postings from
>people who have their brain turned on. I apologize to those people for
>my lowering of my standards to a level that could be understood by the
>majority of the fools in this group.
No need; just enjoy yourself like most of the hate-spewing
fundies who post here.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Lenny Flank
> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
Uh, I'm not an atheist.
Would you mind telling me, though, what the scientific theory of
creation/intelligent design is and how we can tets that theory using
the scientific method?
How about telling me why anyone should pay any more attention to YOUR
religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor's,
my car mechanic's, or the guy who served me a Big Mac and fries this
afternoon.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
Sarah Berel-Harrop
"Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.03090...@posting.google.com...
> How about telling me why anyone should pay any more attention to YOUR
> religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor's,
> my car mechanic's, or the guy who served me a Big Mac and fries this
> afternoon.
You know, Lenny, I am getting a little worried about
your heart. Are you eating this fast food & pizza that
guys are serving to you and delivering to you?
Don't they serve salads at MacDonalds ? :-)
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank
> "DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Mark Isaak
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
>Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
Actually, not that many of the creationists here consider themselves
atheists, although you are correct that all of them are against
Christians.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Lenny Flank
> "Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:238b53a4.03090...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> > How about telling me why anyone should pay any more attention to YOUR
> > religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor's,
> > my car mechanic's, or the guy who served me a Big Mac and fries this
> > afternoon.
>
> You know, Lenny, I am getting a little worried about
> your heart. Are you eating this fast food & pizza that
> guys are serving to you and delivering to you?
>
> Don't they serve salads at MacDonalds ? :-)
>
Bwah. Who needs arteries anyway.
Eat right, exercise daily, die anyway.
;>
R. Baldwin
Well, I find my Christian views are tolerated quite well by most of
the posters here.The exceptions are for the most part Creationists.
>
> To title this bunch as a group interested in the origins of life is
a
> joke. The discussion of origins is the least talked about subject
> here.
I have noticed many posts on T.O. about abiogenesis. Have you compiled
statistics showing otherwise?
>
> I finally figured out what angers me so much about the pap that is
> spewed from the members of this group. Conceit! There is enough
> conceit within this group to make any reasonable person vomit.
Perhaps you might share some examples. I've noticed scorn, ridicule,
coarse language, and other human weaknesses, but not much that much
conceit; except for a small number of posters on both sides of the
debate.
>
> I've allowed myself to be angered to the point of vulgarity and
> threats against this bunch. Shame on me. Instead, I should have
> expressed the pity I feel for the narrow mindedness shown to be the
> norm for this group.
How is "show me evidence and provide a better theory, then I'll change
my mind" narrow-mindedness?
>
> I'll continue to scan the posts to see the infrequent postings from
> people who have their brain turned on. I apologize to those people
for
> my lowering of my standards to a level that could be understood by
the
> majority of the fools in this group.
>
If you wish to make a sincere apology, it should be directed to the
persons against whom you used vulgarity and threats, don't you think?
I doubt that apologizing to Fred for threatening Bill and cursing out
Ethel is a stellar example of the Golden Rule.
Scott Rutter
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Granted, that's accompanied by lots of name calling and other unnecessary
>material arising from parties on both sides of the central debate, to say
>nothing of the outright trollery that's thrown into the mix. But that
>noise does not obscure the fact that you have misrepresented the basic
>process that goes on here.
It's not usually an instant reaction to an honest question though.
We get a serious question, there will be several serious replies
given. It's when that information is ignored, the group turns on the
poster like sharks around a wounded diver. :)
I've seen a few good discussions over the years, the problem is that
the vast majority of creationists posters are usually poorly educated
and are parroting a barely understood message taken from someone
else's web site. They can't defend their position because they don't
even understand it, all they have is the initial position so they just
repeat it over and over, which starts a feeding frenzy. :)
-
To Reply: Take off every Zig!
EAC - Director of Temporal Adjustment
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
Steve A
> aggravate you, what is the point?
Lurking here can do about three things for a creationist.
1) See the latest arguments being utilized by evolutionists and
against evolutionists. This newsgroup offers alot of information
(designed of course).
2) Entertain. (Some of this stuff people write in here is actually
pretty funny)
3) Raise aggravation, which drives one to seek solutions to seemingly
interminable riddles. (ie. the definition of what "life" is, the
philosophical interplay of differentiating science and pseudoscience,
how evolutionists use micro-evolution evidence to support their
goo-to-you "theory", etc. . .)
I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most of
all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
better comprehend what makes them tick.
Steve A.
R. Baldwin
news:92c76e71.03091...@posting.google.com...
News flash: many people who understand Evolution is fact are
Christians. Myself included.
Daniel Harper
And myself. And see my .sig.
--
Today, whether his critics like it or not, Charles Darwin's thought
organizes the biological science of the Western world. His work has
made possible such once-unimaginable things as organ transplants
using organs derived from subhuman species. They work because Darwin
was right. That strange thing called "creation science" is nothing
more than ignorant rantings reflecting a frightened and dying
religious mentality.
John Shelby Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of Newark,
from _Why Christianity Must Change or Die_
--Daniel Harper
Dave
>
As opposed to the normal 24/7 of yammering preachers and right-wing
commentators belching the Christian screed? FWIW there is nothing in
Darwin's theory that is in direct conflict with Christianity as long
as Christians accept that Genesis consists of what might be called
parables. Let Adam be the first of the Homo Saps. Let "original sin"
be a result of our brutal origins.
> I finally figured out what angers me so much about the pap that
> is spewed from the members of this group. Conceit! There is enough
> conceit within this group to make any reasonable person vomit.
Christians yammering on about their moral superiority and their
predicted magical afterlife.
Pithecanthropus erectus
Well, Steve, I am glad that you occasionally emerge from Lurkdom to comment.
Reading for recomprehension is a skill that can be learned. Atheism and
Evolution are independent aspects. But Tim, Tropical Tim, now, he is the
person to whom I directed the comment. I don't see why he bothers with T.O.
if it only serves to raise his blood pressure.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/2/03
stew dean
> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
No, no and thrice no. It's more like evolutionists vs creationists.
By evolutionist I mean those who accept evolution. By creationist I
mean those who are essentialy anti-evolution and feel that man was
created 'as is'.
Many christians (probably the majority in the UK) are also
evolutionists to some degree or other, creationists tend to be in the
minority in the developed countries - the US being a possible
exception.
> To title this bunch as a group interested in the origins of life is a
> joke. The discussion of origins is the least talked about subject
> here.
There is a lot of off topic dicussions but the central premise is did
we come here via evolution or where we ready made? Did we grow or
where we built.
> I finally figured out what angers me so much about the pap that is
> spewed from the members of this group. Conceit! There is enough
> conceit within this group to make any reasonable person vomit.
What angers me is when comments like that put my irony meter into
overflow conditions. My custom overflow adaptor, designed to prevent
having to replace the whole unit, has to use replacable cartidges and
at the moment they are not cheap.
> I've allowed myself to be angered to the point of vulgarity and
> threats against this bunch. Shame on me. Instead, I should have
> expressed the pity I feel for the narrow mindedness shown to be the
> norm for this group.
Damn - looks like I'll have to put in a bulk order.
> I'll continue to scan the posts to see the infrequent postings from
> people who have their brain turned on. I apologize to those people for
> my lowering of my standards to a level that could be understood by the
> majority of the fools in this group.
Well you've added nothing to the discussion - slagged off everyone in
this group and managed to come over as arrogant at the same time.
All the hall marks of a trained up troll.
Stew Dean
Patrick James
(in message <92c76e71.03091...@posting.google.com>):
> I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most of
> all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> better comprehend what makes them tick.
hint: some (most?) of us ain't atheists.
Dick C
> I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
of
> all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> better comprehend what makes them tick.
What does evolution have to do with atheism?
And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
no atheist world view. Each of us have our own world view, not
dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
con artist.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Hiero5ant
"Dick C" <dic...@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F55DD2F930...@216.168.3.50...
> Steve A wrote in talk.origins
>
> > I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
> of
> > all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> > better comprehend what makes them tick.
>
> What does evolution have to do with atheism?
> And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
> anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
>
> Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> no atheist world view. Each of us have our own world view, not
> dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> con artist.
We're all individuals!
R. Baldwin
news:VJH8b.1592$Mt2....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
I'm not.
Rich Johnson
<vze4...@verizon.com> wrote:
Get back in step.
--
Rich Johnson rpjo...@mindspring.com
Robin Levett
message news:SSH8b.15580$pd5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
You're the only one who's not...
--
Robin "I am not a number" Levett.
(Too lazy to get one, I suppose;-))
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue -
for email)
AC
George Schaertl
> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
At the risk of taking the bait:
Yes, I am an atheist.
Yes, some of my best friends are *very* Christian.
No, I don't find this to be a problem.
I only become angry when presented with dogma.
> I've allowed myself to be angered to the point of vulgarity and
> threats against this bunch. Shame on me. Instead, I should have
> expressed the pity I feel for the narrow mindedness shown to be the
> norm for this group.
The *plonk* echoes for nearly thirty seconds after this luser reaches
the bottom of my killfile.
> I'll continue to scan the posts to see the infrequent postings from
> people who have their brain turned on. I apologize to those people for
> my lowering of my standards to a level that could be understood by the
> majority of the fools in this group.
Back to lurking for me, too.
-Egroeg
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>[...]
>I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most of
>all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
>better comprehend what makes them tick.
Shouldn't you be reading alt.atheism instead, then? That's where the
atheists tick. The atheists here, for the most part, don't behave any
differently from the non-atheists.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by av...@doctor.com (Steve
A):
<snip>
>But most of
>all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
>better comprehend what makes them tick.
Then why post in t.o? Many (possibly even "most") of those
who accept the evidence supporting the ToE are not atheists;
seems to me you want a.a. Or you like to troll.
R. Baldwin
news:0007mvcpkhdm18nc5...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:32:51 +0000 (UTC), av...@doctor.com (Steve A)
> wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
of
> >all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> >better comprehend what makes them tick.
>
> Shouldn't you be reading alt.atheism instead, then? That's where
the
> atheists tick. The atheists here, for the most part, don't behave
any
> differently from the non-atheists.
>
They tick? I thought they tocked.
John Wilkins
Well, obviously, there is no cabal. They told me to say that.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
John Wilkins
No, they tick. Eventually, they go off...
Nantko Schanssema
>R. Baldwin <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>> "Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> news:0007mvcpkhdm18nc5...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:32:51 +0000 (UTC), av...@doctor.com (Steve A)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >[...]
>> > >I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
>> of
>> > >all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
>> > >better comprehend what makes them tick.
>> >
>> > Shouldn't you be reading alt.atheism instead, then? That's where
>> the
>> > atheists tick. The atheists here, for the most part, don't behave
>> any
>> > differently from the non-atheists.
>> >
>>
>> They tick? I thought they tocked.
>
>No, they tick. Eventually, they go off...
...unless the atheist disposal squad gets them first. Dangerous job,
that.
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
Tim Bankerd
<lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Tropical Tim" <bank...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:5d054692.03090...@posting.google.com...
>> Atheists against everyone, especially Christians.
>>
>snip
>
> Just one note about the fools in this group, in the last thread the you
>butted into you made a strong assertions which you refused to back up with
>any references and then refused to retract you statement. You then condemned
>the group for not checking the web for you. I would like to remind the group
>of "atheistic fools" here to not discuss any thing with you until you agree
>fully to this condition.
>
>Lane
You refer to the "Mind" postings? I posted the links necessary to
validate my statements. To copy them from one place on the web to
another would be a waste of bandwidth.
I retract nothing of what I stated in reference to the "Mind"
postings.
You refer to a condition but don't state what that condition is.
Steve A
plenty of atheists (atheists=agnostics who actually make an affirming
statement about God (or gods) not existing) to be found making
comments here in t.o. To anyone who thinks that this is not the case,
I suggest you lurk here for awhile. . . I never said that all t.o.
evolutionists are atheists (this is plainly not the case), but I did
recognize that there are atheists who take their roles here in t.o.
Now for my response to Dick:
> Dick C <dic...@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93F55DD2F930...@216.168.3.50>...
> Steve A wrote in talk.origins
>
> > I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
> of
> > all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> > better comprehend what makes them tick.
>
> What does evolution have to do with atheism?
To sum it up for you, here's a quote from page 139 of "Evolution and
Christian Faith": ". . . Professor [Arthur] Keith [the noted English
Anthropologist] wrote concerning the theory of evolution, "By this new
knowledge my youthful creed was smashed to atoms. My personal God,
Creator of Heaven and Earth, melted away. The desire to pray-- but
not the need was lost; for one cannot pray to an abstraction." A
biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
basis of life.""
IOW, if science by definition outlaws God, then an atheist becomes
quite comfortable with accepting an evolutionary-science view of
origins.
> And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
> anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed here
by t.o. denizens.
> Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> no atheist world view.
A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
processes (chance mutations) from once non-living matter over eons of
time. Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
share common beliefs".
> Each of us have our own world view, not
> dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> con artist.
Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
Steve A.
Dick C
> Before I comment below, I think it's worth mentioning that there are
> plenty of atheists (atheists=agnostics who actually make an affirming
> statement about God (or gods) not existing) to be found making
> comments here in t.o. To anyone who thinks that this is not the
case,
> I suggest you lurk here for awhile. . . I never said that all t.o.
> evolutionists are atheists (this is plainly not the case), but I did
> recognize that there are atheists who take their roles here in t.o.
So? There are also a great many people of various religions that take
part here and accept evolution. And of the people that are against
evolution the greatest number are those who worship the first book
of the bible, rather than the christian god, like they claim.
Oh, and like I said, atheists do not believe in god, period. Some may
go farther and assert that there is no god, but the basic position
of an atheist is the lack of belief in gods.
Science, does not outlaw god. Science does not use god as an
explanation. There is plenty of room for gods in there private lives.
>
>> And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
>> anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
>
> There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
> be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
> necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
> least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed
here
> by t.o. denizens.
Since there is no proof of any god, except in various holy books,
and since there is no way of telling which holy book is correct, or
which, if any, god is correct, there is no point in even bringing
up a god when it comes to considering any part of science.
>
>> Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
>> no atheist world view.
>
> A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and
ability
> to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> processes (chance mutations) from once non-living matter over eons of
> time. Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> share common beliefs".
I suggest that go and learn about science, and what the evidence really
is for common descent before pontificating on the subject matter. Then
I suggest you stop and consider what I said about world views.
Evolution is not my world view, it is not my religion, is not even
a part of my day to day life, anymore than it is for anybody else
who does not work in an area afected by it.
>
>> Each of us have our own world view, not
>> dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
>> con artist.
>
> Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
Yes, I can and have looked at the both sides. I used to be Christian.
I can also see the con artists for christianity on television, on the
street corners, in the churches.
Ken Shaw
I'm an atheist and I happen to be friends with a quite a few other atheists.
The majority of my friends are not atheists because of the ToE, they are
atheists because religion failed the giggle test for them.
For myself I became an atheist by about age 10 when my families minister
could not answer this simple question, Why do you give a fire and brimstone
sermon every week threaten eternal damnation to anyone who dies without
being "born again in Christ" to a church composed exclusively of adult
members and children too young to become members but who will all undergo
baptism just after they turn 12?
Since then I have studied all the worlds major religions and have attended
services of almost all those that allow nonmembers to attend. My conclusion
is that all religions are meant to give people a warm safe feeling in the
face of the certainty of death and have little else to offer.
The only religious service that I didn't find absolutely insulting degrading
and designed to support a nonproductive clergy was eastern US Society of
Friends which while still drawing on christianity at least is a quiet
restful service that let me walk away without wanting to start laughing.
Ken
Earle Jones
av...@doctor.com (Steve A) wrote:
[...]
*
The idea that "...science by definition outlaws God..." is absurd.
Science has nothing to say about any god, one way or the other.
You would like to believe that science is that great force that argues
against god, but you would be wrong. The domain of science is this:
First, observe. Then, explain.
Up to now, the explanations of our observations have not required any
"God". There are certainly some observations that have not yet been
explained but that does not imply that some "God" is the cause.
Two hundred years ago, "God" was understood to be the cause of
earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes. He was expressing his anger at
the sinful inhabitants (which he created, of course) of our planet.
We know better today.
Science does not "outlaw God"; the subject simply just doesn't come
up. This must be very frustrating to creationist Christians who need
to explain every natural event by claiming that "Goddidit".
Well, here's another sound bite: "Goddidntdoit".
earle
*
"Evolution does not require the nonexistence of God, it merely
allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from those
who fear the nonexistence of God more than they fear God Himself."
--Keith Doyle
Nick Keighley
> > Dick C <dic...@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns93F55DD2F930...@216.168.3.50>...
> > Steve A wrote in talk.origins
<snip>
> > > I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
> > > of all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> > > better comprehend what makes them tick.
why do atheists need more of an explanation than anyone else?
> > What does evolution have to do with atheism?
>
> To sum it up for you, here's a quote from page 139 of "Evolution and
> Christian Faith": ". . . Professor [Arthur] Keith [the noted English
> Anthropologist] wrote concerning the theory of evolution, "By this new
> knowledge my youthful creed was smashed to atoms. My personal God,
> Creator of Heaven and Earth, melted away. The desire to pray-- but
> not the need was lost; for one cannot pray to an abstraction."
so? That's his view it doesn't make it everyones.
> [...] A
> biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
> my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
> the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
> of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
> basis of life.""
the point is it's very difficult to investigate something if you start
out assuming extra-natural causes. Are detectives and coroners atheists?
> IOW, if science by definition outlaws God, then an atheist becomes
> quite comfortable with accepting an evolutionary-science view of
> origins.
>
> > And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
> > anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
>
> There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
> be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
> necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
> least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed here
> by t.o. denizens.
rarely I'd say.
> > Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> > no atheist world view.
>
> A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
> to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> processes (chance mutations)
I think you mean "and natural selection".
> [...] from once non-living matter over eons of time.
you are conflating evolution (an explanation for the diversity of life)
with abiogenesis (the origin of life). Do you accept evolution as an
explanation for diversity?
> Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> share common beliefs".
>
> > Each of us have our own world view, not
> > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> > con artist.
>
> Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
by whom were the atheists conned?
--
Nick Keighley
There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as though everything is a miracle.
Albert Einstein
Steve A
>
> > > > I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
> > > > of all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> > > > better comprehend what makes them tick.
>
> why do atheists need more of an explanation than anyone else?
I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
(weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
(planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
processes. I find it interesting that someone can look at life itself
and think that molecules can self-organize a genetic code without an
intelligence getting involved. I find it interesting that someone can
look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
> > > What does evolution have to do with atheism?
> >
> > To sum it up for you, here's a quote from page 139 of "Evolution and
> > Christian Faith": ". . . Professor [Arthur] Keith [the noted English
> > Anthropologist] wrote concerning the theory of evolution, "By this new
> > knowledge my youthful creed was smashed to atoms. My personal God,
> > Creator of Heaven and Earth, melted away. The desire to pray-- but
> > not the need was lost; for one cannot pray to an abstraction."
>
> so? That's his view it doesn't make it everyones.
Many atheists who have embraced the Theory of Evolution (macro-scale)
are people who have a similar Arthur Keith story to tell. It may not
be every Atheist's story, but it is common among those evolutionists
who label themselves as Atheists.
> > [...] A
> > biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
> > my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
> > the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
> > of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
> > basis of life.""
>
> the point is it's very difficult to investigate something if you start
> out assuming extra-natural causes. Are detectives and coroners atheists?
Actually detectives and coroners spend alot of time looking into
intelligently designed causes for occurances that need to be
satisfactorily explained.
How is it that Intelligent Design is constantly called unscientific in
the realm of origins, when the forensics branch of science grounds
itself in ID? I find this curious.
> > IOW, if science by definition outlaws God, then an atheist becomes
> > quite comfortable with accepting an evolutionary-science view of
> > origins.
> >
> > > And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
> > > anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
> >
> > There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
> > be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
> > necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
> > least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed here
> > by t.o. denizens.
>
> rarely I'd say.
So you're saying that most t.o. denizens here are willing to concede
that scientific explanations of the cause of lifeform complexity can
allow for God (or at least an agent who employed Intelligent Design
long ago), among other naturalistic explanations??? I think you need
to spend more time in this newsgroup. . . This is clearly not what's
going on here.
> > > Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> > > no atheist world view.
> >
> > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
> > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> > processes (chance mutations)
>
> I think you mean "and natural selection".
That's certainly a valid addition.
> > [...] from once non-living matter over eons of time.
>
> you are conflating evolution (an explanation for the diversity of life)
> with abiogenesis (the origin of life).
I understand what Abiogenesis means. I never stated that "living from
nonliving matter" was part of the process of Evolution (go back and
reread what I was pointing out (Oops, you snipped it all out. . .)).
What I was getting at, was that Atheists all have a philosophy that is
grounded in something miraculous happening to non-living matter.
> Do you accept evolution as an explanation for diversity?
Yes. Birds undergo variation just as crocodiles undergo variation.
What I don't buy is that a scaly reptile can (over a number of
generations) evolve into a bird with wings covered with intricately
placed and intricately put-together feathers (barbs, barbules with
hooks, etc. . .). This is much more than variation-- it's fantasy.
You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
initial form of life.
> > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> > share common beliefs".
> >
> > > Each of us have our own world view, not
> > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> > > con artist.
> >
> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
>
> by whom were the atheists conned?
By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
be?
Steve A.
Steve A
>
> > Before I comment below, I think it's worth mentioning that there are
> > plenty of atheists (atheists=agnostics who actually make an affirming
> > statement about God (or gods) not existing) to be found making
> > comments here in t.o. To anyone who thinks that this is not the
> case,
> > I suggest you lurk here for awhile. . . I never said that all t.o.
> > evolutionists are atheists (this is plainly not the case), but I did
> > recognize that there are atheists who take their roles here in t.o.
>
> So?
The reason I wrote the above was in response to others (not yourself)
who purported that I was trying to take a position that pretty much
every evolutionist in t.o. is an atheist. I just wanted to set the
record straight in my only posting in this subject for the night.
> There are also a great many people of various religions that take
> part here and accept evolution.
Sounds like people who have either been misled or people who have been
convinced that it just doesn't matter what they believe when it comes
to origins (since it was something that occured so long ago, and thus
doesn't play into their daily lives). I think it's sad that the
masses are so willing to just take what their professors say as gospel
truth without questioning and challenging their positions.
> And of the people that are against
> evolution the greatest number are those who worship the first book
> of the bible, rather than the christian god, like they claim.
> Oh, and like I said, atheists do not believe in god, period. Some may
> go farther and assert that there is no god, but the basic position
> of an atheist is the lack of belief in gods.
Lack of belief in a god= saying there is no such thing as a god.
Atheists make an affirming statement about there being no God.
So are you saying that those who employ science (Historical science)
are barred from making statements about ID? If that's the case, then
forensic science shouldn't be looking into any explanations other than
naturalistic explanations (ie. a rock from a nearby volcanic blast
must've thrown that rock that smashed a car windshield and hit the
head of that motorist passing beneath a pedestrian overpass. . .).
What do you think of forensic science (which obviously does NOT shy
away from ID)?
> There is plenty of room for gods in there private lives.
That's like saying that the idea of intelligent designed crimes
doesn't have a place in forensic science, but can be an important part
of what the scientists think about when they go home from work.
> >> And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
> >> anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
> >
> > There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
> > be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
> > necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
> > least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed
> here
> > by t.o. denizens.
>
> Since there is no proof of any god, except in various holy books,
> and since there is no way of telling which holy book is correct,
Ah, now this is where you are wrong. But I suppose I'm going to have
to assume that my interpretations of scripture passages will be
unacceptable to you. Somehow I doubt that you or I really have a big
desire to get into apologetics of scripture passages here in the
origins newsgroup, so I'll not be going there.
I'll just mention one thing here: I've looked into Joseph Smith's
claims and have rejected Mormonism due to some very crucial problems
with their stance that happens to be inconsistent with the very
scriptures they call God-given. I've also rejected the idea of
becoming a Jehovah's Witness due to inconsistencies with scripture.
There is a way of telling what is correct scripture and what is
incorrect, and it involves looking deeply into what core beliefs the
people have and what motivates them.
> or
> which, if any, god is correct, there is no point in even bringing
> up a god when it comes to considering any part of science.
I don't see a problem with recognizing that an intelligent agent
brought about the DNA information system (essentially a language with
meaning) which is now present in all lifeforms here on Earth. Naming
the agent as the God of Abraham may not be something that is
appropriate in a science classroom, but why would calling the agent
'an intelligent designer' be wrong?
> >> Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> >> no atheist world view.
> >
> > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and
> ability
> > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> > processes (chance mutations) from once non-living matter over eons of
> > time. Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> > share common beliefs".
>
> I suggest that go and learn about science,
And what science supports the belief that amino acids can come
together in a way that would promote protein formation without the
directions given by DNA???
> and what the evidence really
> is for common descent before pontificating on the subject matter.
How is common descent related to abiogenesis?
> Then
> I suggest you stop and consider what I said about world views.
I have, and I disagree.
> Evolution is not my world view, it is not my religion, is not even
> a part of my day to day life, anymore than it is for anybody else
> who does not work in an area afected by it.
Well then, do you think that the philosophy of Methodological
Naturalism has anything to do with your stance as an Atheist?
> >> Each of us have our own world view, not
> >> dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> >> con artist.
> >
> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
>
> Yes, I can and have looked at the both sides. I used to be Christian.
> I can also see the con artists for christianity on television, on the
> street corners, in the churches.
I'm sorry that hypocrits led you to think that a faith in Christ leads
to a bad place. These hypocrits will have to answer to their Creator
for doing that which was contrary to what He had directed in
scripture.
Concerning Jesus Christ, what made you think he was a fraud? Or do
you just think he was a deluded lunatic?
Steve A.
John Wilkins
> > nick.k...@marconi.com (Nick Keighley) wrote in message news:
> >
...
> > > > What does evolution have to do with atheism?
> > >
> > > To sum it up for you, here's a quote from page 139 of "Evolution and
> > > Christian Faith": ". . . Professor [Arthur] Keith [the noted English
> > > Anthropologist] wrote concerning the theory of evolution, "By this new
> > > knowledge my youthful creed was smashed to atoms. My personal God,
> > > Creator of Heaven and Earth, melted away. The desire to pray-- but
> > > not the need was lost; for one cannot pray to an abstraction."
> >
> > so? That's his view it doesn't make it everyones.
>
> Many atheists who have embraced the Theory of Evolution (macro-scale)
> are people who have a similar Arthur Keith story to tell. It may not
> be every Atheist's story, but it is common among those evolutionists
> who label themselves as Atheists.
...
A much *more* common story among atheists who are ex-Christians is that
they were revolted by the lies, duplicity, stupidity and moral decay of
the Christian church they were part of. Using this logic (that if it is
a story then it must be a real phenomenon) can we conclude that the
Christian church is stupid and morally deficient?
John Wilkins
> Lack of belief in a god= saying there is no such thing as a god.
> Atheists make an affirming statement about there being no God.
Lack of belief in a god = saying nothing about a god
Atheism = saying there is definitely no god
Lack of active belief is not identical to active disbelief.
Nick Keighley
> > > > > I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
> > > > > of all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> > > > > better comprehend what makes them tick.
> >
> > why do atheists need more of an explanation than anyone else?
>
> I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
> microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
> (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
> (planetary bodies orbitting a star),
electrons don't orbit in the sense that planets do. Nor do weather
systems. Do you see Intelligent Design every time you pull the plug
out of the bath?
> the galaxies (many planetary
> systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
> galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
> processes.
I find it bizzare that anyone can see design in all this. They just
look like natural processes to me. What are galaxies for? Why so
many of them? Why is the universe so large, yet so unreachable?
> [...] I find it interesting that someone can look at life itself
> and think that molecules can self-organize a genetic code without an
> intelligence getting involved.
I find it easier to accept that people find this needs a designer.
I may not agree, but I understand. Designer galaxies baffle me
completly.
> [...] I find it interesting that someone can
> look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
> what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
> reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
> metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
bacteria are simpler than your component cells.
> > > > What does evolution have to do with atheism?
> > >
> > > To sum it up for you, here's a quote from page 139 of "Evolution and
> > > Christian Faith": ". . . Professor [Arthur] Keith [the noted English
> > > Anthropologist] wrote concerning the theory of evolution, "By this new
> > > knowledge my youthful creed was smashed to atoms. My personal God,
> > > Creator of Heaven and Earth, melted away. The desire to pray-- but
> > > not the need was lost; for one cannot pray to an abstraction."
> >
> > so? That's his view it doesn't make it everyones.
>
> Many atheists who have embraced the Theory of Evolution (macro-scale)
> are people who have a similar Arthur Keith story to tell. It may not
> be every Atheist's story, but it is common among those evolutionists
> who label themselves as Atheists.
why have you started capitalising "Atheists"? And lots of christians
accept evolution.
> > > [...] A
> > > biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
> > > my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
> > > the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
> > > of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
> > > basis of life.""
> >
> > the point is it's very difficult to investigate something if you start
> > out assuming extra-natural causes. Are detectives and coroners atheists?
>
> Actually detectives and coroners spend alot of time looking into
> intelligently designed causes for occurances that need to be
> satisfactorily explained.
>
> How is it that Intelligent Design is constantly called unscientific in
> the realm of origins, when the forensics branch of science grounds
> itself in ID? I find this curious.
hmm. I walked into that one. I think there is a slight difference in
kind between the Intelligent Designer (why not come clean and just
say God? It's shorter and more honest) who forges atoms in his work
shops and galaxies in his yard and the drugged up mugger who knifed
someone for a few dollars.
The coroners and detectives arn't expecting to serve a writ on He Who
Made Copper and Quasars but on that jumpy guy they found nearby with
blood stains on his shirt. The don't assume the extra-natural.
> > > IOW, if science by definition outlaws God, then an atheist becomes
> > > quite comfortable with accepting an evolutionary-science view of
> > > origins.
> > >
> > > > And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
> > > > anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
> > >
> > > There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
> > > be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
> > > necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
> > > least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed here
> > > by t.o. denizens.
> >
> > rarely I'd say.
>
> So you're saying that most t.o. denizens here are willing to concede
> that scientific explanations of the cause of lifeform complexity can
> allow for God
I think many TO denizens accept evolution whilst also having a belief
in God. Gould's separate magisteria (did I spell that right?) comes to
mind. God and evolution are spearate realms of discourse and you can
be a theist, agnostic or atheist and still think evolutionary biology
is the best available explanation for the observed diversity of life
on earth.
> [...] (or at least an agent who employed Intelligent Design
> long ago), among other naturalistic explanations??? I think you need
> to spend more time in this newsgroup. . . This is clearly not what's
> going on here.
Then you get sneaky. Accepting God does not mean there has to be an
intelligent agent who employed Intelligent Design long ago. Yes in
fact if refusal to believe in your intelligent agent is a definition
of atheism then yes, a lot of TO posters are atheists.
You have shifted your ground from "most TO posters outlaw god" to
"anyone who doesn't believe in my agent is an atheist". And you're the
one who's trying to work out what makes people tick...
<snip>
> > > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> > > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
> > > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> > > processes (chance mutations)
> >
> > I think you mean "and natural selection".
>
> That's certainly a valid addition.
ok
> > > [...] from once non-living matter over eons of time.
> >
> > you are conflating evolution (an explanation for the diversity of life)
> > with abiogenesis (the origin of life).
>
> I understand what Abiogenesis means. I never stated that "living from
> nonliving matter" was part of the process of Evolution (go back and
> reread what I was pointing out (Oops, you snipped it all out. . .)).
> What I was getting at, was that Atheists all have a philosophy that is
> grounded in something miraculous happening to non-living matter.
fair enough.
> > Do you accept evolution as an explanation for diversity?
>
> Yes. Birds undergo variation just as crocodiles undergo variation.
> What I don't buy is that a scaly reptile can (over a number of
> generations) evolve into a bird with wings covered with intricately
> placed and intricately put-together feathers (barbs, barbules with
> hooks, etc. . .). This is much more than variation-- it's fantasy.
then there's dinosaurs with feathers and birds with teeth. Birds still
have scales on their legs. Are all birds related by common descent?
Did God make every bird or do they evolve a bit? Are all mammals related
by CD?
> You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
> descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
> initial form of life.
>
> > > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> > > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> > > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> > > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> > > share common beliefs".
> > >
> > > > Each of us have our own world view, not
> > > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> > > > con artist.
> > >
> > > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
> >
> > by whom were the atheists conned?
>
> By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
> live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
> Hypocrits abound in our world.
and some of them are christians. I've met good christians and bad
christians. I've met good and bad people without specific religions.
The two don't appear to be correlated to me. Sorry.
Can we trust atheists when they teach? Surely they are much less
likely to be hipocrites (not having to try and follow the Bible)?
> [...] Why look at hypocrits to determine
> what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
> and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
> be?
I take you refer to the bible? New Testement?
--
Nick Keighley
"you have discarded the baby of ethical choice
with the bathwater of weak determinism"
AC
Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>> nick.k...@marconi.com (Nick Keighley) wrote in message news:
>>
>> > > > I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
>> > > > of all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
>> > > > better comprehend what makes them tick.
>>
>> why do atheists need more of an explanation than anyone else?
>
> I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
> microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
> (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
> (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
> systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
> galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
> processes.
That's because the universe isn't a neat tidy place. It doesn't exhibit the
traits of a well-oiled machine laid down carefully by some grand designer.
It is a violent, chaotic place that, at its smallest level, is even
fundementally unpredictable.
> I find it interesting that someone can look at life itself
> and think that molecules can self-organize a genetic code without an
> intelligence getting involved.
Since I don't think very many people actually believe that DNA was the
original hereditary system for life, this statement seems pretty odd.
> I find it interesting that someone can
> look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
> what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
> reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
> metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
This all sounds like an argument from incredulity to me.
>
>> > > What does evolution have to do with atheism?
>> >
>> > To sum it up for you, here's a quote from page 139 of "Evolution and
>> > Christian Faith": ". . . Professor [Arthur] Keith [the noted English
>> > Anthropologist] wrote concerning the theory of evolution, "By this new
>> > knowledge my youthful creed was smashed to atoms. My personal God,
>> > Creator of Heaven and Earth, melted away. The desire to pray-- but
>> > not the need was lost; for one cannot pray to an abstraction."
>>
>> so? That's his view it doesn't make it everyones.
>
> Many atheists who have embraced the Theory of Evolution (macro-scale)
> are people who have a similar Arthur Keith story to tell. It may not
> be every Atheist's story, but it is common among those evolutionists
> who label themselves as Atheists.
>
>> > [...] A
>> > biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
>> > my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
>> > the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
>> > of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
>> > basis of life.""
>>
>> the point is it's very difficult to investigate something if you start
>> out assuming extra-natural causes. Are detectives and coroners atheists?
>
> Actually detectives and coroners spend alot of time looking into
> intelligently designed causes for occurances that need to be
> satisfactorily explained.
But those causes are still natural. If we start moving into the realm of
supernatural, how would we determine whether a murder was committed by a
ghost, a demon or a human being?
>
> How is it that Intelligent Design is constantly called unscientific in
> the realm of origins, when the forensics branch of science grounds
> itself in ID? I find this curious.
It isn't scientific because it can offer no explanation as to who this
designer is and how this designer actually did it. It is unfalsifiable, and
thus it is not science.
>
>> > IOW, if science by definition outlaws God, then an atheist becomes
>> > quite comfortable with accepting an evolutionary-science view of
>> > origins.
>> >
>> > > And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
>> > > anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
>> >
>> > There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
>> > be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
>> > necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
>> > least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed here
>> > by t.o. denizens.
>>
>> rarely I'd say.
>
> So you're saying that most t.o. denizens here are willing to concede
> that scientific explanations of the cause of lifeform complexity can
> allow for God (or at least an agent who employed Intelligent Design
> long ago), among other naturalistic explanations??? I think you need
> to spend more time in this newsgroup. . . This is clearly not what's
> going on here.
No one here could say that God didn't do it. But neither could we say that
the Pink Unicorn didn't create the entire universe with everything in it
last Thursday with all the appearnce of age. Claiming "God did it" offers
no explanatory power at all.
>
>> > > Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
>> > > no atheist world view.
>> >
>> > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
>> > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
>> > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
>> > processes (chance mutations)
>>
>> I think you mean "and natural selection".
>
> That's certainly a valid addition.
>
>> > [...] from once non-living matter over eons of time.
>>
>> you are conflating evolution (an explanation for the diversity of life)
>> with abiogenesis (the origin of life).
>
> I understand what Abiogenesis means. I never stated that "living from
> nonliving matter" was part of the process of Evolution (go back and
> reread what I was pointing out (Oops, you snipped it all out. . .)).
> What I was getting at, was that Atheists all have a philosophy that is
> grounded in something miraculous happening to non-living matter.
It only seems miraculous to you. It does not seem at all miraculous, no
more so than the condensation of the remnants of a supernova into a new
stellar system or of a star collapsing into a blackhole.
>
>> Do you accept evolution as an explanation for diversity?
>
> Yes. Birds undergo variation just as crocodiles undergo variation.
> What I don't buy is that a scaly reptile can (over a number of
> generations) evolve into a bird with wings covered with intricately
> placed and intricately put-together feathers (barbs, barbules with
> hooks, etc. . .). This is much more than variation-- it's fantasy.
Another argument from incredulity. Please explain why your inability to
accept this is an actual and reasonable argument against it.
>
> You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
> descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
> initial form of life.
Can you give me a definition of "variation"?
>
>> > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
>> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
>> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
>> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
>> > share common beliefs".
>> >
>> > > Each of us have our own world view, not
>> > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
>> > > con artist.
>> >
>> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
>>
>> by whom were the atheists conned?
>
> By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
> live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
> Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
> what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
> and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
> be?
Please explain what the real truth of the ideology is.
--
Aaron Clausen
Rip
> >
> > > > > I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But most
> > > > > of all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I can
> > > > > better comprehend what makes them tick.
> >
> > why do atheists need more of an explanation than anyone else?
>
> I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
> microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
> (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
> (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
> systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
> galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
> processes. I find it interesting that someone can look at life itself
> and think that molecules can self-organize a genetic code without an
> intelligence getting involved. I find it interesting that someone can
> look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
> what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
> reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
> metabolism/respiration. Etc. .
I find it interesting that someone could look at the intricacies of my
back and then say that it all came about through the design of
all-knowing designer.
Was he trying to make my back think that it had the free will to go
out whenever it wanted to or what?
Steve A
> . . . Lack of active belief is not identical to active disbelief.
Why wouldn't lack of belief be the same as disbelief? Doesn't the
prefix "dis" indicate that there's a lack of belief? Seems that way
to me.
Steve A.
John Wilkins
Suppose I state that birds (Aves, to be personal about it :-) are not
mammals. Rocks are not mammals. Does that make birds rocks?
Suppose I state that some group are not theists. Must they be atheists?
Read your Aristotle, in the Categories, sect 3, pt 10, on "privative
definitions" <http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.3.3.html>
Steve A
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:27:12 +0000 (UTC),
> > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
> >
> > I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
> > microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
> > (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
> > (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
> > systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
> > galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
> > processes.
>
> That's because the universe isn't a neat tidy place.
Why does it necessarily have to be if created by an intelligent
designer?
> It doesn't exhibit the
> traits of a well-oiled machine laid down carefully by some grand designer.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the Designer wishes to
remain 'behind the veil' so faith can be brought into the human
equation? If not why not?
> It is a violent, chaotic place that, at its smallest level, is even
> fundementally unpredictable.
As a Christian I can say that there is a religious explanation for
this, but I will hold off on getting into theology for now (that is
unless you really want to have that conversation here. . .).
> > I find it interesting that someone can look at life itself
> > and think that molecules can self-organize a genetic code without an
> > intelligence getting involved.
>
> Since I don't think very many people actually believe that DNA was the
> original hereditary system for life, this statement seems pretty odd.
Where did I say anything specifically about DNA? I mentioned genetic
code, and pretty much everyone recognizes that a code is needed to
specify the morphology and specific setup of any lifeform. Why would
you think this notion to be odd?
> > I find it interesting that someone can
> > look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
> > what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
> > reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
> > metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
>
> This all sounds like an argument from incredulity to me.
All I'm doing is recognizing that a cell (a very basic lifeform) needs
to have a bevy of pre-established features (heritable traits) in place
in order to be a viable lifeform. To believe otherwise is akin to
ignoring what scientists have painstakingly researched over the past
few decades when it comes to all lifeforms including microscopic
single-celled lifeforms.
So now you're calling an intelligent agent a naturalistic cause???
Come on. A murderer who devised a crime is an intelligent agent who
used his intellect for a purpose. Naturalistic causes lack a purpose,
and that's where I'm drawing the line-- Purposefulness.
With regard to supernatural causes (High intelligence) for mighty big
accomplishments, I don't see why this is such a problem. . . I mean
we're talking about the establishment of a genetic language here (and
an awfully expansive set of general scientific laws in our universe),
not a simple drive-by shooting after all. Sure, they both involve a
detectable intelligent agent, but the one accomplishment is so much
grander (creating as opposed to destroying life) in it's scope.
The drive-by-murderer intelligent agent should be expected to be quite
a bit less "super" than the agent who created the universe.
Nevertheless, the purposefulness is clearly there in both instances.
> > How is it that Intelligent Design is constantly called unscientific in
> > the realm of origins, when the forensics branch of science grounds
> > itself in ID? I find this curious.
>
> It isn't scientific because it can offer no explanation as to who this
> designer is
Who the Designer is may be able to be detectable scientifically.
Let's say we find that in our genetic code is a subset of sequential
prime numbers (detected as a countable series of apparently ordered
amino-acids) within the "junk" DNA, and in the midst of those prime
numbers is a set of amino acids which correlate to an encoded name,
which scientists-- through painstaking investigation-- decipher as the
name "Yahweh" (AKA Jehovah).
The designer's name would be right there.
Now I'm not saying that the Designer would do such a thing (He
probably wouldn't want to do this because of his desire to be "behind
the veil" as it were), but He *could have* done such a thing-- and it
might be remaining there to be discovered (though it would probably be
a little messed up due to the ravages of harmful mutations over time).
So don't be so sure of yourself when making statements like "it can
offer no explanation as to who this designer is". I contend that it
can offer a true explanation to who he is. It's possible.
> and how this designer actually did it.
Abiogenesis research isn't science then. How did the first proteins
synthesize themselves into existence from various amino acids without
directions from other proteins? Since Abiogenesis offers no
explanation in the "how" category, it must be something other than
scientific, right?
> It is unfalsifiable, and thus it is not science.
I can test whether an engineer can devise a good grabbing pincher
device through intelligent design. A scorpion-claw can be viewed as
an intelligently designed grabbing pincher device, and thinking of it
as being designed by an intelligence is something that's testable.
Now let's turn the tables. What in-the-field evidence do
evolutionists have to show that a pinching claw (a cell-composed
novelty in organism structure) can-- through chance mutations and
natural selection-- be built up over a number of generations in an
organism (even a rapidly reproducing microscopic organism) which at
one time had no such feature? Can evolutionist ideas of the
constructive ability of Evolution (macro-scale) be tested? I'll even
allow for scientist control over selection pressures! Why do you
think Constructive evolution (construction of some new cell-composed
morphology (with new/additional function inherent)) is anything other
than unfalsifiable?
> >> > IOW, if science by definition outlaws God, then an atheist becomes
> >> > quite comfortable with accepting an evolutionary-science view of
> >> > origins.
> >> >
> >> > > And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
> >> > > anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
> >> >
> >> > There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
> >> > be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
> >> > necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
> >> > least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed here
> >> > by t.o. denizens.
> >>
> >> rarely I'd say.
> >
> > So you're saying that most t.o. denizens here are willing to concede
> > that scientific explanations of the cause of lifeform complexity can
> > allow for God (or at least an agent who employed Intelligent Design
> > long ago), among other naturalistic explanations??? I think you need
> > to spend more time in this newsgroup. . . This is clearly not what's
> > going on here.
>
> No one here could say that God didn't do it. But neither could we say that
> the Pink Unicorn didn't create the entire universe with everything in it
> last Thursday with all the appearnce of age.
Did a Pink Unicorn heal the sick, give life to the dead, give sight to
the blind, or walk on water with numerous witnesses to back up these
amazing acts? Did the Pink Unicorn divide a sea to enable the
thousands upon thousands of P.U. followers to walk out of Egypt
through the Red Sea? Didn't think so.
The Pink Unicorn lacks evidence to demonstrate its Godship.
> Claiming "God did it" offers no explanatory power at all.
There's a history with God. He has communicated with us, and it's up
to every human being to seek out his or her Creator, and to recognize
truth when it's written down by eyewitnesses.
> >> > > Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> >> > > no atheist world view.
> >> >
> >> > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> >> > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
> >> > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> >> > processes (chance mutations)
> >>
> >> I think you mean "and natural selection".
> >
> > That's certainly a valid addition.
> >
> >> > [...] from once non-living matter over eons of time.
> >>
> >> you are conflating evolution (an explanation for the diversity of life)
> >> with abiogenesis (the origin of life).
> >
> > I understand what Abiogenesis means. I never stated that "living from
> > nonliving matter" was part of the process of Evolution (go back and
> > reread what I was pointing out (Oops, you snipped it all out. . .)).
> > What I was getting at, was that Atheists all have a philosophy that is
> > grounded in something miraculous happening to non-living matter.
>
> It only seems miraculous to you. It does not seem at all miraculous,
If it's so unmiraculous, then why is it that scientists haven't been
able to synthesize life from non-living substance? Why don't we see
spontaneous generation?
Why don't we see proteins coming together spontaneously via unguided
processes in a broth of various amino acids when electricity and or
pressure are applied? Why are all the amino acids in lifeforms
oriented in the Levorotatory position (as opposed to 50/50 L/R
orientations we see in "natural" occurences of synthesized amino
acids)?
Without genetic-code guidance, These would all be involving miracles.
> no
> more so than the condensation of the remnants of a supernova into a new
> stellar system or of a star collapsing into a blackhole.
And why would you think that the law of gravity isn't anything other
than a supernatural force?
Has science even come close to doing anything other than recognizing
that gravity is in existence? Here's the short answer: Scientists are
really good at giving the 'what it does' explanation when it comes to
gravity, but when it comes down to the question of "how", there's alot
of silence. . .
> >> Do you accept evolution as an explanation for diversity?
> >
> > Yes. Birds undergo variation just as crocodiles undergo variation.
> > What I don't buy is that a scaly reptile can (over a number of
> > generations) evolve into a bird with wings covered with intricately
> > placed and intricately put-together feathers (barbs, barbules with
> > hooks, etc. . .). This is much more than variation-- it's fantasy.
>
> Another argument from incredulity. Please explain why your inability to
> accept this is an actual and reasonable argument against it.
If barbs and barbules with hooks can organize themselves through
mindless evolving processes, we should see various new cell-composed
morphology (with new/additional function inherent) coming about in
organisms (whether they are microscopic multicellular organisms that
can reproduce rapidly or cows) we observe during research
investigations.
Alas, it doesn't seem that evolution (variation) really works in that
way at all.
> > You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
> > descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
> > initial form of life.
>
> Can you give me a definition of "variation"?
Variation is evolution on a scale which has been observed (dogs which
spawn pups which don't grow as big as their parents, cats which have
different coloration than their relatives, and birds with slightly
shorter beaks than their parents had). Some call it micro-evolution.
I refer to it as variation because the variants tend to gravitate
around a general format organism, and don't tend to stray too far from
the homebase.
> >> > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> >> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> >> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> >> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> >> > share common beliefs".
> >> >
> >> > > Each of us have our own world view, not
> >> > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> >> > > con artist.
> >> >
> >> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
> >>
> >> by whom were the atheists conned?
> >
> > By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
> > live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
> > Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
> > what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
> > and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
> > be?
>
> Please explain what the real truth of the ideology is.
The real truth is that we used to have full-communication with our
Creator, but those ties were severed when original sin of humankind
occured. Death entered into the world. Yet God provided a way to
re-attain the communication (and thus provide life) which had formerly
been lost. The key word here is 'sacrifice'. Without a sacrifice,
there would be no way to re-establish a relationship of humans with
God.
Ever wonder why various ancient and even current-day civilizations
(whether Aztecs, Vikings, Incans, Egyptians, Romans, Jewish tribes,
African tribes, South American tribes, Native Americans, etc. . .) put
alot of emphasis on making a sacrifice (killing a valued living
creature or giving of a harvest to appease a deity/deities)? It's
because humans innately know that they have a sin nature (which makes
them feel guilty) and that a price needs to be paid to cover for these
sins. Offering a sacrifice tends to pervade alot of different
cultures, and this is even pervasive in America (ever wonder why the
Democrats are not opposed to upping everyone's taxes, including their
own?).
God himself provided the sacrifice for Abraham (much to Isaac's
relief), just as God's own son (in Christ) was given as a sacrifice
for the atonement of every human being's sin (much to humanity's
relief). But without belief, the sacrifice cannot be utilized by a
sinner to establish communion with our Creator. Ultimately every
member of mankind will be judged based upon what he did with the
sacrifice that was offered up on the behalf of each of us. Those who
reject the sacrifice will never be given even one shred of a chance of
communication with the Creator (who is the source of all light and the
source of all life) forevermore, and that will be an existence of fear
and darkness. Those who have accepted the sacrifice will be able to
communicate with their beloved God and live in His light forevermore.
Since He offers peace to mankind, being in his presence will be the
ultimate departure from fear and darkness.
Contrary to what the X-files preaches, the truth isn't "out there".
It's right in front of you. What will you choose to do with it?
Steve A.
AC
>> AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message news:
>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:27:12 +0000 (UTC),
>> > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
>> > microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
>> > (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
>> > (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
>> > systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
>> > galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
>> > processes.
>>
>> That's because the universe isn't a neat tidy place.
>
> Why does it necessarily have to be if created by an intelligent
> designer?
The thought of a messy designer does not exactly fit with your notions
above.
>
>> It doesn't exhibit the
>> traits of a well-oiled machine laid down carefully by some grand designer.
>
> Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the Designer wishes to
> remain 'behind the veil' so faith can be brought into the human
> equation? If not why not?
I have considered it. I wasn't always an atheist, but the fact that I am
now should tell the rest.
>
>> It is a violent, chaotic place that, at its smallest level, is even
>> fundementally unpredictable.
>
> As a Christian I can say that there is a religious explanation for
> this, but I will hold off on getting into theology for now (that is
> unless you really want to have that conversation here. . .).
Since I don't buy into the Bible or its various interpretations, I'd say you
would be wasting your time.
>
>> > I find it interesting that someone can look at life itself
>> > and think that molecules can self-organize a genetic code without an
>> > intelligence getting involved.
>>
>> Since I don't think very many people actually believe that DNA was the
>> original hereditary system for life, this statement seems pretty odd.
>
> Where did I say anything specifically about DNA? I mentioned genetic
> code, and pretty much everyone recognizes that a code is needed to
> specify the morphology and specific setup of any lifeform. Why would
> you think this notion to be odd?
Please explain why the most simplistic self-replicating molecules needed
anything as complex as the genetic code found in organisms today. We're
talking about relatively simplistic molecules here.
>
>> > I find it interesting that someone can
>> > look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
>> > what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
>> > reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
>> > metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
>>
>> This all sounds like an argument from incredulity to me.
>
> All I'm doing is recognizing that a cell (a very basic lifeform) needs
> to have a bevy of pre-established features (heritable traits) in place
> in order to be a viable lifeform.
Even the single-celled organisms we see today are very likely substantially
more complex than the first self-replicating molecules.
>To believe otherwise is akin to
> ignoring what scientists have painstakingly researched over the past
> few decades when it comes to all lifeforms including microscopic
> single-celled lifeforms.
But since the earliest life forms were very likely far more simplistic than
even the most simplistic single-celled life we find on this planet today,
how exactly does the above represent any meaningful argument?
Are you intentionally missing the point?
>
> With regard to supernatural causes (High intelligence) for mighty big
> accomplishments, I don't see why this is such a problem. . .
I'm sure you don't.
> I mean
> we're talking about the establishment of a genetic language here (and
> an awfully expansive set of general scientific laws in our universe),
> not a simple drive-by shooting after all. Sure, they both involve a
> detectable intelligent agent, but the one accomplishment is so much
> grander (creating as opposed to destroying life) in it's scope.
>
> The drive-by-murderer intelligent agent should be expected to be quite
> a bit less "super" than the agent who created the universe.
> Nevertheless, the purposefulness is clearly there in both instances.
I don't think dNA is a language, not in any normal definition of the word.
But let's get beyond that. If we can determine that a murder is an
intelligent act and we can determine how the act was committed, please
provide me with some notion as to how we would ever know your god did these
things.
>
>> > How is it that Intelligent Design is constantly called unscientific in
>> > the realm of origins, when the forensics branch of science grounds
>> > itself in ID? I find this curious.
>>
>> It isn't scientific because it can offer no explanation as to who this
>> designer is
>
> Who the Designer is may be able to be detectable scientifically.
> Let's say we find that in our genetic code is a subset of sequential
> prime numbers (detected as a countable series of apparently ordered
> amino-acids) within the "junk" DNA, and in the midst of those prime
> numbers is a set of amino acids which correlate to an encoded name,
> which scientists-- through painstaking investigation-- decipher as the
> name "Yahweh" (AKA Jehovah).
>
> The designer's name would be right there.
So you in fact have absolutely no answer to the question, other than a silly
thought experiment.
>
> Now I'm not saying that the Designer would do such a thing (He
> probably wouldn't want to do this because of his desire to be "behind
> the veil" as it were), but He *could have* done such a thing-- and it
> might be remaining there to be discovered (though it would probably be
> a little messed up due to the ravages of harmful mutations over time).
> So don't be so sure of yourself when making statements like "it can
> offer no explanation as to who this designer is". I contend that it
> can offer a true explanation to who he is. It's possible.
I never said it wasn't possible. But the fact that this was the best you
could provide pretty much proves my point. Evoking your designer explains
absolutely nothing.
>
>> and how this designer actually did it.
>
> Abiogenesis research isn't science then. How did the first proteins
> synthesize themselves into existence from various amino acids without
> directions from other proteins? Since Abiogenesis offers no
> explanation in the "how" category, it must be something other than
> scientific, right?
>
>> It is unfalsifiable, and thus it is not science.
>
> I can test whether an engineer can devise a good grabbing pincher
> device through intelligent design. A scorpion-claw can be viewed as
> an intelligently designed grabbing pincher device, and thinking of it
> as being designed by an intelligence is something that's testable.
You are assuming that any object you observe is designed. I'm talking about
actually showing that a designer exists, and that he actually designed
anything.
>
> Now let's turn the tables. What in-the-field evidence do
> evolutionists have to show that a pinching claw (a cell-composed
> novelty in organism structure) can-- through chance mutations and
> natural selection-- be built up over a number of generations in an
> organism (even a rapidly reproducing microscopic organism) which at
> one time had no such feature?
Novelty is, in one respect, an illusion. Evolution only works with what is
already there. Over multiple generations new structures will arise, but
only out of previous structures. Consider nylon-ingesting bacteria.
>Can evolutionist ideas of the
> constructive ability of Evolution (macro-scale) be tested? I'll even
> allow for scientist control over selection pressures! Why do you
> think Constructive evolution (construction of some new cell-composed
> morphology (with new/additional function inherent)) is anything other
> than unfalsifiable?
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. We can go, gather data and compare
that to the predictions. Perhaps your little fuzzy on how science works.
There is no evidence for these claims, other than a book for which there is
no corrobation. You seem to make a lot of demands of evolution, and yet
exclude your own beliefs from it.
>
> The Pink Unicorn lacks evidence to demonstrate its Godship.
And, unless you believe what the Bible says, your god has no better
evidence.
>
>> Claiming "God did it" offers no explanatory power at all.
>
> There's a history with God. He has communicated with us, and it's up
> to every human being to seek out his or her Creator, and to recognize
> truth when it's written down by eyewitnesses.
I see no history with your god, any more than I see a history with Zeus, Ra
or Brahma. Now your jumping right out of the ring. I will say it again,
saying "God did it" has no explanatory power.
>
>> >> > > Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
>> >> > > no atheist world view.
>> >> >
>> >> > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
>> >> > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
>> >> > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
>> >> > processes (chance mutations)
>> >>
>> >> I think you mean "and natural selection".
>> >
>> > That's certainly a valid addition.
>> >
>> >> > [...] from once non-living matter over eons of time.
>> >>
>> >> you are conflating evolution (an explanation for the diversity of life)
>> >> with abiogenesis (the origin of life).
>> >
>> > I understand what Abiogenesis means. I never stated that "living from
>> > nonliving matter" was part of the process of Evolution (go back and
>> > reread what I was pointing out (Oops, you snipped it all out. . .)).
>> > What I was getting at, was that Atheists all have a philosophy that is
>> > grounded in something miraculous happening to non-living matter.
>>
>> It only seems miraculous to you. It does not seem at all miraculous,
>
> If it's so unmiraculous, then why is it that scientists haven't been
> able to synthesize life from non-living substance? Why don't we see
> spontaneous generation?
Well, scientists have created a polio virus. As to spontaneous generation,
I'm sure you realize that modern theories of abiogenesis do not make claims
that cells pop into existence.
>
> Why don't we see proteins coming together spontaneously via unguided
> processes in a broth of various amino acids when electricity and or
> pressure are applied? Why are all the amino acids in lifeforms
> oriented in the Levorotatory position (as opposed to 50/50 L/R
> orientations we see in "natural" occurences of synthesized amino
> acids)?
Since we don't know the starting conditions, how can we repeat it? But
that's not to say we won't, and even if we can never repeat abiogenesis,
that in no way falsifies evolution.
>
> Without genetic-code guidance, These would all be involving miracles.
>
>> no
>> more so than the condensation of the remnants of a supernova into a new
>> stellar system or of a star collapsing into a blackhole.
>
> And why would you think that the law of gravity isn't anything other
> than a supernatural force?
>
> Has science even come close to doing anything other than recognizing
> that gravity is in existence? Here's the short answer: Scientists are
> really good at giving the 'what it does' explanation when it comes to
> gravity, but when it comes down to the question of "how", there's alot
> of silence. . .
Science has done a great deal more. Ever heard of Newton and Einstein?
>
>> >> Do you accept evolution as an explanation for diversity?
>> >
>> > Yes. Birds undergo variation just as crocodiles undergo variation.
>> > What I don't buy is that a scaly reptile can (over a number of
>> > generations) evolve into a bird with wings covered with intricately
>> > placed and intricately put-together feathers (barbs, barbules with
>> > hooks, etc. . .). This is much more than variation-- it's fantasy.
>>
>> Another argument from incredulity. Please explain why your inability to
>> accept this is an actual and reasonable argument against it.
>
> If barbs and barbules with hooks can organize themselves through
> mindless evolving processes, we should see various new cell-composed
> morphology (with new/additional function inherent) coming about in
> organisms (whether they are microscopic multicellular organisms that
> can reproduce rapidly or cows) we observe during research
> investigations.
Why should we expect this? Please show me citations in primary literature or
in peer reviewed journals where any researcher makes this claim? You
wouldn't just be making the above up, would you?
>
> Alas, it doesn't seem that evolution (variation) really works in that
> way at all.
>
>> > You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
>> > descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
>> > initial form of life.
>>
>> Can you give me a definition of "variation"?
>
> Variation is evolution on a scale which has been observed (dogs which
> spawn pups which don't grow as big as their parents, cats which have
> different coloration than their relatives, and birds with slightly
> shorter beaks than their parents had). Some call it micro-evolution.
> I refer to it as variation because the variants tend to gravitate
> around a general format organism, and don't tend to stray too far from
> the homebase.
Then you can explain the speciation events that have been observed.
>
>> >> > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
>> >> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
>> >> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
>> >> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
>> >> > share common beliefs".
>> >> >
>> >> > > Each of us have our own world view, not
>> >> > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
>> >> > > con artist.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
>> >>
>> >> by whom were the atheists conned?
>> >
>> > By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
>> > live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
>> > Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
>> > what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
>> > and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
>> > be?
>>
>> Please explain what the real truth of the ideology is.
>
<snip dull, tiring proselytizing>
Don't waste your breath. I was speaking of evolution.
--
Aaron Clausen
Daniel Harper
<snip prior material>
>> > > [...] A
>> > > biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
>> > > my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
>> > > the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
>> > > of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
>> > > basis of life.""
>> >
>> > the point is it's very difficult to investigate something if you start
>> > out assuming extra-natural causes. Are detectives and coroners
>> > atheists?
>>
>> Actually detectives and coroners spend alot of time looking into
>> intelligently designed causes for occurances that need to be
>> satisfactorily explained.
>>
>> How is it that Intelligent Design is constantly called unscientific in
>> the realm of origins, when the forensics branch of science grounds
>> itself in ID? I find this curious.
>
> hmm. I walked into that one. I think there is a slight difference in kind
> between the Intelligent Designer (why not come clean and just say God?
> It's shorter and more honest) who forges atoms in his work shops and
> galaxies in his yard and the drugged up mugger who knifed someone for a
> few dollars.
>
> The coroners and detectives arn't expecting to serve a writ on He Who Made
> Copper and Quasars but on that jumpy guy they found nearby with blood
> stains on his shirt. The don't assume the extra-natural.
>
I think the difference between the Intelligent Designer who made the
universe and the intelligent designer who committed a crime are a bit
muddled here, so let me stick in my two cents, if you don't mind. ;->
1. The Universal Intelligent Designer (UID), if he exists, created
anything and everything in the universe. Thus, there is no reasonable
comparison point by which one can compare "designed" and "undesigned"
artifacts of creation. Even if we restrict this to living creatures, it's
not clear what the difference between a designed lifeform and an
undesigned lifeform might look like. The criminal, on the other hand, does
not commit every crime, or even every crime of a certain type. There is a
comparison standard one can use to decide whether someone, say, died of
natural causes or from a blow to the head, for instance.
2. The UID is a speculative venture, from a scientific standpoint; we have
no idea what the designer would look like, or what its behavior might be.
Criminals, on the other hand, are all-too-common, and are certainly known
to exist. We know what the modus operandi of most criminals is like, and
can make solid predictions accordingly. Not so for ID.
Not meaning to butt in, but did want to clarify here a bit. Please
continue the discussion.
--
Today, whether his critics like it or not, Charles Darwin's thought
organizes the biological science of the Western world. His work has
made possible such once-unimaginable things as organ transplants
using organs derived from subhuman species. They work because Darwin
was right. That strange thing called "creation science" is nothing
more than ignorant rantings reflecting a frightened and dying
religious mentality.
John Shelby Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of Newark,
from _Why Christianity Must Change or Die_
--Daniel Harper
Daniel Harper
> Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>
>> > wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in message news: . . . Lack
>> > of active belief is not identical to active disbelief.
>>
>> Why wouldn't lack of belief be the same as disbelief? Doesn't the
>> prefix "dis" indicate that there's a lack of belief? Seems that way to
>> me.
>
> Suppose I state that birds (Aves, to be personal about it :-) are not
> mammals. Rocks are not mammals. Does that make birds rocks?
>
> Suppose I state that some group are not theists. Must they be atheists?
>
> Read your Aristotle, in the Categories, sect 3, pt 10, on "privative
> definitions" <http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.3.3.html>
Wilkins, you are going to blow his fragile little mind.
Steve, I think the point here is that "theism" is a very particular set of
beliefs that one hold to, i.e. that there is a God and whatever related
attributes one wishes to put forward as that God's traits. Let's keep this
simple, though, and just take the statement "There is at least one god" as
bare theism, that assenting that statement true makes one a theist.
You seem to hold that one must either hold to "There is at least one god"
or else deny it, saying, "There is not at least one god" or rather "There
is no god". In reality, there are many statements one can make that lie in
between these two.
There might be a god.
I don't know whether or not there is a god.
I have no opinion on the matter of whether god exists or not.
It doesn't matter whether God exists or not.
God might exist, but we'd have no way of knowing it.
Et cetera. (And yes, Wilkins, I know that these statements are
interrelated, and deal with slight different concepts. I'm trying to keep
this _simple_.)
Agnostics tend to be people who argue that there is no evidence for or
against the existence of God, that they neither affirm no disaffirm his
existence. John Wilkins is an eloquent and intelligent example of one of
these strange creatures. So are many other people on this newsgroup.
Denying this, saying that one must either affirm god or deny him, is what
is known as a False Dichotomy.
(And just for the record, Steve, I'm a theist and a Christian, so please
don't get all bent out of shape, okay. :->)
Nick Keighley
> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:27:12 +0000 (UTC),
> > > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
your posts are getting a little long. I've only responded to some of it.
> > > I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
> > > microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
> > > (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
> > > (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
> > > systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
> > > galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
> > > processes.
> >
> > That's because the universe isn't a neat tidy place.
>
> Why does it necessarily have to be if created by an intelligent
> designer?
how do we distinguish ID from natural processes. This is *the* key
question. Galaxies look pretty natural to me. Some of the amorphous
ones just look like collections of stuff. Like cosmic dust bunnies.
Did God make those?
> > It doesn't exhibit the
> > traits of a well-oiled machine laid down carefully by some grand designer.
>
> Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the Designer wishes to
> remain 'behind the veil' so faith can be brought into the human
> equation? If not why not?
riight. So God left everything looking as if it was created by Natural
Processes so we wouldn't realise there was a designer. So all the
evidence for evolution was put there to disguise the fact that it was
all designed!
> > It is a violent, chaotic place that, at its smallest level, is even
> > fundementally unpredictable.
>
> As a Christian I can say that there is a religious explanation for
> this, but I will hold off on getting into theology for now (that is
> unless you really want to have that conversation here. . .).
go on. Explain the theology of Quantum Mechanics.
<snip>
> > >> > [...] A
> > >> > biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
> > >> > my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
> > >> > the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
> > >> > of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
> > >> > basis of life.""
> > >>
> > >> the point is it's very difficult to investigate something if you start
> > >> out assuming extra-natural causes. Are detectives and coroners atheists?
> > >
> > > Actually detectives and coroners spend alot of time looking into
> > > intelligently designed causes for occurances that need to be
> > > satisfactorily explained.
> >
> > But those causes are still natural. If we start moving into the realm of
> > supernatural, how would we determine whether a murder was committed by a
> > ghost, a demon or a human being?
>
> So now you're calling an intelligent agent a naturalistic cause???
> Come on. A murderer who devised a crime is an intelligent agent who
> used his intellect for a purpose. Naturalistic causes lack a purpose,
> and that's where I'm drawing the line-- Purposefulness.
murderers exist therefore God exists...
ok lets divide explanations for things into three catagories
(i) Natural: Rain falls on my for natural reasons.
(ii) Artifical: purposeful action of an intelligent technological
entity. Note ITEs can't break the laws of physics but we can
often distinguish there works from Natural evants
(eg. Paley's watch)
(iii) Super Natural: not constained by laws of physics.
Muurders may be purposeful but they don't defy physics. That's why
reasonable men can catch them.
Gods build atoms and galaxys and appear to be able to make the physics
up as they go along.
> With regard to supernatural causes (High intelligence) for mighty big
> accomplishments, I don't see why this is such a problem. . . I mean
> we're talking about the establishment of a genetic language here (and
> an awfully expansive set of general scientific laws in our universe),
> not a simple drive-by shooting after all. Sure, they both involve a
> detectable intelligent agent,
not if he "hides behind a veil"
<snip>
> Who the Designer is may be able to be detectable scientifically.
> Let's say we find that in our genetic code is a subset of sequential
> prime numbers (detected as a countable series of apparently ordered
> amino-acids) within the "junk" DNA, and in the midst of those prime
> numbers is a set of amino acids which correlate to an encoded name,
> which scientists-- through painstaking investigation-- decipher as the
> name "Yahweh" (AKA Jehovah).
>
> The designer's name would be right there.
over-use of the subjunctive. When you use an argument of the form
if <presumption> then <conclusion>
the <presumption> has to be plausible. Get back to us when you find
Yahweh spelled out in your DNA. If we find TMA-1 on the moon then
Aliens intervened in our evolution.
<snip>
> > No one here could say that God didn't do it. But neither could we say that
> > the Pink Unicorn didn't create the entire universe with everything in it
> > last Thursday with all the appearnce of age.
>
> Did a Pink Unicorn heal the sick, give life to the dead, give sight to
> the blind, or walk on water with numerous witnesses to back up these
> amazing acts? Did the Pink Unicorn divide a sea to enable the
> thousands upon thousands of P.U. followers to walk out of Egypt
> through the Red Sea? Didn't think so.
the Bible on it's own is not evidence for anything.
> The Pink Unicorn lacks evidence to demonstrate its Godship.
we could easily make some up if you like.
<snip>
> > no
> > more so than the condensation of the remnants of a supernova into a new
> > stellar system or of a star collapsing into a blackhole.
>
> And why would you think that the law of gravity isn't anything other
> than a supernatural force?
give me strength. And what's to stop you bunging the universe and
its entire contents into the "caused by miracles" bag. Oh, that's
what you are trying to do isn't it. (not a question).
So is electro-magnetism a natural force or is it magic? (I've always
been impressed by electric lights myself, a supernatural explanation
is fine with me).
Could you tell me what electric charge is? Not what it does. What it
*is*.
> Has science even come close to doing anything other than recognizing
> that gravity is in existence?
yup. Loads. See Newtonian mechanics. They navigated to the moon using
it. That involves a little more than "recognising its existence".
Then there's General Relativity...
> [...] Here's the short answer: Scientists are
> really good at giving the 'what it does' explanation when it comes to
> gravity, but when it comes down to the question of "how", there's alot
> of silence. . .
that's what scientists do. Creationists on the other hand can't even
manage the first step. So tell me what is gravity?
> > >> Do you accept evolution as an explanation for diversity?
> > >
> > > Yes. Birds undergo variation just as crocodiles undergo variation.
> > > What I don't buy is that a scaly reptile can (over a number of
> > > generations) evolve into a bird with wings covered with intricately
> > > placed and intricately put-together feathers (barbs, barbules with
> > > hooks, etc. . .). This is much more than variation-- it's fantasy.
Note: birds didn't evolve from crocodiles.
I note that you ignored questions I asked about common descent.
- are all birds related by common descent?
- are all mammals?
<snip>
> > >> by whom were the atheists conned?
> > >
> > > By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
> > > live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
> > > Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
> > > what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
> > > and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
> > > be?
> >
> > Please explain what the real truth of the ideology is.
>
> The real truth is that we used to have full-communication with our
> Creator, but those ties were severed when original sin of humankind
> occured. Death entered into the world. Yet God provided a way to
> re-attain the communication (and thus provide life) which had formerly
> been lost. The key word here is 'sacrifice'. Without a sacrifice,
> there would be no way to re-establish a relationship of humans with
> God.
>
> Ever wonder why various ancient and even current-day civilizations
> (whether Aztecs, Vikings, Incans, Egyptians, Romans, Jewish tribes,
> African tribes, South American tribes, Native Americans, etc. . .) put
> alot of emphasis on making a sacrifice (killing a valued living
> creature or giving of a harvest to appease a deity/deities)?
so that's what the legal system of Texas is up to.
<snip>
> [...] Offering a sacrifice tends to pervade alot of different
> cultures, and this is even pervasive in America (ever wonder why the
> Democrats are not opposed to upping everyone's taxes, including their
> own?).
so Republicans are the spawn of Satan?
<snip>
> Contrary to what the X-files preaches, the truth isn't "out there".
> It's right in front of you. What will you choose to do with it?
the X-Files is a fictional TV series produced for entertainment
purposes (I make no claim that it *is* entertaining).
--
Nick Keighley
Teleology is a lady without whom no biologist can live. Yet he
is ashamed to show himself with her in public.
Ernst Wilhelm von Bruecke, [1819-1892]
Steve A
>
> I find it interesting that someone could look at the intricacies of my
> back and then say that it all came about through the design of
> all-knowing designer.
>
> Was he trying to make my back think that it had the free will to go
> out whenever it wanted to or what?
Damage occurs to backs through degenerative processes (and there's a
good explanation found in Genesis for degenerative processes). I can
go into that here if you'd really want me to do that. . .
Steve A.
Cobus Hechter
there remains a clear sense of returning to the essential topic of
this thread.
A clear exchange on the practical fundamentals of 'origins' may be
useful.
Much frustration prevails in our contemporary society. We have lost
the basic formulae for salvation and suffer gravely because of this.
The facts pertaining to the origins of the religions call for
investigation. Such an undertaking will bring to light our common
heritage.
Once basic fundamentals of religious concept can be agreed upon,
proper scientific consideration will be less hindered. Science is able
to lead humanity to the truth,
AC
Only if you can provide a falsifiable scientific explanation, as opposed to
a religous sermon.
--
Aaron Clausen
Seppo Pietikainen
> After a consideration of the feelings expressed in this grouping,
> there remains a clear sense of returning to the essential topic of
> this thread.
Really? Well, unfortunately t.o. *does* fall a victim of usually
well-intentioned (?) spate of off-topic postings. Usually they tend
to peter off after a while.
>
> A clear exchange on the practical fundamentals of 'origins' may be
> useful.
I'm waiting all 'atwitter (whatever it means, sounded like a nice
word at this point :^).
>
> Much frustration prevails in our contemporary society. We have lost
> the basic formulae for salvation and suffer gravely because of this.
> The facts pertaining to the origins of the religions call for
> investigation. Such an undertaking will bring to light our common
> heritage.
What makes you think that the "basic formulae of salvation" is/are
anything but mindless twitter of pig-ignorant fundamentalist preachers?
What makes you believe that anyone else except those under *fundamentalist*
religious oppression are suffering gravely (outside the obvious
3rd world countries with food problems and dictatorships)?
>
> Once basic fundamentals of religious concept can be agreed upon,
> proper scientific consideration will be less hindered. Science is able
> to lead humanity to the truth,
>
Gee, whuddavthunkovdat? Now, as for your next assignment, please
return with "basic fundamentals of religious concept [that] can be
agreed upon". As an add-on assignment, please report the number and
quality of the different sharp objects hanging on your person and the
count of your missing body parts.
Meanwhile, the science just plods on (with a remarkable speed,
without even a *need* of waiting for the fundies of different
religious cults to get on the same map with one another).
(I *may* have misread your initial message, bad-day-at-the-office,
you know).
Seppo P.
Dick C
>> Dick C <dic...@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message news:
>> > Steve A wrote in talk.origins
snip
>> There are also a great many people of various religions that take
>> part here and accept evolution.
>
> Sounds like people who have either been misled or people who have
been
> convinced that it just doesn't matter what they believe when it comes
> to origins (since it was something that occured so long ago, and thus
> doesn't play into their daily lives). I think it's sad that the
> masses are so willing to just take what their professors say as
gospel
> truth without questioning and challenging their positions.
What is sad is that people are willing to take the word of ancient
bronze age people over what science has discovered. What is even
sadder is that those same people insist on foisting their beliefs
on others as fact.
>
>> And of the people that are against
>> evolution the greatest number are those who worship the first book
>> of the bible, rather than the christian god, like they claim.
>> Oh, and like I said, atheists do not believe in god, period. Some
may
>> go farther and assert that there is no god, but the basic position
>> of an atheist is the lack of belief in gods.
>
> Lack of belief in a god= saying there is no such thing as a god.
No it isn't. I do not believe in any god, but I do not go around
saying there are no gods. I do not see any real evidence for a god,
so I see no reason to believe in any.
> Atheists make an affirming statement about there being no God.
Strong atheists do that, weak atheists don't.
snip
>> Science, does not outlaw god. Science does not use god as an
>> explanation.
>
> So are you saying that those who employ science (Historical science)
> are barred from making statements about ID?
My, how you like to twist words. I said that science does not use
god as an explanation. I did not say a thing about scientists being
barred from anything. Scientists, in their private lives, can believe
anything they want. However, when they are doing science, they are
following certain methods that include not resorting to unevidenced,
and unseen beings making things happen in random fashion.
If that's the case, then
> forensic science shouldn't be looking into any explanations other
than
> naturalistic explanations (ie. a rock from a nearby volcanic blast
> must've thrown that rock that smashed a car windshield and hit the
> head of that motorist passing beneath a pedestrian overpass. . .).
Well, that is what they do. They don't try to show that Thor threw
the rock through the windshield. They do, however, show that man
can and will do things like that. And that is entirely naturalistic.
>
> What do you think of forensic science (which obviously does NOT shy
> away from ID)?
You seem to think that the designs of man are equal to the designs
of your god?
>
>> There is plenty of room for gods in there private lives.
>
> That's like saying that the idea of intelligent designed crimes
> doesn't have a place in forensic science, but can be an important
part
> of what the scientists think about when they go home from work.
Ah, you think that god commits all those crimes that we find evidence
of man committing. There is of course, one major difference. Evidence.
There is evidence when man commits a crime. There is no evidence of
some god creating the heavens, earth and life.
>
>> >> And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
>> >> anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No
more.
>> >
>> > There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen
to
>> > be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
>> > necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless
(at
>> > least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed
>> here
>> > by t.o. denizens.
>>
>> Since there is no proof of any god, except in various holy books,
>> and since there is no way of telling which holy book is correct,
>
> Ah, now this is where you are wrong. But I suppose I'm going to have
> to assume that my interpretations of scripture passages will be
> unacceptable to you. Somehow I doubt that you or I really have a big
> desire to get into apologetics of scripture passages here in the
> origins newsgroup, so I'll not be going there.
What am I wrong about? That there is no evidence of gods except in
holy books, or that there is no way to tell which one is correct? Or
both?
>
> I'll just mention one thing here: I've looked into Joseph Smith's
> claims and have rejected Mormonism due to some very crucial problems
> with their stance that happens to be inconsistent with the very
> scriptures they call God-given.
Yep, and even easier to see that Joseph Smith was a convicted con
artist who figured out another way to scam people.
I've also rejected the idea of
> becoming a Jehovah's Witness due to inconsistencies with scripture.
> There is a way of telling what is correct scripture and what is
> incorrect, and it involves looking deeply into what core beliefs the
> people have and what motivates them.
You should also reject christianity in general due to the
inconsistancies of the bible with itself. Oh, wait, that is taken
care of by the way you interpret it, isn't it.
>
>> or
>> which, if any, god is correct, there is no point in even bringing
>> up a god when it comes to considering any part of science.
>
> I don't see a problem with recognizing that an intelligent agent
> brought about the DNA information system (essentially a language with
> meaning) which is now present in all lifeforms here on Earth.
Really? All that you have is a religious belief in a god, but no
supporting evidence, indicating a designer other than nature.
Remove that belief, and you are still left with the same evidence
as before, nothing. And science does not operate without evidence.
Naming
> the agent as the God of Abraham may not be something that is
> appropriate in a science classroom, but why would calling the agent
> 'an intelligent designer' be wrong?
Because there is no evidence of any designer.
>
>> >> Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there
is
>> >> no atheist world view.
>> >
>> > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells
(with
>> > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and
>> ability
>> > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through
mindless
>> > processes (chance mutations) from once non-living matter over eons
of
>> > time. Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational
evidence,
>> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this
belief
>> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
>> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
>> > share common beliefs".
>>
>> I suggest that go and learn about science,
>
> And what science supports the belief that amino acids can come
> together in a way that would promote protein formation without the
> directions given by DNA???
Huh?
>
>> and what the evidence really
>> is for common descent before pontificating on the subject matter.
>
> How is common descent related to abiogenesis?
It isn't.
>
>> Then
>> I suggest you stop and consider what I said about world views.
>
> I have, and I disagree.
somehow I doubt that you did consider anything, and I knew you
would disagree.
>
>> Evolution is not my world view, it is not my religion, is not even
>> a part of my day to day life, anymore than it is for anybody else
>> who does not work in an area afected by it.
>
> Well then, do you think that the philosophy of Methodological
> Naturalism has anything to do with your stance as an Atheist?
Nope.
>
>> >> Each of us have our own world view, not
>> >> dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
>> >> con artist.
>> >
>> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
>>
>> Yes, I can and have looked at the both sides. I used to be
Christian.
>> I can also see the con artists for christianity on television, on
the
>> street corners, in the churches.
>
> I'm sorry that hypocrits led you to think that a faith in Christ
leads
> to a bad place.
Oh, it isn't the con artists I see on tv. It is people like you who
swallow their swill whole that makes me see just how bad religion
can be.
These hypocrits will have to answer to their Creator
> for doing that which was contrary to what He had directed in
> scripture.
>
> Concerning Jesus Christ, what made you think he was a fraud? Or do
> you just think he was a deluded lunatic?
Nah, I think he was just a story made up by someone making a religion.
Happens all the time you know. Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity.
>
> Steve A.
Kermit
> > > Steve A wrote in talk.origins
>
> > > Before I comment below, I think it's worth mentioning that there are
> > > plenty of atheists (atheists=agnostics who actually make an affirming
> > > statement about God (or gods) not existing) to be found making
> > > comments here in t.o. To anyone who thinks that this is not the
> case,
> > > I suggest you lurk here for awhile. . . I never said that all t.o.
> > > evolutionists are atheists (this is plainly not the case), but I did
> > > recognize that there are atheists who take their roles here in t.o.
> >
> > So?
>
> The reason I wrote the above was in response to others (not yourself)
> who purported that I was trying to take a position that pretty much
> every evolutionist in t.o. is an atheist. I just wanted to set the
> record straight in my only posting in this subject for the night.
>
Noted. There ae atheists who have, shall we say, a less-than-keen wit.
Some are even superstitious. But on the who they accept science and
the scientific method even if they can't say much more than that.
Mostly, we are a subset of those who do or accept science.
> > There are also a great many people of various religions that take
> > part here and accept evolution.
>
> Sounds like people who have either been misled or people who have been
> convinced that it just doesn't matter what they believe when it comes
> to origins (since it was something that occured so long ago, and thus
> doesn't play into their daily lives). I think it's sad that the
> masses are so willing to just take what their professors say as gospel
> truth without questioning and challenging their positions.
My buddy and workout partner in the university is a devout Christian
and earned his PhD in plant virology. (Hi, Joe!) he would say that
science is the study of how God does things. It's conceivable that
he's wrong (I think he is on matters metaphysical) but good luck
winning an argument against him. You don't thnk it's the tiniest bit
arrogant to assume that anyone who has come to a different conclusion
than you is lazy or cowardly? Or am I misreading you here?
>
> > And of the people that are against
> > evolution the greatest number are those who worship the first book
> > of the bible, rather than the christian god, like they claim.
> > Oh, and like I said, atheists do not believe in god, period. Some may
> > go farther and assert that there is no god, but the basic position
> > of an atheist is the lack of belief in gods.
>
> Lack of belief in a god= saying there is no such thing as a god.
> Atheists make an affirming statement about there being no God.
Now I know you have a reading comprehension problem. I do not believe
there are extraterrestrials on Europa. That is *not the same as
asserting there are none. I will have a stronger opinion when we send
a spaceship there.
I am a strong atheist: I assert there is no god. Most of my fellow
atheists simply have no positive belief.
I do not assert there will be no volcanic expolsion around here in my
remaining lifetime. But I will not assert that it will *not happen.
Odds are that it won't in the next 50 years, but one has already
happened in the neighborhood - Mt. St. Helens. You do not like
inferences from your posts which you did not intend. Yet you tell my
fellow atheists they do not mean what they say they mean.
This is unlikely to be considered. A volcanic explosion would produce
other phenomena: lava, volcanic ash, earthquakes, news reports,
changes in a local mountain, landslides, etc. It is perfectly
reasonable to dismiss such a speculation immediately. On the other
hand, one could consider whether it was an accident or deliberate
assault; given only a rock and broken windshield, both are reasonable.
ID is hardly barred. It simply has failed to come up with an
explanation for all of the data (other than "God did it, and covered
his tracks"), or successful predictions (for instance, DNA nested
hierarchies match morphological nested hierarchies, which is not what
ID would predict); and any testable aspects have been disproven:
geology or or other dating dating techniques disprove a young Earth,
for example.
>
> What do you think of forensic science (which obviously does NOT shy
> away from ID)?
Eh? You mean human-caused crime?
>
> > There is plenty of room for gods in there private lives.
>
> That's like saying that the idea of intelligent designed crimes
> doesn't have a place in forensic science, but can be an important part
> of what the scientists think about when they go home from work.
Yes. How much should God enter into designing a bridge? "Dear God, I
know I'm a crummy engineer, but please don't let this bridge fall
down. Amen." Engineering has standards, and whether one is a theist or
not should not enter into his/her structural design.
How does God belief contribute to Dentistry? To chemistry?
>
> > >> And what is there to understand about the world view of atheists
> > >> anyway? You believe in a god, I don't. Period. That's it. No more.
> > >
> > > There is actually more to it than that. Evolutionists who happen to
> > > be atheists tend to be adamant that origins discussions need to
> > > necessarily outlaw God because science is supposed to be Godless (at
> > > least in their view). This kind of thinking is constantly pushed
> here
> > > by t.o. denizens.
> >
> > Since there is no proof of any god, except in various holy books,
> > and since there is no way of telling which holy book is correct,
>
> Ah, now this is where you are wrong. But I suppose I'm going to have
> to assume that my interpretations of scripture passages will be
> unacceptable to you. Somehow I doubt that you or I really have a big
> desire to get into apologetics of scripture passages here in the
> origins newsgroup, so I'll not be going there.
>
Let us know when you have convinced the next devout Shi'ite Muslim or
Hindu that you meet.
> I'll just mention one thing here: I've looked into Joseph Smith's
> claims and have rejected Mormonism due to some very crucial problems
> with their stance that happens to be inconsistent with the very
> scriptures they call God-given. I've also rejected the idea of
> becoming a Jehovah's Witness due to inconsistencies with scripture.
> There is a way of telling what is correct scripture and what is
> incorrect, and it involves looking deeply into what core beliefs the
> people have and what motivates them.
>
Truth depends on motivation?
> > or
> > which, if any, god is correct, there is no point in even bringing
> > up a god when it comes to considering any part of science.
>
> I don't see a problem with recognizing that an intelligent agent
> brought about the DNA information system (essentially a language with
> meaning) which is now present in all lifeforms here on Earth. Naming
> the agent as the God of Abraham may not be something that is
> appropriate in a science classroom, but why would calling the agent
> 'an intelligent designer' be wrong?
Only because it's unscientific. There is as yet no ID theory, no
evidence, no reason to believe in one (or many). When you come up with
verifiable predictions in science, data which ID explains better than
NS, let us know. Eventually it will get into the classroom.
>
> > >> Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> > >> no atheist world view.
> > >
> > > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> > > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and
> ability
> > > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> > > processes (chance mutations) from once non-living matter over eons of
> > > time. Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> > > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle.
Um, no. Please read the FAQ. Short response: simple natural processes
can give rise to complex structures. Look at fractals.
> > > It is this belief
> > > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> > > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> > > share common beliefs".
> >
Do not confuse historical similarities with logical necessities.
> > I suggest that go and learn about science,
>
> And what science supports the belief that amino acids can come
> together in a way that would promote protein formation without the
> directions given by DNA???
IANAbiochemist. If I were, would you understand the answer?
>
> > and what the evidence really
> > is for common descent before pontificating on the subject matter.
>
> How is common descent related to abiogenesis?
We don't know yet.
>
> > Then
> > I suggest you stop and consider what I said about world views.
>
> I have, and I disagree.
OK. But what do your world views have to do with science?
>
> > Evolution is not my world view, it is not my religion, is not even
> > a part of my day to day life, anymore than it is for anybody else
> > who does not work in an area afected by it.
>
> Well then, do you think that the philosophy of Methodological
> Naturalism has anything to do with your stance as an Atheist?
Speaking for myself, it had very little to do with it. Mostly simple
logic and much reading of the bible.
>
> > >> Each of us have our own world view, not
> > >> dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> > >> con artist.
> > >
> > > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
> >
> > Yes, I can and have looked at the both sides. I used to be Christian.
> > I can also see the con artists for christianity on television, on the
> > street corners, in the churches.
>
> I'm sorry that hypocrits led you to think that a faith in Christ leads
> to a bad place. These hypocrits will have to answer to their Creator
> for doing that which was contrary to what He had directed in
> scripture.
>
> Concerning Jesus Christ, what made you think he was a fraud? Or do
> you just think he was a deluded lunatic?
No reason to think that he necessarily existed. I assume he did, but
the bible is not a very reliable source on what he said or did. When
Paul took over the small sect a generation after his death, he built
up Jesus to what he wanted the rabbi to be. Various books were
written, Paul and a few others who followed him chose which books to
include in the new scriptures and which to reject. You're not a
Christian, really; you're a Paulist. But this has nothin to do with
science. <shrug>
--- Kermit
>
> Steve A.
Jon Fleming
<s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>I'm waiting all 'atwitter (whatever it means, sounded like a nice
>word at this point :^).
It's not really one word. It's "twitter" meaning "a state of nervous
excitement" with the prefix "a-" meaning "in". Usually hyphenated, I
think. All a-twitter.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Mike Painter
> >
> > > > > I like coming to t.o. for all three of the above reasons. But
most
> > > > > of all because I wish to understand world-views of atheists so I
can
> > > > > better comprehend what makes them tick.
> >
> > why do atheists need more of an explanation than anyone else?
>
> I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
> microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
> (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
> (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
> systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
> galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
> processes. I find it interesting that someone can look at life itself
> and think that molecules can self-organize a genetic code without an
> intelligence getting involved. I find it interesting that someone can
> look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
> what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
> reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
> metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
I find it interesting that anyone can look at the human body and think an
intelligent designer would create such crap.
Imagine a car with the air and gas intake in the same place; with some vital
parts that *can't* be fixed if they break (the elbow) ; with the driver in a
sharp edged container with no way out. (the brain is even in a worse
condition)
But wait. The designer *BUILT IN* the ability of the car to fix itself. It
has a complete set of blueprints and special parts that can form into
anything.
But of course the idiot didn't turn that ability on and the car itself is
figuring out how to do it itself.
Intelligent designer is an oxymoron coined by IDiots.
Rip
So this all-knowing designer designs planned obsolesence into our
backs, and that's a sign of intelligence?
How about air passages and food passages going through the same
opening so we choke to death? Isn't this something that an
"inteliigent designer" would have figured out in the beta testing and
fixed?
Steve A
> > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
> >> AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message news:
> >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:27:12 +0000 (UTC),
> >> > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
> >> > microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
> >> > (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
> >> > (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
> >> > systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
> >> > galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
> >> > processes.
> >>
> >> That's because the universe isn't a neat tidy place.
> >
> > Why does it necessarily have to be if created by an intelligent
> > designer?
>
> The thought of a messy designer does not exactly fit with your notions
> above.
What I've mentioned above (orbitting matter) is a clue that points to
intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
> >> It doesn't exhibit the
> >> traits of a well-oiled machine laid down carefully by some grand designer.
> >
> > Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the Designer wishes to
> > remain 'behind the veil' so faith can be brought into the human
> > equation? If not why not?
>
> I have considered it. I wasn't always an atheist, but the fact that I am
> now should tell the rest.
>
> >
> >> It is a violent, chaotic place that, at its smallest level, is even
> >> fundementally unpredictable.
> >
> > As a Christian I can say that there is a religious explanation for
> > this, but I will hold off on getting into theology for now (that is
> > unless you really want to have that conversation here. . .).
>
> Since I don't buy into the Bible or its various interpretations, I'd say you
> would be wasting your time.
>
>snip<
> Please explain why the most simplistic self-replicating molecules needed
> anything as complex as the genetic code found in organisms today.
For one thing, a code is at least needed to organize amino acids into
purposeful proteins. Without a preset code, a cell cannot even begin
to get off the ground when it comes to reproduction, let alone
metabolism, respiration, and environmental interaction.
> We're talking about relatively simplistic molecules here.
Where's the evidence that a lifeform which has respiration,
metabolism, and environmental interaction can be anything other than
relatively complex? Can you cite research studies that bring forward
analyses of lifeforms (not chemicals, mind you) that aren't relatively
complex?
> >> > I find it interesting that someone can
> >> > look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
> >> > what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
> >> > reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
> >> > metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
> >>
> >> This all sounds like an argument from incredulity to me.
> >
> > All I'm doing is recognizing that a cell (a very basic lifeform) needs
> > to have a bevy of pre-established features (heritable traits) in place
> > in order to be a viable lifeform.
>
> Even the single-celled organisms we see today are very likely substantially
> more complex than the first self-replicating molecules.
You mean those pink unicorn pre-cells with a pre-membrane and
pre-digestion/pre-excretion abilities (or disabilities) that no one
seems to be able to observe (even after looking virtually in every
conceivable place on the Earth)? Also, Where's the evidence that a
genetic code any less capable of the one we see now could be
successful?
> >To believe otherwise is akin to
> > ignoring what scientists have painstakingly researched over the past
> > few decades when it comes to all lifeforms including microscopic
> > single-celled lifeforms.
>
> But since the earliest life forms were very likely far more simplistic than
> even the most simplistic single-celled life we find on this planet today,
> how exactly does the above represent any meaningful argument?
It seems that you really want to believe (AKA have faith) that a
lesser genetic code than the one that's currently in place in our
world today has existed (and had at one time been successful). You
really want to believe (though evidence is sorely lacking) that cells
were in a more "simplistic" state than where they are today. The
problem with your belief is that those
pre-digestion/pre-excretionary/pre-Respiration (or even
pre-reproduction) proto-cells is that they would be so incredibly
handicapped that your belief is hardly anything other than a
hyper-optimistic fairy tale on a grand scale.
> >> >> > > What does evolution have to do with atheism?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To sum it up for you, here's a quote from page 139 of "Evolution and
> >> >> > Christian Faith": ". . . Professor [Arthur] Keith [the noted English
> >> >> > Anthropologist] wrote concerning the theory of evolution, "By this new
> >> >> > knowledge my youthful creed was smashed to atoms. My personal God,
> >> >> > Creator of Heaven and Earth, melted away. The desire to pray-- but
> >> >> > not the need was lost; for one cannot pray to an abstraction."
> >> >>
> >> >> so? That's his view it doesn't make it everyones.
> >> >
> >> > Many atheists who have embraced the Theory of Evolution (macro-scale)
> >> > are people who have a similar Arthur Keith story to tell. It may not
> >> > be every Atheist's story, but it is common among those evolutionists
> >> > who label themselves as Atheists.
> >> >
> >> >> > [...] A
> >> >> > biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
> >> >> > my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
> >> >> > the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
> >> >> > of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
> >> >> > basis of life.""
> >> >>
> >> >> the point is it's very difficult to investigate something if you start
> >> >> out assuming extra-natural causes. Are detectives and coroners atheists?
[Cases of spontaneous human combustion have been investigated by
detectives and coroners, and the explanations have-- in certain
cases-- ended up admitting that natural or intelligent human
etiologies completely didn't make sense in the context of each
individual killing. Are those detectives and coroners wrong for
considering causes which are outside the realm of natural and
human-intelligence causes?]
> >> > Actually detectives and coroners spend alot of time looking into
> >> > intelligently designed causes for occurances that need to be
> >> > satisfactorily explained.
> >>
> >> But those causes are still natural. If we start moving into the realm of
> >> supernatural, how would we determine whether a murder was committed by a
> >> ghost, a demon or a human being?
> >
> > So now you're calling an intelligent agent a naturalistic cause???
> > Come on. A murderer who devised a crime is an intelligent agent who
> > used his intellect for a purpose. Naturalistic causes lack a purpose,
> > and that's where I'm drawing the line-- Purposefulness.
>
> Are you intentionally missing the point?
Hopefully you're not missing mine. I put my further elaboration WRT
your point above in brackets.
> > With regard to supernatural causes (High intelligence) for mighty big
> > accomplishments, I don't see why this is such a problem. . .
>
> I'm sure you don't.
>
> > I mean
> > we're talking about the establishment of a genetic language here (and
> > an awfully expansive set of general scientific laws in our universe),
> > not a simple drive-by shooting after all. Sure, they both involve a
> > detectable intelligent agent, but the one accomplishment is so much
> > grander (creating as opposed to destroying life) in it's scope.
> >
> > The drive-by-murderer intelligent agent should be expected to be quite
> > a bit less "super" than the agent who created the universe.
> > Nevertheless, the purposefulness is clearly there in both instances.
>
> I don't think dNA is a language, not in any normal definition of the word.
The DNA code works in the same way language works. An amino acid
sequence (like a sequence of letters in a written sentence) has to be
just right to specify a particular trait (or for a series of words to
be meaningful). If one amino acid is misplaced in the code, the
communication becomes somewhat garbled (ie. the trait doesn't turn out
in a way which it was programmed to turn out). Language happens to be
just like that. It's a code with meaning that can become easily
garbled.
> But let's get beyond that. If we can determine that a murder is an
> intelligent act and we can determine how the act was committed, please
> provide me with some notion as to how we would ever know your god did these
> things.
Here's my notion: Argument from analogy can be utilized.
The argument from analogy draws from human experience to determine a
cause for something by drawing parallels to something similar that has
an already scientifically known cause. For instance, I can look at a
pair of intelligently designed needlenose pliers and draw an analogy
to a scorpion claw. Since the pliers are a product of ID and not
natural causes, so could be the case with the scorpion claw. Other
scientists (ie. forensic scientists) use particular arguments from
analogy-- Why not scientists who investigate origins? Scroll down to
my bullet-hole example below for further elaboration on this.
> >> > How is it that Intelligent Design is constantly called unscientific in
> >> > the realm of origins, when the forensics branch of science grounds
> >> > itself in ID? I find this curious.
> >>
> >> It isn't scientific because it can offer no explanation as to who this
> >> designer is
> >
> > Who the Designer is may be able to be detectable scientifically.
> > Let's say we find that in our genetic code is a subset of sequential
> > prime numbers (detected as a countable series of apparently ordered
> > amino-acids) within the "junk" DNA, and in the midst of those prime
> > numbers is a set of amino acids which correlate to an encoded name,
> > which scientists-- through painstaking investigation-- decipher as the
> > name "Yahweh" (AKA Jehovah).
> >
> > The designer's name would be right there.
>
> So you in fact have absolutely no answer to the question, other than a silly
> thought experiment.
I'll elaborate on this below. . .
> > Now I'm not saying that the Designer would do such a thing (He
> > probably wouldn't want to do this because of his desire to be "behind
> > the veil" as it were), but He *could have* done such a thing-- and it
> > might be remaining there to be discovered (though it would probably be
> > a little messed up due to the ravages of harmful mutations over time).
> > So don't be so sure of yourself when making statements like "it can
> > offer no explanation as to who this designer is". I contend that it
> > can offer a true explanation to who he is. It's possible.
>
> I never said it wasn't possible.
Funny, but it seemed that way to me when you said, "It (ID) can offer
no explanation as to who this designer is."
> But the fact that this was the best you
> could provide pretty much proves my point.
Intelligent design doesn't try to offer an explanation as to who the
designer is. Its proponents only attempt to show that -- like in
forensic science-- ID can be detected by drawing on experience.
You've asked me to concede that intelligent design isn't scientific
because it doesn't identify the name of the designer, but the fact
that the designer isn't named in this scientific endeavor is besides
the point. ID strives to isolate intelligent intervention and nothing
else!
> Evoking your designer explains absolutely nothing.
It actually explains much about the mysteries we see in the world of
lifeforms around us.
> >> and how this designer actually did it.
> >
> > Abiogenesis research isn't science then. How did the first proteins
> > synthesize themselves into existence from various amino acids without
> > directions from other proteins? Since Abiogenesis offers no
> > explanation in the "how" category, it must be something other than
> > scientific, right?
> >
> >> It is unfalsifiable, and thus it is not science.
> >
> > I can test whether an engineer can devise a good grabbing pincher
> > device through intelligent design. A scorpion-claw can be viewed as
> > an intelligently designed grabbing pincher device, and thinking of it
> > as being designed by an intelligence is something that's testable.
>
> You are assuming that any object you observe is designed. I'm talking about
> actually showing that a designer exists, and that he actually designed
> anything.
If a forensic scientist observes a hole in a body found in an alley
that has traces of gun powder around it's opening, yet there is no
bullet to put into the ziplock evidence bag, he uses the argument from
analogy that the causative agent was a bullet fired from a gun. As a
scientist (working in the historical sciences realm) it's his job to
determine if the victim died of natural causes or from an
intelligence-derived episode. Even though the scientist may not be
able to determine the name of the perpetrator or even say exactly what
kind of gun was used to fire the bullet, he still has employed science
as he was supposed to when he determines that the guy didn't die of
natural causes.
You've stated that ID isn't scientific because the designer and his
lab can't be paraded in front of our eyes, but you've totally
disregarded the argument from analogy which is a tool in any
historical scientist's toolbox. ID is just as scientific as forensic
science, because it's testable science. It delineates that which has
a natural cause from that which has an intelligence-derived cause by
employing arguments from analogy.
> > Now let's turn the tables. What in-the-field evidence do
> > evolutionists have to show that a pinching claw (a cell-composed
> > novelty in organism structure) can-- through chance mutations and
> > natural selection-- be built up over a number of generations in an
> > organism (even a rapidly reproducing microscopic organism) which at
> > one time had no such feature?
>
> Novelty is, in one respect, an illusion. Evolution only works with what is
> already there.
If that's true then what already-existing set of bones in a fish
evolved into the pelvis bone structure we find in the bodies of
terrestrial vertebrates.
If that's true then what already-existing structure(s) on reptiles
became the hair follicles/oil glands/arrector pili muscle triad?
If that's true then what already-existing structure(s) in reptiles
became the superior oblique/trochlea muscle/pulley system of the
mammalian orbit?
Etc. . .
> Over multiple generations new structures will arise, but
> only out of previous structures. Consider nylon-ingesting bacteria.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2C613B45 (scroll down to the last three
paragraphs.)
> >Can evolutionist ideas of the
> > constructive ability of Evolution (macro-scale) be tested? I'll even
> > allow for scientist control over selection pressures! Why do you
> > think Constructive evolution (construction of some new cell-composed
> > morphology (with new/additional function inherent)) is anything other
> > than unfalsifiable?
>
> Evolutionary theory makes predictions.
Actually it's always used to explain that which has already taken
place. It's more of a metaphysical philosophy than a branch of
science. . .
> We can go, gather data and compare
> that to the predictions. Perhaps your little fuzzy on how science works.
Perhaps you're a little fuzzy on the short-comings of evolution's
predictive power (I'm talking about evolution on a macro-scale here).
The Bible is a compilation of individual accounts, letters, and four
well-known researched biographies (the Gospels). The books of the
Bible were all-- at one time-- separate writings. It wasn't until
years and years after they were written that they were compiled all
together in one very big book. They were put together because they
had consistency one with another. No corroboration??? You've got to
be kidding me. These books of the Bible all corroborate one another.
> You seem to make a lot of demands of evolution, and yet
> exclude your own beliefs from it.
That's not at all true. My faith has been held to the fire and it has
been strong enough to withstand alot of flames.
> > The Pink Unicorn lacks evidence to demonstrate its Godship.
>
> And, unless you believe what the Bible says, your god has no better
> evidence.
When you realize that each book of the Bible was penned by writers
from various backgrounds (Moses was raised by Egyptians, David was a
military leader who was humbled by his own short-comings, Paul was
brought up in Jewish tradition/legalism and persecuted Christians
until his conversion, Luke was raised in a home where he gained a good
respect for science, etc. . .) and then see how consistent the truth
is across the board, it becomes quite apparent that God inspired these
writers to write what they did. It works together and the pieces fit
together like a puzzle.
> >> Claiming "God did it" offers no explanatory power at all.
> >
> > There's a history with God. He has communicated with us, and it's up
> > to every human being to seek out his or her Creator, and to recognize
> > truth when it's written down by eyewitnesses.
>
> I see no history with your god,
Then you haven't read very much of the Bible.
> any more than I see a history with Zeus, Ra or Brahma.
Then you haven't read very much of the Bible-- there's real history in
there.
> Now your jumping right out of the ring. I will say it again,
> saying "God did it" has no explanatory power.
Recognizing design has much explanatory power.
> >> >> > > Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> >> >> > > no atheist world view.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> >> >> > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
> >> >> > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> >> >> > processes (chance mutations)
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you mean "and natural selection".
> >> >
> >> > That's certainly a valid addition.
> >> >
> >> >> > [...] from once non-living matter over eons of time.
> >> >>
> >> >> you are conflating evolution (an explanation for the diversity of life)
> >> >> with abiogenesis (the origin of life).
> >> >
> >> > I understand what Abiogenesis means. I never stated that "living from
> >> > nonliving matter" was part of the process of Evolution (go back and
> >> > reread what I was pointing out (Oops, you snipped it all out. . .)).
> >> > What I was getting at, was that Atheists all have a philosophy that is
> >> > grounded in something miraculous happening to non-living matter.
> >>
> >> It only seems miraculous to you. It does not seem at all miraculous,
> >
> > If it's so unmiraculous, then why is it that scientists haven't been
> > able to synthesize life from non-living substance? Why don't we see
> > spontaneous generation?
>
> Well, scientists have created a polio virus.
What you've brought forward here is an intelligently-designed chemical
that was synthesized in a lab. I view viruses as non-living, yet
replicating, chemicals. Here's a news article I found on the web
which offers comments from scientists who agree with me:
Scientists Build Virus from Scratch
Thu Jul 11, 2:36 PM ET
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Using only a genetic map as a guide, U.S.
researchers said on Thursday they had built a polio virus from scratch
and used it to infect and paralyze lab mice.
It is the closest anyone has yet come to creating life in a test tube
-- although scientists deny a virus, which is not a living cell but
which can replicate itself, is alive in the same way a bacterium, a
plant, or a human being is.
Nonetheless, it has genetic material like all other life.
"If the ability to replicate is one of life's attributes, then
poliovirus is a chemical with a life cycle," the researchers at the
State University of New York in Stony Brook wrote in their report,
published in the journal Science.
Eckard Wimmer, who led the study, denies that he has created life.
"No, I would not say I created life in a test tube," Wimmer said in a
telephone interview. "We created a chemical in a test tube that, when
put into cells, begins to behave a little bit like something alive.
Some people say viruses are chemicals and I belong to that group."
Wimmer said once the right genetic parts were in place, the virus
virtually self-assembled in a lab dish."
Funny how the right genetic parts had to all be "in place" before it
"self-assembled", eh?!
> As to spontaneous generation,
> I'm sure you realize that modern theories of abiogenesis do not make claims
> that cells pop into existence.
Cells popping into existence are no less likely than cells gradually
coming together. . . Both are unobserved phenomena.
> > Why don't we see proteins coming together spontaneously via unguided
> > processes in a broth of various amino acids when electricity and or
> > pressure are applied? Why are all the amino acids in lifeforms
> > oriented in the Levorotatory position (as opposed to 50/50 L/R
> > orientations we see in "natural" occurences of synthesized amino
> > acids)?
>
> Since we don't know the starting conditions, how can we repeat it?
This is a statement that resembles what a creationist would say about
an omniscient, omnipotent God: 'Since we didn't observe the process
of creation, how can we repeat it?' Do you see the irony here?
Evolution proponents like to poke fun at creationists for saying
things like this, yet it gets the nod when it's used to shore up your
own position. I find that interesting.
> But
> that's not to say we won't, and even if we can never repeat abiogenesis,
> that in no way falsifies evolution.
It certainly doesn't help the position of Atheists, though.
> > Without genetic-code guidance, These would all be involving miracles.
> >
> >> no
> >> more so than the condensation of the remnants of a supernova into a new
> >> stellar system or of a star collapsing into a blackhole.
> >
> > And why would you think that the law of gravity isn't anything other
> > than a supernatural force?
> >
> > Has science even come close to doing anything other than recognizing
> > that gravity is in existence? Here's the short answer: Scientists are
> > really good at giving the 'what it does' explanation when it comes to
> > gravity, but when it comes down to the question of "how", there's alot
> > of silence. . .
>
> Science has done a great deal more. Ever heard of Newton and Einstein?
So you have knowledge that there are scientists who understand how
gravity works? (Or is it just that these scientists have some ideas of
how to conduct quantitative analyses of gravitational fields?-- That
would fall in the "what it does" category, as opposed to the "how"
category, btw.)
> >> >> Do you accept evolution as an explanation for diversity?
> >> >
> >> > Yes. Birds undergo variation just as crocodiles undergo variation.
> >> > What I don't buy is that a scaly reptile can (over a number of
> >> > generations) evolve into a bird with wings covered with intricately
> >> > placed and intricately put-together feathers (barbs, barbules with
> >> > hooks, etc. . .). This is much more than variation-- it's fantasy.
> >>
> >> Another argument from incredulity. Please explain why your inability to
> >> accept this is an actual and reasonable argument against it.
> >
> > If barbs and barbules with hooks can organize themselves through
> > mindless evolving processes, we should see various new cell-composed
> > morphology (with new/additional function inherent) coming about in
> > organisms (whether they are microscopic multicellular organisms that
> > can reproduce rapidly or cows) we observe during research
> > investigations.
>
> Why should we expect this?
If evolution is truly the mechanism through which pelvises were put
into the bodies of multicellular creatures which at one time had no
pelvises, or superior oblique/trochlear orbit pulley-mechanisms into
the orbits of multicellular animals which at one time had no such
anatomy there, then I'd say it is a reasonable thing to expect
evolutionary scientists to have at least one valid in-the-field
observation of new cell-composed morphology (w/ new/additional
function inherent) coming about via evolving processes over a certain
number of generations in a multicellular organism (probably more
likely to be seen in a rapidly reproducing multicellular
microorganism). . .
> Please show me citations in primary literature or
> in peer reviewed journals where any researcher makes this claim?
I want you to find out for me if there is one instance of this kind of
constructive evolving in the literature. There should be at least one
or two observations of this kind in all of the world's evolutionary
research, if evolution truly worked this way back in the Devonian
period or the Permian period.
> You wouldn't just be making the above up, would you?
It's a challenge that I've presented to you-- a request. If you're
wondering whether it's my challenge or maybe that I've copied it from
another creationist, I'll respond by saying that it came from none
other than myself.
> > Alas, it doesn't seem that evolution (variation) really works in that
> > way at all.
> >
> >> > You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
> >> > descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
> >> > initial form of life.
> >>
> >> Can you give me a definition of "variation"?
> >
> > Variation is evolution on a scale which has been observed (dogs which
> > spawn pups which don't grow as big as their parents, cats which have
> > different coloration than their relatives, and birds with slightly
> > shorter beaks than their parents had). Some call it micro-evolution.
> > I refer to it as variation because the variants tend to gravitate
> > around a general format organism, and don't tend to stray too far from
> > the homebase.
>
> Then you can explain the speciation events that have been observed.
To me it makes sense.
> >> >> > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> >> >> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> >> >> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> >> >> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> >> >> > share common beliefs".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Each of us have our own world view, not
> >> >> > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> >> >> > > con artist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
> >> >>
> >> >> by whom were the atheists conned?
> >> >
> >> > By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
> >> > live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
> >> > Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
> >> > what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
> >> > and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
> >> > be?
> >>
> >> Please explain what the real truth of the ideology is.
> >
>
> <snip dull, tiring proselytizing>
>
> Don't waste your breath. I was speaking of evolution.
I'm sorry you see it that way.
Steve A.
Steve A
> > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
> >> AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message news:
> >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:27:12 +0000 (UTC),
> >> > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
> >> > microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
> >> > (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
> >> > (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
> >> > systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
> >> > galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
> >> > processes.
> >>
> >> That's because the universe isn't a neat tidy place.
> >
> > Why does it necessarily have to be if created by an intelligent
> > designer?
>
> The thought of a messy designer does not exactly fit with your notions
> above.
What I've mentioned above (orbitting matter) is a clue that points to
intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
> >> It doesn't exhibit the
> >> traits of a well-oiled machine laid down carefully by some grand designer.
> >
> > Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the Designer wishes to
> > remain 'behind the veil' so faith can be brought into the human
> > equation? If not why not?
>
> I have considered it. I wasn't always an atheist, but the fact that I am
> now should tell the rest.
>
> >
> >> It is a violent, chaotic place that, at its smallest level, is even
> >> fundementally unpredictable.
> >
> > As a Christian I can say that there is a religious explanation for
> > this, but I will hold off on getting into theology for now (that is
> > unless you really want to have that conversation here. . .).
>
> Since I don't buy into the Bible or its various interpretations, I'd say you
> would be wasting your time.
>
>snip<
> Please explain why the most simplistic self-replicating molecules needed
> anything as complex as the genetic code found in organisms today.
For one thing, a code is at least needed to organize amino acids into
purposeful proteins. Without a preset code, a cell cannot even begin
to get off the ground when it comes to reproduction, let alone
metabolism, respiration, and environmental interaction.
> We're talking about relatively simplistic molecules here.
Where's the evidence that a lifeform which has respiration,
metabolism, and environmental interaction can be anything other than
relatively complex? Can you cite research studies that bring forward
analyses of lifeforms (not chemicals, mind you) that aren't relatively
complex?
> >> > I find it interesting that someone can
> >> > look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
> >> > what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
> >> > reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
> >> > metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
> >>
> >> This all sounds like an argument from incredulity to me.
> >
> > All I'm doing is recognizing that a cell (a very basic lifeform) needs
> > to have a bevy of pre-established features (heritable traits) in place
> > in order to be a viable lifeform.
>
> Even the single-celled organisms we see today are very likely substantially
> more complex than the first self-replicating molecules.
You mean those pink unicorn pre-cells with a pre-membrane and
pre-digestion/pre-excretion abilities (or disabilities) that no one
seems to be able to observe (even after looking virtually in every
conceivable place on the Earth)? Also, Where's the evidence that a
genetic code any less capable of the one we see now could be
successful?
> >To believe otherwise is akin to
> > ignoring what scientists have painstakingly researched over the past
> > few decades when it comes to all lifeforms including microscopic
> > single-celled lifeforms.
>
> But since the earliest life forms were very likely far more simplistic than
> even the most simplistic single-celled life we find on this planet today,
> how exactly does the above represent any meaningful argument?
It seems that you really want to believe (AKA have faith) that a
lesser genetic code than the one that's currently in place in our
world today has existed (and had at one time been successful). You
really want to believe (though evidence is sorely lacking) that cells
were in a more "simplistic" state than where they are today. The
problem with your belief is that those
pre-digestion/pre-excretionary/pre-Respiration (or even
pre-reproduction) proto-cells is that they would be so incredibly
handicapped that your belief is hardly anything other than a
hyper-optimistic fairy tale on a grand scale.
> >> >> > > What does evolution have to do with atheism?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To sum it up for you, here's a quote from page 139 of "Evolution and
> >> >> > Christian Faith": ". . . Professor [Arthur] Keith [the noted English
> >> >> > Anthropologist] wrote concerning the theory of evolution, "By this new
> >> >> > knowledge my youthful creed was smashed to atoms. My personal God,
> >> >> > Creator of Heaven and Earth, melted away. The desire to pray-- but
> >> >> > not the need was lost; for one cannot pray to an abstraction."
> >> >>
> >> >> so? That's his view it doesn't make it everyones.
> >> >
> >> > Many atheists who have embraced the Theory of Evolution (macro-scale)
> >> > are people who have a similar Arthur Keith story to tell. It may not
> >> > be every Atheist's story, but it is common among those evolutionists
> >> > who label themselves as Atheists.
> >> >
> >> >> > [...] A
> >> >> > biologist from the University of California at Los Angeles says, "In
> >> >> > my opinion, it is never fitting for a true scientist to deviate from
> >> >> > the natural cause explanation. If some god can create new genes out
> >> >> > of nothing at will, then there is no point in any of us seeking the
> >> >> > basis of life.""
> >> >>
> >> >> the point is it's very difficult to investigate something if you start
> >> >> out assuming extra-natural causes. Are detectives and coroners atheists?
[Cases of spontaneous human combustion have been investigated by
detectives and coroners, and the explanations have-- in certain
cases-- ended up admitting that natural or intelligent human
etiologies completely didn't make sense in the context of each
individual killing. Are those detectives and coroners wrong for
considering causes which are outside the realm of natural and
human-intelligence causes?]
> >> > Actually detectives and coroners spend alot of time looking into
> >> > intelligently designed causes for occurances that need to be
> >> > satisfactorily explained.
> >>
> >> But those causes are still natural. If we start moving into the realm of
> >> supernatural, how would we determine whether a murder was committed by a
> >> ghost, a demon or a human being?
> >
> > So now you're calling an intelligent agent a naturalistic cause???
> > Come on. A murderer who devised a crime is an intelligent agent who
> > used his intellect for a purpose. Naturalistic causes lack a purpose,
> > and that's where I'm drawing the line-- Purposefulness.
>
> Are you intentionally missing the point?
Hopefully you're not missing mine. I put my further elaboration WRT
your point above in brackets.
> > With regard to supernatural causes (High intelligence) for mighty big
> > accomplishments, I don't see why this is such a problem. . .
>
> I'm sure you don't.
>
> > I mean
> > we're talking about the establishment of a genetic language here (and
> > an awfully expansive set of general scientific laws in our universe),
> > not a simple drive-by shooting after all. Sure, they both involve a
> > detectable intelligent agent, but the one accomplishment is so much
> > grander (creating as opposed to destroying life) in it's scope.
> >
> > The drive-by-murderer intelligent agent should be expected to be quite
> > a bit less "super" than the agent who created the universe.
> > Nevertheless, the purposefulness is clearly there in both instances.
>
> I don't think dNA is a language, not in any normal definition of the word.
The DNA code works in the same way language works. An amino acid
sequence (like a sequence of letters in a written sentence) has to be
just right to specify a particular trait (or for a series of words to
be meaningful). If one amino acid is misplaced in the code, the
communication becomes somewhat garbled (ie. the trait doesn't turn out
in a way which it was programmed to turn out). Language happens to be
just like that. It's a code with meaning that can become easily
garbled.
> But let's get beyond that. If we can determine that a murder is an
> intelligent act and we can determine how the act was committed, please
> provide me with some notion as to how we would ever know your god did these
> things.
Here's my notion: Argument from analogy can be utilized.
The argument from analogy draws from human experience to determine a
cause for something by drawing parallels to something similar that has
an already scientifically known cause. For instance, I can look at a
pair of intelligently designed needlenose pliers and draw an analogy
to a scorpion claw. Since the pliers are a product of ID and not
natural causes, so could be the case with the scorpion claw. Other
scientists (ie. forensic scientists) use particular arguments from
analogy-- Why not scientists who investigate origins? Scroll down to
my bullet-hole example below for further elaboration on this.
> >> > How is it that Intelligent Design is constantly called unscientific in
> >> > the realm of origins, when the forensics branch of science grounds
> >> > itself in ID? I find this curious.
> >>
> >> It isn't scientific because it can offer no explanation as to who this
> >> designer is
> >
> > Who the Designer is may be able to be detectable scientifically.
> > Let's say we find that in our genetic code is a subset of sequential
> > prime numbers (detected as a countable series of apparently ordered
> > amino-acids) within the "junk" DNA, and in the midst of those prime
> > numbers is a set of amino acids which correlate to an encoded name,
> > which scientists-- through painstaking investigation-- decipher as the
> > name "Yahweh" (AKA Jehovah).
> >
> > The designer's name would be right there.
>
> So you in fact have absolutely no answer to the question, other than a silly
> thought experiment.
I'll elaborate on this below. . .
> > Now I'm not saying that the Designer would do such a thing (He
> > probably wouldn't want to do this because of his desire to be "behind
> > the veil" as it were), but He *could have* done such a thing-- and it
> > might be remaining there to be discovered (though it would probably be
> > a little messed up due to the ravages of harmful mutations over time).
> > So don't be so sure of yourself when making statements like "it can
> > offer no explanation as to who this designer is". I contend that it
> > can offer a true explanation to who he is. It's possible.
>
> I never said it wasn't possible.
Funny, but it seemed that way to me when you said, "It (ID) can offer
no explanation as to who this designer is."
> But the fact that this was the best you
> could provide pretty much proves my point.
Intelligent design doesn't try to offer an explanation as to who the
designer is. Its proponents only attempt to show that -- like in
forensic science-- ID can be detected by drawing on experience.
You've asked me to concede that intelligent design isn't scientific
because it doesn't identify the name of the designer, but the fact
that the designer isn't named in this scientific endeavor is besides
the point. ID strives to isolate intelligent intervention and nothing
else!
> Evoking your designer explains absolutely nothing.
It actually explains much about the mysteries we see in the world of
lifeforms around us.
> >> and how this designer actually did it.
> >
> > Abiogenesis research isn't science then. How did the first proteins
> > synthesize themselves into existence from various amino acids without
> > directions from other proteins? Since Abiogenesis offers no
> > explanation in the "how" category, it must be something other than
> > scientific, right?
> >
> >> It is unfalsifiable, and thus it is not science.
> >
> > I can test whether an engineer can devise a good grabbing pincher
> > device through intelligent design. A scorpion-claw can be viewed as
> > an intelligently designed grabbing pincher device, and thinking of it
> > as being designed by an intelligence is something that's testable.
>
> You are assuming that any object you observe is designed. I'm talking about
> actually showing that a designer exists, and that he actually designed
> anything.
If a forensic scientist observes a hole in a body found in an alley
that has traces of gun powder around it's opening, yet there is no
bullet to put into the ziplock evidence bag, he uses the argument from
analogy that the causative agent was a bullet fired from a gun. As a
scientist (working in the historical sciences realm) it's his job to
determine if the victim died of natural causes or from an
intelligence-derived episode. Even though the scientist may not be
able to determine the name of the perpetrator or even say exactly what
kind of gun was used to fire the bullet, he still has employed science
as he was supposed to when he determines that the guy didn't die of
natural causes.
You've stated that ID isn't scientific because the designer and his
lab can't be paraded in front of our eyes, but you've totally
disregarded the argument from analogy which is a tool in any
historical scientist's toolbox. ID is just as scientific as forensic
science, because it's testable science. It delineates that which has
a natural cause from that which has an intelligence-derived cause by
employing arguments from analogy.
> > Now let's turn the tables. What in-the-field evidence do
> > evolutionists have to show that a pinching claw (a cell-composed
> > novelty in organism structure) can-- through chance mutations and
> > natural selection-- be built up over a number of generations in an
> > organism (even a rapidly reproducing microscopic organism) which at
> > one time had no such feature?
>
> Novelty is, in one respect, an illusion. Evolution only works with what is
> already there.
If that's true then what already-existing set of bones in a fish
evolved into the pelvis bone structure we find in the bodies of
terrestrial vertebrates.
If that's true then what already-existing structure(s) on reptiles
became the hair follicles/oil glands/arrector pili muscle triad?
If that's true then what already-existing structure(s) in reptiles
became the superior oblique/trochlea muscle/pulley system of the
mammalian orbit?
Etc. . .
> Over multiple generations new structures will arise, but
> only out of previous structures. Consider nylon-ingesting bacteria.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2C613B45 (scroll down to the last three
paragraphs.)
> >Can evolutionist ideas of the
> > constructive ability of Evolution (macro-scale) be tested? I'll even
> > allow for scientist control over selection pressures! Why do you
> > think Constructive evolution (construction of some new cell-composed
> > morphology (with new/additional function inherent)) is anything other
> > than unfalsifiable?
>
> Evolutionary theory makes predictions.
Actually it's always used to explain that which has already taken
place. It's more of a metaphysical philosophy than a branch of
science. . .
> We can go, gather data and compare
> that to the predictions. Perhaps your little fuzzy on how science works.
Perhaps you're a little fuzzy on the short-comings of evolution's
predictive power (I'm talking about evolution on a macro-scale here).
The Bible is a compilation of individual accounts, letters, and four
well-known researched biographies (the Gospels). The books of the
Bible were all-- at one time-- separate writings. It wasn't until
years and years after they were written that they were compiled all
together in one very big book. They were put together because they
had consistency one with another. No corroboration??? You've got to
be kidding me. These books of the Bible all corroborate one another.
> You seem to make a lot of demands of evolution, and yet
> exclude your own beliefs from it.
That's not at all true. My faith has been held to the fire and it has
been strong enough to withstand alot of flames.
> > The Pink Unicorn lacks evidence to demonstrate its Godship.
>
> And, unless you believe what the Bible says, your god has no better
> evidence.
When you realize that each book of the Bible was penned by writers
from various backgrounds (Moses was raised by Egyptians, David was a
military leader who was humbled by his own short-comings, Paul was
brought up in Jewish tradition/legalism and persecuted Christians
until his conversion, Luke was raised in a home where he gained a good
respect for science, etc. . .) and then see how consistent the truth
is across the board, it becomes quite apparent that God inspired these
writers to write what they did. It works together and the pieces fit
together like a puzzle.
> >> Claiming "God did it" offers no explanatory power at all.
> >
> > There's a history with God. He has communicated with us, and it's up
> > to every human being to seek out his or her Creator, and to recognize
> > truth when it's written down by eyewitnesses.
>
> I see no history with your god,
Then you haven't read very much of the Bible.
> any more than I see a history with Zeus, Ra or Brahma.
Then you haven't read very much of the Bible-- there's real history in
there.
> Now your jumping right out of the ring. I will say it again,
> saying "God did it" has no explanatory power.
Recognizing design has much explanatory power.
> >> >> > > Atheists are individuals, we do not share common beliefs, there is
> >> >> > > no atheist world view.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A good majority of Atheists believe that the DNA code and cells (with
> >> >> > all their compartments, respiration, metabolism processes, and ability
> >> >> > to react to their environments, etc. . .) came about through mindless
> >> >> > processes (chance mutations)
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you mean "and natural selection".
> >> >
> >> > That's certainly a valid addition.
> >> >
> >> >> > [...] from once non-living matter over eons of time.
> >> >>
> >> >> you are conflating evolution (an explanation for the diversity of life)
> >> >> with abiogenesis (the origin of life).
> >> >
> >> > I understand what Abiogenesis means. I never stated that "living from
> >> > nonliving matter" was part of the process of Evolution (go back and
> >> > reread what I was pointing out (Oops, you snipped it all out. . .)).
> >> > What I was getting at, was that Atheists all have a philosophy that is
> >> > grounded in something miraculous happening to non-living matter.
> >>
> >> It only seems miraculous to you. It does not seem at all miraculous,
> >
> > If it's so unmiraculous, then why is it that scientists haven't been
> > able to synthesize life from non-living substance? Why don't we see
> > spontaneous generation?
>
> Well, scientists have created a polio virus.
What you've brought forward here is an intelligently-designed chemical
> As to spontaneous generation,
> I'm sure you realize that modern theories of abiogenesis do not make claims
> that cells pop into existence.
Cells popping into existence are no less likely than cells gradually
coming together. . . Both are unobserved phenomena.
> > Why don't we see proteins coming together spontaneously via unguided
> > processes in a broth of various amino acids when electricity and or
> > pressure are applied? Why are all the amino acids in lifeforms
> > oriented in the Levorotatory position (as opposed to 50/50 L/R
> > orientations we see in "natural" occurences of synthesized amino
> > acids)?
>
> Since we don't know the starting conditions, how can we repeat it?
This is a statement that resembles what a creationist would say about
an omniscient, omnipotent God: 'Since we didn't observe the process
of creation, how can we repeat it?' Do you see the irony here?
Evolution proponents like to poke fun at creationists for saying
things like this, yet it gets the nod when it's used to shore up your
own position. I find that interesting.
> But
> that's not to say we won't, and even if we can never repeat abiogenesis,
> that in no way falsifies evolution.
It certainly doesn't help the position of Atheists, though.
> > Without genetic-code guidance, These would all be involving miracles.
> >
> >> no
> >> more so than the condensation of the remnants of a supernova into a new
> >> stellar system or of a star collapsing into a blackhole.
> >
> > And why would you think that the law of gravity isn't anything other
> > than a supernatural force?
> >
> > Has science even come close to doing anything other than recognizing
> > that gravity is in existence? Here's the short answer: Scientists are
> > really good at giving the 'what it does' explanation when it comes to
> > gravity, but when it comes down to the question of "how", there's alot
> > of silence. . .
>
> Science has done a great deal more. Ever heard of Newton and Einstein?
So you have knowledge that there are scientists who understand how
gravity works? (Or is it just that these scientists have some ideas of
how to conduct quantitative analyses of gravitational fields?-- That
would fall in the "what it does" category, as opposed to the "how"
category, btw.)
> >> >> Do you accept evolution as an explanation for diversity?
> >> >
> >> > Yes. Birds undergo variation just as crocodiles undergo variation.
> >> > What I don't buy is that a scaly reptile can (over a number of
> >> > generations) evolve into a bird with wings covered with intricately
> >> > placed and intricately put-together feathers (barbs, barbules with
> >> > hooks, etc. . .). This is much more than variation-- it's fantasy.
> >>
> >> Another argument from incredulity. Please explain why your inability to
> >> accept this is an actual and reasonable argument against it.
> >
> > If barbs and barbules with hooks can organize themselves through
> > mindless evolving processes, we should see various new cell-composed
> > morphology (with new/additional function inherent) coming about in
> > organisms (whether they are microscopic multicellular organisms that
> > can reproduce rapidly or cows) we observe during research
> > investigations.
>
> Why should we expect this?
If evolution is truly the mechanism through which pelvises were put
into the bodies of multicellular creatures which at one time had no
pelvises, or superior oblique/trochlear orbit pulley-mechanisms into
the orbits of multicellular animals which at one time had no such
anatomy there, then I'd say it is a reasonable thing to expect
evolutionary scientists to have at least one valid in-the-field
observation of new cell-composed morphology (w/ new/additional
function inherent) coming about via evolving processes over a certain
number of generations in a multicellular organism (probably more
likely to be seen in a rapidly reproducing multicellular
microorganism). . .
> Please show me citations in primary literature or
> in peer reviewed journals where any researcher makes this claim?
I want you to find out for me if there is one instance of this kind of
constructive evolving in the literature. There should be at least one
or two observations of this kind in all of the world's evolutionary
research, if evolution truly worked this way back in the Devonian
period or the Permian period.
> You wouldn't just be making the above up, would you?
It's a challenge that I've presented to you-- a request. If you're
wondering whether it's my challenge or maybe that I've copied it from
another creationist, I'll respond by saying that it came from none
other than myself.
> > Alas, it doesn't seem that evolution (variation) really works in that
> > way at all.
> >
> >> > You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
> >> > descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
> >> > initial form of life.
> >>
> >> Can you give me a definition of "variation"?
> >
> > Variation is evolution on a scale which has been observed (dogs which
> > spawn pups which don't grow as big as their parents, cats which have
> > different coloration than their relatives, and birds with slightly
> > shorter beaks than their parents had). Some call it micro-evolution.
> > I refer to it as variation because the variants tend to gravitate
> > around a general format organism, and don't tend to stray too far from
> > the homebase.
>
> Then you can explain the speciation events that have been observed.
To me it makes sense.
> >> >> > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> >> >> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> >> >> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> >> >> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> >> >> > share common beliefs".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Each of us have our own world view, not
> >> >> > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> >> >> > > con artist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
> >> >>
> >> >> by whom were the atheists conned?
> >> >
> >> > By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
> >> > live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
> >> > Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
> >> > what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
> >> > and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
> >> > be?
> >>
> >> Please explain what the real truth of the ideology is.
> >
>
> <snip dull, tiring proselytizing>
>
> Don't waste your breath. I was speaking of evolution.
I'm sorry you see it that way.
Steve A.
AC
Your evidence is little more than the "ooh wow!" factor that I was raised on
in my fundementalist household. I discovered that "ooh wow" doesn't mean
that "goddidit" must follow.
>> >> It doesn't exhibit the
>> >> traits of a well-oiled machine laid down carefully by some grand designer.
>> >
>> > Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the Designer wishes to
>> > remain 'behind the veil' so faith can be brought into the human
>> > equation? If not why not?
>>
>> I have considered it. I wasn't always an atheist, but the fact that I am
>> now should tell the rest.
>>
>> >
>> >> It is a violent, chaotic place that, at its smallest level, is even
>> >> fundementally unpredictable.
>> >
>> > As a Christian I can say that there is a religious explanation for
>> > this, but I will hold off on getting into theology for now (that is
>> > unless you really want to have that conversation here. . .).
>>
>> Since I don't buy into the Bible or its various interpretations, I'd say you
>> would be wasting your time.
>>
>>snip<
>> Please explain why the most simplistic self-replicating molecules needed
>> anything as complex as the genetic code found in organisms today.
>
> For one thing, a code is at least needed to organize amino acids into
> purposeful proteins. Without a preset code, a cell cannot even begin
> to get off the ground when it comes to reproduction, let alone
> metabolism, respiration, and environmental interaction.
And who says that the first self-replicating molecules could do any of these
things. You seem stuck with the idea that life began as fully formed cells.
This, I'm fairly certain, is a strawman you've constructed. It certainly
does not resemble any modern theory of abiogenesis I've seen.
>
>> We're talking about relatively simplistic molecules here.
>
> Where's the evidence that a lifeform which has respiration,
> metabolism, and environmental interaction can be anything other than
> relatively complex? Can you cite research studies that bring forward
> analyses of lifeforms (not chemicals, mind you) that aren't relatively
> complex?
Again with the strawman. No modern theory of abiogenesis says that the
first life was anything like even the single celled life we see today.
>
>> >> > I find it interesting that someone can
>> >> > look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
>> >> > what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
>> >> > reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
>> >> > metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
>> >>
>> >> This all sounds like an argument from incredulity to me.
>> >
>> > All I'm doing is recognizing that a cell (a very basic lifeform) needs
>> > to have a bevy of pre-established features (heritable traits) in place
>> > in order to be a viable lifeform.
>>
>> Even the single-celled organisms we see today are very likely substantially
>> more complex than the first self-replicating molecules.
>
> You mean those pink unicorn pre-cells with a pre-membrane and
> pre-digestion/pre-excretion abilities (or disabilities) that no one
> seems to be able to observe (even after looking virtually in every
> conceivable place on the Earth)?
Who is looking for these things? I don't think anyone believes that even if
another abiogenesis event occured on Earth that the resulting molecules
could survive the products of three billion years of evolution.
>Also, Where's the evidence that a
> genetic code any less capable of the one we see now could be
> successful?
Crystals seem to do a fairly good job.
>
>> >To believe otherwise is akin to
>> > ignoring what scientists have painstakingly researched over the past
>> > few decades when it comes to all lifeforms including microscopic
>> > single-celled lifeforms.
>>
>> But since the earliest life forms were very likely far more simplistic than
>> even the most simplistic single-celled life we find on this planet today,
>> how exactly does the above represent any meaningful argument?
>
> It seems that you really want to believe (AKA have faith) that a
> lesser genetic code than the one that's currently in place in our
> world today has existed (and had at one time been successful).
Since I'm an atheist, it would be pretty odd of me to invoke magical
designers, no wouldn't it?
> You
> really want to believe (though evidence is sorely lacking) that cells
> were in a more "simplistic" state than where they are today.
Actually, I'm fairly certain that the earliest self-replicating molecules
did not look anything like cells.
> The
> problem with your belief is that those
> pre-digestion/pre-excretionary/pre-Respiration (or even
> pre-reproduction) proto-cells is that they would be so incredibly
> handicapped that your belief is hardly anything other than a
> hyper-optimistic fairy tale on a grand scale.
All they need to do is take surrounding chemicals and replicate.
If you are saying a coroner invokes supernatural causes, then yes, he is
wrong. Not knowing the cause of something is not an excuse for invoking the
supernatural.
>
>> >> > Actually detectives and coroners spend alot of time looking into
>> >> > intelligently designed causes for occurances that need to be
>> >> > satisfactorily explained.
>> >>
>> >> But those causes are still natural. If we start moving into the realm of
>> >> supernatural, how would we determine whether a murder was committed by a
>> >> ghost, a demon or a human being?
>> >
>> > So now you're calling an intelligent agent a naturalistic cause???
>> > Come on. A murderer who devised a crime is an intelligent agent who
>> > used his intellect for a purpose. Naturalistic causes lack a purpose,
>> > and that's where I'm drawing the line-- Purposefulness.
>>
>> Are you intentionally missing the point?
>
> Hopefully you're not missing mine. I put my further elaboration WRT
> your point above in brackets.
Your point what was nothing more than a justification for a god-of-the-gaps
argument.
>
>> > With regard to supernatural causes (High intelligence) for mighty big
>> > accomplishments, I don't see why this is such a problem. . .
>>
>> I'm sure you don't.
>>
>> > I mean
>> > we're talking about the establishment of a genetic language here (and
>> > an awfully expansive set of general scientific laws in our universe),
>> > not a simple drive-by shooting after all. Sure, they both involve a
>> > detectable intelligent agent, but the one accomplishment is so much
>> > grander (creating as opposed to destroying life) in it's scope.
>> >
>> > The drive-by-murderer intelligent agent should be expected to be quite
>> > a bit less "super" than the agent who created the universe.
>> > Nevertheless, the purposefulness is clearly there in both instances.
>>
>> I don't think dNA is a language, not in any normal definition of the word.
>
> The DNA code works in the same way language works. An amino acid
> sequence (like a sequence of letters in a written sentence) has to be
> just right to specify a particular trait (or for a series of words to
> be meaningful). If one amino acid is misplaced in the code, the
> communication becomes somewhat garbled (ie. the trait doesn't turn out
> in a way which it was programmed to turn out). Language happens to be
> just like that. It's a code with meaning that can become easily
> garbled.
I know of no geneticist that claims DNA works like a language. It seems you
know nothing about languages or DNA. But let's look at your analogy. Even
where language is garbled, there is still some possibility for two speakers
to communicate. For instance, if someone speaking Middle English were to
start conversing with you, it would sound pretty garbled, but I'm certain
that in no time at all you and he could converse.
ID can explain nothing. It is nothing but a "god-did-it" statement.
>
>> But the fact that this was the best you
>> could provide pretty much proves my point.
>
> Intelligent design doesn't try to offer an explanation as to who the
> designer is. Its proponents only attempt to show that -- like in
> forensic science-- ID can be detected by drawing on experience.
> You've asked me to concede that intelligent design isn't scientific
> because it doesn't identify the name of the designer, but the fact
> that the designer isn't named in this scientific endeavor is besides
> the point. ID strives to isolate intelligent intervention and nothing
> else!
>
>> Evoking your designer explains absolutely nothing.
>
> It actually explains much about the mysteries we see in the world of
> lifeforms around us.
It explains nothing. It can tell us nothing about how it was designed.
It's just religion in disguise, intentionally created to force your theology
down my kids' throats.
Analogies are useful for explanation, but pushing an analogy too far usually
renders it useless. ID is not the equivalent of a bullet hole.
A forensic investigator can falsify his theory by taking a gun and firing it
into a piece of flesh. Please explain how I can falsify ID.
>
>> > Now let's turn the tables. What in-the-field evidence do
>> > evolutionists have to show that a pinching claw (a cell-composed
>> > novelty in organism structure) can-- through chance mutations and
>> > natural selection-- be built up over a number of generations in an
>> > organism (even a rapidly reproducing microscopic organism) which at
>> > one time had no such feature?
>>
>> Novelty is, in one respect, an illusion. Evolution only works with what is
>> already there.
>
> If that's true then what already-existing set of bones in a fish
> evolved into the pelvis bone structure we find in the bodies of
> terrestrial vertebrates.
>
> If that's true then what already-existing structure(s) on reptiles
> became the hair follicles/oil glands/arrector pili muscle triad?
>
> If that's true then what already-existing structure(s) in reptiles
> became the superior oblique/trochlea muscle/pulley system of the
> mammalian orbit?
>
> Etc. . .
That's the beauty. We see these transitions in the fossil record.
>
>> Over multiple generations new structures will arise, but
>> only out of previous structures. Consider nylon-ingesting bacteria.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2C613B45 (scroll down to the last three
> paragraphs.)
This is ludicrous. Nylon didn't exist until the 1930s. Are you saying that
your designer encoded for a molecule that didn't exist yet?
>
>> >Can evolutionist ideas of the
>> > constructive ability of Evolution (macro-scale) be tested? I'll even
>> > allow for scientist control over selection pressures! Why do you
>> > think Constructive evolution (construction of some new cell-composed
>> > morphology (with new/additional function inherent)) is anything other
>> > than unfalsifiable?
>>
>> Evolutionary theory makes predictions.
>
> Actually it's always used to explain that which has already taken
> place. It's more of a metaphysical philosophy than a branch of
> science. . .
And now you betray ignorance of what "prediction" means in science.
>
>> We can go, gather data and compare
>> that to the predictions. Perhaps your little fuzzy on how science works.
>
> Perhaps you're a little fuzzy on the short-comings of evolution's
> predictive power (I'm talking about evolution on a macro-scale here).
And now the artificial micro-macro barrier makes its introduction.
They only corroborate each other as long as you are willing to ignore all
the inconsistencies.
>
>> You seem to make a lot of demands of evolution, and yet
>> exclude your own beliefs from it.
>
> That's not at all true. My faith has been held to the fire and it has
> been strong enough to withstand alot of flames.
It seems that the only way you can maintain your faith is to mock science.
>
>> > The Pink Unicorn lacks evidence to demonstrate its Godship.
>>
>> And, unless you believe what the Bible says, your god has no better
>> evidence.
>
> When you realize that each book of the Bible was penned by writers
> from various backgrounds (Moses was raised by Egyptians, David was a
> military leader who was humbled by his own short-comings, Paul was
> brought up in Jewish tradition/legalism and persecuted Christians
> until his conversion, Luke was raised in a home where he gained a good
> respect for science, etc. . .) and then see how consistent the truth
> is across the board, it becomes quite apparent that God inspired these
> writers to write what they did. It works together and the pieces fit
> together like a puzzle.
I'm sorry, STeve, but I don't find your book terribly compelling. Most of
it is dull and badly written, and it certainly isn't any use as a science
text. I already told you I wasn't interested in being converted, so save
your typing for someone else.
>
>> >> Claiming "God did it" offers no explanatory power at all.
>> >
>> > There's a history with God. He has communicated with us, and it's up
>> > to every human being to seek out his or her Creator, and to recognize
>> > truth when it's written down by eyewitnesses.
>>
>> I see no history with your god,
>
> Then you haven't read very much of the Bible.
I have indeed, sir. I just don't believe it is inspired by any higher
power. Perhaps you should leave your assumptions about what I have and have
not done behind.
>
>> any more than I see a history with Zeus, Ra or Brahma.
>
> Then you haven't read very much of the Bible-- there's real history in
> there.
AGain, I have. I have found nothing compelling there.
>
>> Now your jumping right out of the ring. I will say it again,
>> saying "God did it" has no explanatory power.
>
> Recognizing design has much explanatory power.
Really. So how did God design things?
The goal posts just moved.
<snip>
>
>> As to spontaneous generation,
>> I'm sure you realize that modern theories of abiogenesis do not make claims
>> that cells pop into existence.
>
> Cells popping into existence are no less likely than cells gradually
> coming together. . . Both are unobserved phenomena.
>
>> > Why don't we see proteins coming together spontaneously via unguided
>> > processes in a broth of various amino acids when electricity and or
>> > pressure are applied? Why are all the amino acids in lifeforms
>> > oriented in the Levorotatory position (as opposed to 50/50 L/R
>> > orientations we see in "natural" occurences of synthesized amino
>> > acids)?
>>
>> Since we don't know the starting conditions, how can we repeat it?
>
> This is a statement that resembles what a creationist would say about
> an omniscient, omnipotent God: 'Since we didn't observe the process
> of creation, how can we repeat it?' Do you see the irony here?
> Evolution proponents like to poke fun at creationists for saying
> things like this, yet it gets the nod when it's used to shore up your
> own position. I find that interesting.
Even if I thought your objection meaningful, evolution is not dependent upon
any particular theory of abiogenesis.
>
>> But
>> that's not to say we won't, and even if we can never repeat abiogenesis,
>> that in no way falsifies evolution.
>
> It certainly doesn't help the position of Atheists, though.
It doesn't effect the position of atheists at all.
>
>> > Without genetic-code guidance, These would all be involving miracles.
>> >
>> >> no
>> >> more so than the condensation of the remnants of a supernova into a new
>> >> stellar system or of a star collapsing into a blackhole.
>> >
>> > And why would you think that the law of gravity isn't anything other
>> > than a supernatural force?
>> >
>> > Has science even come close to doing anything other than recognizing
>> > that gravity is in existence? Here's the short answer: Scientists are
>> > really good at giving the 'what it does' explanation when it comes to
>> > gravity, but when it comes down to the question of "how", there's alot
>> > of silence. . .
>>
>> Science has done a great deal more. Ever heard of Newton and Einstein?
>
> So you have knowledge that there are scientists who understand how
> gravity works? (Or is it just that these scientists have some ideas of
> how to conduct quantitative analyses of gravitational fields?-- That
> would fall in the "what it does" category, as opposed to the "how"
> category, btw.)
They formulated falsifiable theories that have done very well at explaining
behavior. Hopefully when we have a quantum theory of gravity we will
understand that particular force much better.
You are arguing nothing more than a god-of-gaps notion here.
I consider a bacteria being able to ingest a substance that did not exist
before the 1930s a novel feature. But you've already waved your hands here.
>
>> Please show me citations in primary literature or
>> in peer reviewed journals where any researcher makes this claim?
>
> I want you to find out for me if there is one instance of this kind of
> constructive evolving in the literature. There should be at least one
> or two observations of this kind in all of the world's evolutionary
> research, if evolution truly worked this way back in the Devonian
> period or the Permian period.
You've already turned your face, waved your hands and buried your head in
the sand.
>
>> You wouldn't just be making the above up, would you?
>
> It's a challenge that I've presented to you-- a request. If you're
> wondering whether it's my challenge or maybe that I've copied it from
> another creationist, I'll respond by saying that it came from none
> other than myself.
I supplied one. Nylon-ingesting bacteria. You waved your hands and gave me a
link to Answers in Genesis, which I wouldn't point my worst enemy to as a
source of scientific information.
>
>> > Alas, it doesn't seem that evolution (variation) really works in that
>> > way at all.
>> >
>> >> > You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
>> >> > descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
>> >> > initial form of life.
>> >>
>> >> Can you give me a definition of "variation"?
>> >
>> > Variation is evolution on a scale which has been observed (dogs which
>> > spawn pups which don't grow as big as their parents, cats which have
>> > different coloration than their relatives, and birds with slightly
>> > shorter beaks than their parents had). Some call it micro-evolution.
>> > I refer to it as variation because the variants tend to gravitate
>> > around a general format organism, and don't tend to stray too far from
>> > the homebase.
>>
>> Then you can explain the speciation events that have been observed.
>
> To me it makes sense.
What makes sense? Please explain speciation.
>
>> >> >> > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
>> >> >> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
>> >> >> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
>> >> >> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
>> >> >> > share common beliefs".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Each of us have our own world view, not
>> >> >> > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
>> >> >> > > con artist.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> by whom were the atheists conned?
>> >> >
>> >> > By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
>> >> > live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
>> >> > Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
>> >> > what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
>> >> > and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
>> >> > be?
>> >>
>> >> Please explain what the real truth of the ideology is.
>> >
>>
>> <snip dull, tiring proselytizing>
>>
>> Don't waste your breath. I was speaking of evolution.
>
> I'm sorry you see it that way.
I asked you for the real truth of the ideology of evolution. You poured
some religious ramblings, and didn't give me an answer.
--
Aaron Clausen
Daniel Harper
Well, I'm personally not too absolutist on scientific falsifiabilty. Go
ahead and give me your theological explanation. Please keep it relatively
short, though; we can have a nice little theological discussion if you're
game.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> >
> > [Cases of spontaneous human combustion have been investigated by
> > detectives and coroners, and the explanations have-- in certain
> > cases-- ended up admitting that natural or intelligent human
> > etiologies completely didn't make sense in the context of each
> > individual killing. Are those detectives and coroners wrong for
> > considering causes which are outside the realm of natural and
> > human-intelligence causes?]
First, there never have been any cases of "spontaneous human combustion" as
a study of the actual events rwther than sensational press would reveal. An
external cause has always been present.
The only mystery was most of the body becoming completely consumed with
little damage to suroundings. Legs and arms tended to remain.
Chances are when this happened in the distant past there was no mystery, at
least not when animal fat was used to illuminate things.
Further it was *very* rare to have it associated with murder, although the
body that provided the solution was burning as a result of a person trying
to cover up a murder.
The body validated one of the theories about how such events happened.
While it is true that dectives and coroners investigated it is also true
that scientists were involved.
Unlike religion where each new interpretation leads to Yet Another Sect,
Science keeps asking questions until a single idea usually remains.
<Snip>
Matt Silberstein
A):
[snip]
>> >> > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>> >> > I find it interesting that someone can look at the intricacies of the
>> >> > microscopic world (electrons orbitting protons), the planet Earth
>> >> > (weather systems orbitting around the planet), the solar systems
>> >> > (planetary bodies orbitting a star), the galaxies (many planetary
>> >> > systems and individual stars/planets orbitting the center of the
>> >> > galaxy), and then say that this all came about by unintelligent
>> >> > processes.
Steve, I hope you realize this is *not* an argument against
evolution. It is, in fact, an argument against most creationist
claims. Electron and lunar orbits are, according to you, so
"intricate" that they were designed. Yet we are able to describe
them and predict them without proposing that g(G)od(s) push the
elections or the Moon. The same goes for the diversity of life.
Perhaps g(G)od(s) (or some other designers) is behind it. But we
can treat it like we treat orbits and we can explain it like we
explain orbits.
[snip]
>
>What I've mentioned above (orbitting matter) is a clue that points to
>intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
>point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
>even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
>commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
>design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
>that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
>get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
I think you have missed it. You argue above that the "unorganized
jumble of rocks" is also so intricate it requires a designer. Mt.
Rushmore is no more an argument for design than a sand dune or a
pile of rocks. Or do you wish to claim that there are things in
the world not designed by g(G)od(s)?
[snip]
>[Cases of spontaneous human combustion have been investigated by
>detectives and coroners, and the explanations have-- in certain
>cases-- ended up admitting that natural or intelligent human
>etiologies completely didn't make sense in the context of each
>individual killing. Are those detectives and coroners wrong for
>considering causes which are outside the realm of natural and
>human-intelligence causes?]
I would like to see a valid reference for this. I strongly doubt
it ever occurred.
[snip]
>If a forensic scientist observes a hole in a body found in an alley
>that has traces of gun powder around it's opening, yet there is no
>bullet to put into the ziplock evidence bag, he uses the argument from
>analogy that the causative agent was a bullet fired from a gun.
Yes, because he is familiar with guns and know what they do. He
know the abilities and limitations of a gun as a hole making
device.
> As a
>scientist (working in the historical sciences realm) it's his job to
>determine if the victim died of natural causes or from an
>intelligence-derived episode. Even though the scientist may not be
>able to determine the name of the perpetrator or even say exactly what
>kind of gun was used to fire the bullet, he still has employed science
>as he was supposed to when he determines that the guy didn't die of
>natural causes.
He can point to a rather specific mechanism. He does not simply
say "something unknown did some unknown thing at some unknown
time".
>You've stated that ID isn't scientific because the designer and his
>lab can't be paraded in front of our eyes, but you've totally
>disregarded the argument from analogy which is a tool in any
>historical scientist's toolbox. ID is just as scientific as forensic
>science, because it's testable science. It delineates that which has
>a natural cause from that which has an intelligence-derived cause by
>employing arguments from analogy.
If ID is testable then we should be able to point to something
and say it was not designed. Do you have something in mind? Would
you tell us of something that, IYHO, is not the result of the
action of this proposed designer?
[snip]
AC
(BigDiscusser) <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote:
> today has reached age 82--and am still seeing the theory of evolution as
> a noxious trap--telling people there is no God.
And you're still a liar, Jo Jean.
> Also,still seeing
> science refusing to just do pure science only for mankind's benefit.
This is also a lie.
> Still sad you follow its "siren song" into anomie ( NOWHERESVILLE).
> Still seeing you believe all the similarities apparent in systems came
> from common descent, not from a benificient Creator , (Jesus, the Son of
> God) Who is in His creation guiding and directing it as Colossians Chap.
> 1, v 16 & 17 states. Still praying the people on TO will be saved
> and blessed. Jo Jean
Do you ever have anything useful or interesting to say, or do you just
continually repeat yourself? Perhaps you can get your military grandson to
come beat us up, eh, Jo Jean?
--
Aaron Clausen
Scott Rutter
(\(BigDiscusser\)) wrote:
>I am an 81 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
>topics and am a retired RN.
Aren't you also a young man who is a "Private in the United States
Air Force"?
-
To Reply: Take off every Zig!
EAC - Director of Temporal Adjustment
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
Boikat
"(BigDiscusser)" <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23045-3F6...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> today has reached age 82--and am still seeing the theory of evolution as
> a noxious trap--telling people there is no God.
Please show where this is so.
> Also,still seeing
> science refusing to just do pure science only for mankind's benefit.
Then you are blind.
> Still sad you follow its "siren song" into anomie ( NOWHERESVILLE).
Meaningless drivel.
> Still seeing you believe all the similarities apparent in systems came
> from common descent, not from a benificient Creator , (Jesus, the Son of
> God) Who is in His creation guiding and directing it as Colossians Chap.
> 1, v 16 & 17 states.
Your religious beliefs noted. Also, the lack of any scientific reasons to
show why evolution is wrong or evil.
> Still praying the people on TO will be saved
> and blessed. Jo Jean
I also will make an offering to Crom, in the hopes that youe dementia will
clear upo soon.
>
> I am an 81 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
> topics and am a retired RN.
Didn't you just say you turned 82?
>
> http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Ak. Web tv. How quaint.
<snip>
Boikat
Steve A
> Steve, I hope you realize this is *not* an argument against
> evolution. It is, in fact, an argument against most creationist
> claims. Electron and lunar orbits are, according to you, so
> "intricate" that they were designed.
Don't you find it at all interesting that what's happening on a
cosmological level is analogous to what's happening at the atomic
level? (Gravity being analogous to positive and negative charges at
the atomic level.)
> Yet we are able to describe
> them and predict them without proposing that g(G)od(s) push the
> elections or the Moon.
You've brought up two things about gravity and atomic forces here:
scientists "describe them" and "predict them".
Describing is purely spelling out the data. Creationist and
non-Creationist scientists analyze the same data. Data is data, but
the interpretation of data is where the difference is.
Making predictions about these forces can be done based on scientific
laws which were established from the beginning of the universe.
Employing the laws of science to make predictions has little to do
with whether or not one thinks God was the causative factor for the
laws. The laws of nature are the laws of nature, and can be utilized
in making scientific predictions whether you're a Creationist or a
Naturalistic Evolutionist.
As a proponent of intelligent design, I am not proposing that God has
to physically push electrons around protons and planets around suns.
That's your absurd strawman of my position. The scientific laws are
established to propel that which needs to be propelled.
The big question is this: WHERE DID THESE IMMUTABLE LAWS COME FROM?
> The same goes for the diversity of life.
> Perhaps g(G)od(s) (or some other designers) is behind it. But we
> can treat it like we treat orbits and we can explain it like we
> explain orbits.
> [snip]
Treating life itself like law-driven forces, eh?
Let me ask you one thing, Matt. What law of nature puts amino acids
together to form purposeful proteins from a prebiotic soup?
Wait, I've got another question. . . What law of nature puts nascent
cell-composed structures on organisms that-- a number of generations
before-- completely lacked those structures? (ie. horns on
once-hornless creatures or hair follicles/arrector pili anatomy on
creatures that were reptiles with scales a number of generations back.
. .)
> >What I've mentioned above (orbitting matter) is a clue that points to
> >intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
> >point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
> >even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
> >commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
> >design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
> >that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
> >get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
>
> I think you have missed it. You argue above that the "unorganized
> jumble of rocks" is also so intricate it requires a designer.
The jumble of rocks fell into place, and this wasn't done by
intelligent design. Now, I'll admit that the matter they are
comprised of and the downward direction to which they fell have to do
with 1) matter created de novo long ago and 2) a law of gravity that
was created de novo long ago, but that really isn't playing into the
current state of what an intelligent design proponent has taken a
stand on.
The current state is that one portion of rock is a fantastic
sculpture-- thanks to an intelligence input, while the other rocks are
what they are (jumbled) because natural processes went uninterupted by
intelligence input.
Of course you already knew that. . .
> Mt.
> Rushmore is no more an argument for design than a sand dune or a
> pile of rocks. Or do you wish to claim that there are things in
> the world not designed by g(G)od(s)?
Employing ID is exclusively about distinguishing whether natural
processes (laws of nature already put into motion from the beginning
are the only input involved) or an act of intelligence (a sentient
conscious mind involved-- not just pre-established laws of nature)
brought about something.
Understanding ID is actually not as hard as you're making it out to
be.
> [snip]
>
> >[Cases of spontaneous human combustion have been investigated by
> >detectives and coroners, and the explanations have-- in certain
> >cases-- ended up admitting that natural or intelligent human
> >etiologies completely didn't make sense in the context of each
> >individual killing. Are those detectives and coroners wrong for
> >considering causes which are outside the realm of natural and
> >human-intelligence causes?]
>
> I would like to see a valid reference for this. I strongly doubt
> it ever occurred.
The BBC program which I watched about a year or two ago gave some
possible insights into naturalistic explanations for SHC, but there
are some problems with what was asserted:
See:
http://www.alternativescience.com/spontaneous-human-combustion-burning-issue.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/spontaneous-human-combustion-cases.htm
Here's a quote from the second page:
"Mrs Conway is acknowledged to have been a careless smoker whose room
contained evidence of many cigarette burns. Thus the Conway case was
dismissed without further comment.
What the film makers neglected to say, however, is that the time that
elapsed between the grand-daughter handing Mrs Conway the matches and
the firemen arriving to discover her completely consumed remains, was
at most about 20 minutes and could have been as little as 6 minutes.
This information comes from Robert Meslin, a volunteer fireman (later
Fire Marshall) in Upper Darby Township at the time of the fire, and
one of the first on the scene. (It was Meslin who took the famous
photographs of Mrs Conway's charred remains.)
"The amazing part of the incident in my opinion", says Meslin, "is the
time element." Meslin said that the grand-daughter made the fire alarm
call within "three minutes" of having last spoken to her grandmother.
That meant Mrs Conway was alive at 8:42 AM. The firemen arrived to
find her remains at 8:48 AM.
Once again, the "wick effect" can be completely ruled out. It is
absolutely inexplicable that the makers of the BBC TV QED film should
have stated that the "cause of the fire is known" when they must also
have known that the fire that consumed Helen Conway did so in a time
interval of not more than 20 and not less than 6 minutes. The film
maker's own experiment showed them conclusively that the 'wick effect'
would have taken a minimum of 7 hours to consume Mrs Conway."
Does SHC occur? You bet it does. Can all cases of SHC be logically
explained by scientists? No.
> [snip]
>
>
> >If a forensic scientist observes a hole in a body found in an alley
> >that has traces of gun powder around it's opening, yet there is no
> >bullet to put into the ziplock evidence bag, he uses the argument from
> >analogy that the causative agent was a bullet fired from a gun.
>
> Yes, because he is familiar with guns and know what they do. He
> know the abilities and limitations of a gun as a hole making
> device.
Just like anyone is familiar with the idea of a tool-maker
(intelligent agent) who can make a pair of needlenose pliers designed
to grab things (which is analogous to the designed claws a scorpion
uses to grab things).
> > As a
> >scientist (working in the historical sciences realm) it's his job to
> >determine if the victim died of natural causes or from an
> >intelligence-derived episode. Even though the scientist may not be
> >able to determine the name of the perpetrator or even say exactly what
> >kind of gun was used to fire the bullet, he still has employed science
> >as he was supposed to when he determines that the guy didn't die of
> >natural causes.
>
> He can point to a rather specific mechanism. He does not simply
> say "something unknown did some unknown thing at some unknown
> time".
He says that "some sentient person operated some unknown kind of
firearm within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
before time Y, and after time X."
An analogous statement pertaining to an intelligent designer would go
like this: "Some sentient entity (person?) operated some unknown kind
of power within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
before time Y." (Time Y would be a time before recorded history.)
These two statements aren't really all that different, and this
demonstrates that a forensic scientist who practices science utilizes
the same method that an intelligent design proponent uses.
> >You've stated that ID isn't scientific because the designer and his
> >lab can't be paraded in front of our eyes, but you've totally
> >disregarded the argument from analogy which is a tool in any
> >historical scientist's toolbox. ID is just as scientific as forensic
> >science, because it's testable science. It delineates that which has
> >a natural cause from that which has an intelligence-derived cause by
> >employing arguments from analogy.
>
> If ID is testable then we should be able to point to something
> and say it was not designed. Do you have something in mind?
The jumble of rocks near Mt. Rushmore.
It bears repeating that employing ID is exclusively about
distinguishing whether natural processes (laws of nature already put
into motion from the beginning are the only input involved in natural
processes) or an act of intelligence (a sentient conscious mind
involved-- not just pre-established laws of nature) brought about
something.
The jumbled rocks got where they are in that formation because of
natural processes. Their formation is not the result of an act of
intelligence (though their matter properties and the law of gravity
that pulled them down were pre-established by the Designer's preset
laws.
> Would
> you tell us of something that, IYHO, is not the result of the
> action of this proposed designer?
> [snip]
A line can be drawn between natural processes and intelligence-driven
occurances by employing the same scientific means that forensic
scientists utilize. The jumble of rocks arrived at their destination
by natural processes, and that's why they don't have any real
semblance of order.
Steve A.
Bigdakine
>From: av...@doctor.com (Steve A)
>Date: 9/18/03 4:19 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <92c76e71.03091...@posting.google.com>
>
>> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:
>> Steve, I hope you realize this is *not* an argument against
>> evolution. It is, in fact, an argument against most creationist
>> claims. Electron and lunar orbits are, according to you, so
>> "intricate" that they were designed.
>
>Don't you find it at all interesting that what's happening on a
>cosmological level is analogous to what's happening at the atomic
>level? (Gravity being analogous to positive and negative charges at
>the atomic level.)
Don't follow you. Electrons don't orbit atomic nucleii. That is simply an
abstraction conveinent for basic chemistry.
>
>> Yet we are able to describe
>> them and predict them without proposing that g(G)od(s) push the
>> elections or the Moon.
>
>You've brought up two things about gravity and atomic forces here:
>scientists "describe them" and "predict them".
>
>Describing is purely spelling out the data. Creationist and
>non-Creationist scientists analyze the same data. Data is data, but
>the interpretation of data is where the difference is.
The problem is interpretations that do not formulate testable consequences are
simply idle chatter.
>
>Making predictions about these forces can be done based on scientific
>laws which were established from the beginning of the universe.
>Employing the laws of science to make predictions has little to do
>with whether or not one thinks God was the causative factor for the
>laws. The laws of nature are the laws of nature, and can be utilized
>in making scientific predictions whether you're a Creationist or a
>Naturalistic Evolutionist.
SO far so good.
>
>As a proponent of intelligent design, I am not proposing that God has
>to physically push electrons around protons and planets around suns.
>That's your absurd strawman of my position. The scientific laws are
>established to propel that which needs to be propelled.
>
>The big question is this: WHERE DID THESE IMMUTABLE LAWS COME FROM?
Perhaps from the unified field theory. And when it is formulated we might be
able to answer your question.
But wherever these laws come from, it is not an issue for biology class.
>
>> The same goes for the diversity of life.
>> Perhaps g(G)od(s) (or some other designers) is behind it. But we
>> can treat it like we treat orbits and we can explain it like we
>> explain orbits.
>> [snip]
>
>Treating life itself like law-driven forces, eh?
Life like any other entity that exists in our universe obeys rules. Even if you
don't, many creationists understand the problem this presents for their
position. THis is the reason in fact why they have a fancy for 2nd-law
arguments, as do you. If it could be shown that life or the evolution of life
is in contradiction of well established principles, then that could be
construed as evidence of the action of an outside agency.
>
>Let me ask you one thing, Matt. What law of nature puts amino acids
>together to form purposeful proteins from a prebiotic soup?
Define *purposeful protein*.
I don't have my designers encyclopedia handy.
>
>Wait, I've got another question. . . What law of nature puts nascent
>cell-composed structures on organisms that-- a number of generations
>before-- completely lacked those structures? (ie. horns on
>once-hornless creatures or hair follicles/arrector pili anatomy on
>creatures that were reptiles with scales a number of generations back.
>. .)
The same law that apparently put my garbage disposal unit in close proximity to
my entertainment unit.
<snip>
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
John Wilkins
Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.6)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1063947274 128.250.252.193 (19 Sep 2003 14:54:34 +1000)
X-Original-Trace: 19 Sep 2003 14:54:34 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 20
Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
...
> As a proponent of intelligent design, I am not proposing that God has
> to physically push electrons around protons and planets around suns.
> That's your absurd strawman of my position. The scientific laws are
> established to propel that which needs to be propelled.
>
> The big question is this: WHERE DID THESE IMMUTABLE LAWS COME FROM?
The celestial Sears and Roebuck catalogue. They were having a two for
one sale that day, so we got *both* laws of thermodynamics. Lucky for us
it wasn't the following weekend, though or all our constants would be
25% off.
...
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Viv
<mucho snippo>
[Steve claims that forensic science involves statements regarding acts by
the "intelligent designer" of the murder, and thus that if forensics is
science so is cosmological "intelligent design"]
>> He can point to a rather specific mechanism. He does not simply
>> say "something unknown did some unknown thing at some unknown
>> time".
>
>He says that "some sentient person operated some unknown kind of
>firearm within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
>before time Y, and after time X."
>
>An analogous statement pertaining to an intelligent designer would go
>like this: "Some sentient entity (person?) operated some unknown kind
>of power within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
>before time Y." (Time Y would be a time before recorded history.)
>
>These two statements aren't really all that different, and this
>demonstrates that a forensic scientist who practices science utilizes
>the same method that an intelligent design proponent uses.
Actually, what the forensics report usually says is more like "a person or
persons unknown fired a [K] calibre bullet using a [L]type-handgun from a
distance of [M] feet into the [N] body area of the deceased. Death was
caused by the severing of the [O] artery *or* penetration of the [P] organ
and subsequent haemorrhage *or* catastrophic rupture of the [Q] organ. The
time of death is between [R] and [S]. The perpetrator is probably between
[T] and [U] feet tall, left-handed and male."
This narrows the "unknown intelligence" and his actions down to a very
narrow category. The unknown intelligence is merely an anonymous human
using tools and methods which are purely physical, and utterly describable
by science.
Your putative analogous statement about the actions of your intelligent
designer is not analogous at all, as the tools and methods of the unknown
designer cannot be described by science in any way.
Intelligent design cosmology is not science.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Some believe all manner of hearsay evidence; others twist truth
into fiction; and both sorts of error are magnified by time."
[Cornelius Tacitus, _The Annals of Imperial Rome_ c.100CE]
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Understanding ID is actually not as hard as you're making it out to
>be.
No creationist has managed it yet.
Were you serious about detecting design by analogy to human designs?
Are you willing to accept the implications even they disagree with
your preconceptions?
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
Wilkins) wrote:
>Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>...
>> As a proponent of intelligent design, I am not proposing that God has
>> to physically push electrons around protons and planets around suns.
>> That's your absurd strawman of my position. The scientific laws are
>> established to propel that which needs to be propelled.
>>
>> The big question is this: WHERE DID THESE IMMUTABLE LAWS COME FROM?
>
>The celestial Sears and Roebuck catalogue. They were having a two for
>one sale that day, so we got *both* laws of thermodynamics. Lucky for us
>it wasn't the following weekend, though or all our constants would be
>25% off.
>...
Is that part of your thesis?
Mark VandeWettering
>> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:
>> Steve, I hope you realize this is *not* an argument against
>> evolution. It is, in fact, an argument against most creationist
>> claims. Electron and lunar orbits are, according to you, so
>> "intricate" that they were designed.
>
> Don't you find it at all interesting that what's happening on a
> cosmological level is analogous to what's happening at the atomic
> level? (Gravity being analogous to positive and negative charges at
> the atomic level.)
Like most analogies, this is weak. For instance, we know of only
one kind of gravity, but positive and negative charges. It's probably
true that analogies teach us very much about physics.
>> Yet we are able to describe
>> them and predict them without proposing that g(G)od(s) push the
>> elections or the Moon.
>
> You've brought up two things about gravity and atomic forces here:
> scientists "describe them" and "predict them".
>
> Describing is purely spelling out the data. Creationist and
> non-Creationist scientists analyze the same data. Data is data, but
> the interpretation of data is where the difference is.
>
> Making predictions about these forces can be done based on scientific
> laws which were established from the beginning of the universe.
> Employing the laws of science to make predictions has little to do
> with whether or not one thinks God was the causative factor for the
> laws.
It isn't the cause of the laws which are in dispute: it is their suspension
by events like the global flood which miraculously leaves no trace which
is in dispute.
> The laws of nature are the laws of nature, and can be utilized
> in making scientific predictions whether you're a Creationist or a
> Naturalistic Evolutionist.
>
> As a proponent of intelligent design, I am not proposing that God has
> to physically push electrons around protons and planets around suns.
> That's your absurd strawman of my position. The scientific laws are
> established to propel that which needs to be propelled.
Then what action _did_ this intelligent designer perform? When? Where?
How? To what end? Can you tell us _anything_ about what your creator
_did_ do?
Intelligent Design is just a fancy placeholder for the words "I dunno, so
God must have done it."
> The big question is this: WHERE DID THESE IMMUTABLE LAWS COME FROM?
It's not clear that the question is meaningful.
>> The same goes for the diversity of life.
>> Perhaps g(G)od(s) (or some other designers) is behind it. But we
>> can treat it like we treat orbits and we can explain it like we
>> explain orbits.
>> [snip]
>
> Treating life itself like law-driven forces, eh?
There is no evidence that it is in anyway different, so yes.
> Let me ask you one thing, Matt. What law of nature puts amino acids
> together to form purposeful proteins from a prebiotic soup?
It's chemistry of the garden variety. You can consider it physics
if you'd like to subsume chemistry into physics.
> Wait, I've got another question. . . What law of nature puts nascent
> cell-composed structures on organisms that-- a number of generations
> before-- completely lacked those structures?
More chemistry.
> (ie. horns on
> once-hornless creatures or hair follicles/arrector pili anatomy on
> creatures that were reptiles with scales a number of generations back.
> . .)
That's Evolution, m'lad.
>> >What I've mentioned above (orbitting matter) is a clue that points to
>> >intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
>> >point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
>> >even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
>> >commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
>> >design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
>> >that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
>> >get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
>>
>> I think you have missed it. You argue above that the "unorganized
>> jumble of rocks" is also so intricate it requires a designer.
>
> The jumble of rocks fell into place, and this wasn't done by
> intelligent design.
Really? I show you to piles of rocks. One I made, the other just happened
to form from natural forces. How can you tell the difference?
> Now, I'll admit that the matter they are
> comprised of and the downward direction to which they fell have to do
> with 1) matter created de novo long ago and 2) a law of gravity that
> was created de novo long ago, but that really isn't playing into the
> current state of what an intelligent design proponent has taken a
> stand on.
Since what it stands on is absolute vapor, that's hardly surprising.
> The current state is that one portion of rock is a fantastic
> sculpture-- thanks to an intelligence input, while the other rocks are
> what they are (jumbled) because natural processes went uninterupted by
> intelligence input.
>
> Of course you already knew that. . .
>
>> Mt.
>> Rushmore is no more an argument for design than a sand dune or a
>> pile of rocks. Or do you wish to claim that there are things in
>> the world not designed by g(G)od(s)?
>
> Employing ID is exclusively about distinguishing whether natural
> processes (laws of nature already put into motion from the beginning
> are the only input involved) or an act of intelligence (a sentient
> conscious mind involved-- not just pre-established laws of nature)
> brought about something.
>
> Understanding ID is actually not as hard as you're making it out to
> be.
There is simply nothing to understand.
*sigh* None of which is evidence that some non-naturalistic explanation
is needed to explain SHC or abiogenesis.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> >If a forensic scientist observes a hole in a body found in an alley
>> >that has traces of gun powder around it's opening, yet there is no
>> >bullet to put into the ziplock evidence bag, he uses the argument from
>> >analogy that the causative agent was a bullet fired from a gun.
>>
>> Yes, because he is familiar with guns and know what they do. He
>> know the abilities and limitations of a gun as a hole making
>> device.
>
> Just like anyone is familiar with the idea of a tool-maker
> (intelligent agent) who can make a pair of needlenose pliers designed
> to grab things (which is analogous to the designed claws a scorpion
> uses to grab things).
Piffle. You've presumed your conclusion. You've never observed anyone
designing a scorpion, and to suggest that one is intelligently designed
because humans designed needle nosed pliers is simply begging the
question.
>> > As a
>> >scientist (working in the historical sciences realm) it's his job to
>> >determine if the victim died of natural causes or from an
>> >intelligence-derived episode. Even though the scientist may not be
>> >able to determine the name of the perpetrator or even say exactly what
>> >kind of gun was used to fire the bullet, he still has employed science
>> >as he was supposed to when he determines that the guy didn't die of
>> >natural causes.
>>
>> He can point to a rather specific mechanism. He does not simply
>> say "something unknown did some unknown thing at some unknown
>> time".
>
> He says that "some sentient person operated some unknown kind of
> firearm within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
> before time Y, and after time X."
Which is of course considerably more than _ANY_ ID theorist has ever
claimed. It has the virtue of being falsifiable, for instance.
> An analogous statement pertaining to an intelligent designer would go
> like this: "Some sentient entity (person?) operated some unknown kind
> of power within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
> before time Y." (Time Y would be a time before recorded history.)
As weak as this statement is, I would like a reference to a single ID
theorist who made any statement of this form. I suspect that you are
making this up.
> These two statements aren't really all that different, and this
> demonstrates that a forensic scientist who practices science utilizes
> the same method that an intelligent design proponent uses.
Except you haven't actually given us an example. And of course the
words "unknown kind of power" doesn't describe either the cause or
effect of anything.
>> >You've stated that ID isn't scientific because the designer and his
>> >lab can't be paraded in front of our eyes, but you've totally
>> >disregarded the argument from analogy which is a tool in any
>> >historical scientist's toolbox. ID is just as scientific as forensic
>> >science, because it's testable science. It delineates that which has
>> >a natural cause from that which has an intelligence-derived cause by
>> >employing arguments from analogy.
>>
>> If ID is testable then we should be able to point to something
>> and say it was not designed. Do you have something in mind?
>
> The jumble of rocks near Mt. Rushmore.
How do you know that I didn't make it? Or someone else? Perhaps that
pile is the rocks that they chipped off and dumped, now weathered by
decades so as to appear more natural. How can you tell?
> It bears repeating that employing ID is exclusively about
> distinguishing whether natural processes (laws of nature already put
> into motion from the beginning are the only input involved in natural
> processes) or an act of intelligence (a sentient conscious mind
> involved-- not just pre-established laws of nature) brought about
> something.
Unfortunately, there is no such methodology.
> The jumbled rocks got where they are in that formation because of
> natural processes.
Again, how can you tell? That's a presumption, not a conclusion.
> Their formation is not the result of an act of
> intelligence (though their matter properties and the law of gravity
> that pulled them down were pre-established by the Designer's preset
> laws.
You presume a great deal.
>> Would
>> you tell us of something that, IYHO, is not the result of the
>> action of this proposed designer?
>> [snip]
>
> A line can be drawn between natural processes and intelligence-driven
> occurances by employing the same scientific means that forensic
> scientists utilize.
Examples?
> The jumble of rocks arrived at their destination
> by natural processes, and that's why they don't have any real
> semblance of order.
When I go to the beach, I can observe certain portions which consist entirely
of larger stones, and some with just sand. Is this order caused by design?
Mark
> Steve A.
Ian H Spedding
av...@doctor.com says...
[...]
> What I've mentioned above (orbitting matter) is a clue that points to
> intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
> point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
> even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
> commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
> design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
> that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
> get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
You're missing the point. We recognise the Mt Rushmore monument
as designed for two reasons. First, the carvings are like others
that we know are designed and, second, they are different from
all the rock around which isn't.
Where God is concerned, we have nothing that is verifiably
designed by Him as a comparison and in any event, if the Bible is
correct, the whole Universe is His work so there is nothing not
designed by Him to check it against. How are you going to pick
out signs of His hand if the whole thing is His work?
[...]
> If a forensic scientist observes a hole in a body found in an alley
> that has traces of gun powder around it's opening, yet there is no
> bullet to put into the ziplock evidence bag, he uses the argument from
> analogy that the causative agent was a bullet fired from a gun. As a
> scientist (working in the historical sciences realm) it's his job to
> determine if the victim died of natural causes or from an
> intelligence-derived episode. Even though the scientist may not be
> able to determine the name of the perpetrator or even say exactly what
> kind of gun was used to fire the bullet, he still has employed science
> as he was supposed to when he determines that the guy didn't die of
> natural causes.
The forensic scientist isn't arguing from analogy he's making an
inductive inference. Having seen a lot of bullet wounds before
he infers that a body which has a small hole, where a hole
shouldn't be, surrounded by scorching and GSR has most probably
been shot.
[...]
> The Bible is a compilation of individual accounts, letters, and four
> well-known researched biographies (the Gospels). The books of the
> Bible were all-- at one time-- separate writings. It wasn't until
> years and years after they were written that they were compiled all
> together in one very big book. They were put together because they
> had consistency one with another. No corroboration??? You've got to
> be kidding me. These books of the Bible all corroborate one another.
So does The Lord of the Rings trilogy. And they are lot more
consistent internally. Does that make them true?
[...]
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Ian H Spedding
2315.public.lawson.webtv.net>, JOJ...@webtv.net says...
>
> today has reached age 82--and am still seeing the theory of evolution as
> science refusing to just do pure science only for mankind's benefit.
> from common descent, not from a benificient Creator , (Jesus, the Son of
> God) Who is in His creation guiding and directing it as Colossians Chap.
> and blessed. Jo Jean
The theory of evolution does not tell people there is no God.
Darwin himself said that his theory had nothing to say about the
origins of life. The only people who object to the theory are a
small band of Biblical literalists. The great majority of
Christians have accepted evolution. What do you say to them?
R. Baldwin
news:aigmmvcncu0r6pl8d...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 04:50:20 +0000 (UTC), wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> As a proponent of intelligent design, I am not proposing that God
has
> >> to physically push electrons around protons and planets around
suns.
> >> That's your absurd strawman of my position. The scientific laws
are
> >> established to propel that which needs to be propelled.
> >>
> >> The big question is this: WHERE DID THESE IMMUTABLE LAWS COME
FROM?
> >
> >The celestial Sears and Roebuck catalogue. They were having a two
for
> >one sale that day, so we got *both* laws of thermodynamics. Lucky
for us
> >it wasn't the following weekend, though or all our constants would
be
> >25% off.
> >...
>
> Is that part of your thesis?
>
Sh! You mentioned the unamed thing.
(BigDiscusser)
accepted--but it is not true of all the Christians that I know. God
bless, Jo Jean
I am an 82 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
John Chap 1 v 3
Colossians Chap 1 v 16, 17--defeats evolution with ADAPTATION by Jesus
who is IN His creation (not evolution) plus scientifically untouchable
classic morality, equals the DIVINE SYNTHESIS.
MUSLIMS NEED JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD ALMIGHTY, and follow His Way
of Love with us, worshipping in their own Mosques.
David Horn
>
> today has reached age 82--and am still seeing the theory of evolution as
So you're 82 and still ignorant. I fail to see why that's a problem for
the rest of us.
> ...telling people there is no God.
I completed 111 semester hours of biology at the college level and have
read extensively on the subject. I have never seen any scientific work,
reference, journal article or textbook ever state that "there is no
God." I also know a lot of scientists and they tend to be like everyone
else, that is, there are some who believe in God and others who do not.
Evolution does not tell us that there is no God any more or less than
any other science. Evolution is a fact of science, regardless of the
existence of God.
> Also,still seeing science refusing to just do pure science only for
> mankind's benefit.
It's been a while since I've worked in "pure" research, but I've worked
enough in it to know that you're wrong. What *you* see or pretend to
see is of no importance when it comes to the reality of the situation.
[Snip]
---
5th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.
Steve A
> > Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
> >> AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message news:
> > intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
> > point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
> > even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
> > commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
> > design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
> > that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
> > get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
>
> Your evidence is little more than the "ooh wow!" factor that I was raised on
> in my fundementalist household.
Actually what I've presented goes further than just feeling an emotion
of being impressed. I've pointed out a universal correlation at
various levels that can be seen as analogous to the intelligent-design
humans employ. Here's an example: 'hey, those things all orbit' is
analogous to 'hey, those detonating devices (from firecrackers to
nuclear bombs) each have a fuse'. Since the latter is designed by
intelligence, the former can be also viewed likewise when viewed
through the argument from analogy. Remember, argument from analogy is
utilized by scientists in many areas (including SETI).
> I discovered that "ooh wow" doesn't mean that "goddidit" must follow.
Emotions are nice, but ID proponents don't seek to appeal to emotions.
Practicing science by utilizing the analogical method is a much more
effective means to reach what the truth is.
> >>snip<
> >> Please explain why the most simplistic self-replicating molecules needed
> >> anything as complex as the genetic code found in organisms today.
> >
> > For one thing, a code is at least needed to organize amino acids into
> > purposeful proteins. Without a preset code, a cell cannot even begin
> > to get off the ground when it comes to reproduction, let alone
> > metabolism, respiration, and environmental interaction.
>
> And who says that the first self-replicating molecules could do any of these
> things.
I'm sure no one would attribute metabolism and respiration to a mere
chemical that somehow developed the ability to reproduce itself (ie.
virus-like compound), but when it comes to a lifeform (a cell being
most "simple") that's in some unknown process of building 1)a genetic
basis upon which it can build itself 2)a cell membrane with all the
necessary pumps and barriers 3)mitosis capabilities 4)digestion
5)respiration 6)Electrical charge regulation, there's got to be some
admission that a preprogrammed blueprint has to already be in place in
order to accomplish all that's being accomplished here.
> You seem stuck with the idea that life began as fully formed cells.
> This, I'm fairly certain, is a strawman you've constructed. It certainly
> does not resemble any modern theory of abiogenesis I've seen.
What lifeform can an abiogenesis believer point to which would be any
less complex than a cell? If nothing can be cited as a precursor cell,
then all that they've got is a *belief* in something that's relegated
to an unknown realm. . .
> >
> >> We're talking about relatively simplistic molecules here.
> >
> > Where's the evidence that a lifeform which has respiration,
> > metabolism, and environmental interaction can be anything other than
> > relatively complex? Can you cite research studies that bring forward
> > analyses of lifeforms (not chemicals, mind you) that aren't relatively
> > complex?
>
> Again with the strawman.
Why would my asking you to bring forward evidence of un-complex
lifeforms be a strawman? Isn't science all about observation and
evidence?
> No modern theory of abiogenesis says that the
> first life was anything like even the single celled life we see today.
Ah yes, those Pink Unicorn almost-organisms again. . .
> >> >> > I find it interesting that someone can
> >> >> > look at a cell and think that it used to be something simpler than
> >> >> > what we know cells to be today (lacking organelles, a completed set of
> >> >> > reproductive machinery, or membrane pump mechanisms for
> >> >> > metabolism/respiration. Etc. . .
> >> >>
> >> >> This all sounds like an argument from incredulity to me.
> >> >
> >> > All I'm doing is recognizing that a cell (a very basic lifeform) needs
> >> > to have a bevy of pre-established features (heritable traits) in place
> >> > in order to be a viable lifeform.
> >>
> >> Even the single-celled organisms we see today are very likely substantially
> >> more complex than the first self-replicating molecules.
> >
> > You mean those pink unicorn pre-cells with a pre-membrane and
> > pre-digestion/pre-excretion abilities (or disabilities) that no one
> > seems to be able to observe (even after looking virtually in every
> > conceivable place on the Earth)?
>
>
> Who is looking for these things?
There has been alot of research done on microscopic life. Not once
has a pre-cell been found in all the scientific investigative studies.
> I don't think anyone believes that even if
> another abiogenesis event occured on Earth that the resulting molecules
> could survive the products of three billion years of evolution.
Ah, now we're getting to your explanation. You seem to think that
there's something preventing our observation of abiogenesis processes,
and that it's the competition that's eating up all the
it's-becoming-a-cell organisms. If this is true, then wouldn't
viruses also be eradicated?
> >Also, Where's the evidence that a
> > genetic code any less capable of the one we see now could be
> > successful?
>
> Crystals seem to do a fairly good job.
We know of scientific laws of nature that spell out what connects
those molecules in a crystal together in an orderly and repetitive
way. Where are the laws that can be spelled out which explain how
amino acids can automatically organize themselves to become a useful
and complex protein? Where are the laws that spell out how a genetic
code can be gradually built from chance processes?
> >> >To believe otherwise is akin to
> >> > ignoring what scientists have painstakingly researched over the past
> >> > few decades when it comes to all lifeforms including microscopic
> >> > single-celled lifeforms.
> >>
> >> But since the earliest life forms were very likely far more simplistic than
> >> even the most simplistic single-celled life we find on this planet today,
> >> how exactly does the above represent any meaningful argument?
> >
> > It seems that you really want to believe (AKA have faith) that a
> > lesser genetic code than the one that's currently in place in our
> > world today has existed (and had at one time been successful).
>
> Since I'm an atheist, it would be pretty odd of me to invoke magical
> designers, no wouldn't it?
Well, what you believe ends up invoking magic of one sort or another
anyway. . .
> > You
> > really want to believe (though evidence is sorely lacking) that cells
> > were in a more "simplistic" state than where they are today.
>
> Actually, I'm fairly certain that the earliest self-replicating molecules
> did not look anything like cells.
Yet you have to admit that precursor cells eventually came along in
the process of abiogenesis, right?
> > The
> > problem with your belief is that those
> > pre-digestion/pre-excretionary/pre-Respiration (or even
> > pre-reproduction) proto-cells is that they would be so incredibly
> > handicapped that your belief is hardly anything other than a
> > hyper-optimistic fairy tale on a grand scale.
>
> All they need to do is take surrounding chemicals and replicate.
That's called magic, Aaron. Anyone who simplifies what would have to
happen in the way you have done is waving their magic wand over
unorganized chemicals in a pre-biotic soup and hoping they will all
become organized just the right way and have electrical charge
regulation established somehow by chance so life can get a jumpstart.
If you feel better believing in unproven magical fairy tales, I guess
that's what floats your boat. As for me and my boat, I know I'll stay
afloat because the boat was intelligently designed (no holes here).
>snip<
> >
> > [Cases of spontaneous human combustion have been investigated by
> > detectives and coroners, and the explanations have-- in certain
> > cases-- ended up admitting that natural or intelligent human
> > etiologies completely didn't make sense in the context of each
> > individual killing. Are those detectives and coroners wrong for
> > considering causes which are outside the realm of natural and
> > human-intelligence causes?]
>
> If you are saying a coroner invokes supernatural causes, then yes, he is
> wrong.
So if they make a statement that goes something like this: "natural or
intelligent human causes for this SHC are not applicable, so we're
going to look into this person's diary to find out what was going on
with them psychologically", they would be wrong as scientists to
consider that path?
> Not knowing the cause of something is not an excuse for invoking the
> supernatural.
What about trying to find a psychological connection to the incident?
Does that take it out of the realm of scientific investigation?
>snip<
> > The DNA code works in the same way language works. An amino acid
> > sequence (like a sequence of letters in a written sentence) has to be
> > just right to specify a particular trait (or for a series of words to
> > be meaningful). If one amino acid is misplaced in the code, the
> > communication becomes somewhat garbled (ie. the trait doesn't turn out
> > in a way which it was programmed to turn out). Language happens to be
> > just like that. It's a code with meaning that can become easily
> > garbled.
>
> I know of no geneticist that claims DNA works like a language.
Look up "the genetic text" on Google. Do you see how common it is for
people of scientific backgrounds to substitute the word "text" for
"code"? Even the word "code" correlates to language-- I'm sure you
agree that the Morse code is a language just as sign language is a
language. The genetic code is a language because it is a code.
Here's a definition from my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "A system
of signals or symbols for communication."
All codes have to do with communication-- even the genetic code.
> It seems you
> know nothing about languages or DNA.
Then again, maybe I do. . .
> But let's look at your analogy. Even
> where language is garbled, there is still some possibility for two speakers
> to communicate. For instance, if someone speaking Middle English were to
> start conversing with you, it would sound pretty garbled, but I'm certain
> that in no time at all you and he could converse.
Only because we would have certain words that we would agree are
"English" words. Those would be the words we'd learn to communicate
with, while the rest would be extraneous noise.
I've already explained above why this isn't truly the case.
> >> But the fact that this was the best you
> >> could provide pretty much proves my point.
> >
> > Intelligent design doesn't try to offer an explanation as to who the
> > designer is. Its proponents only attempt to show that -- like in
> > forensic science-- ID can be detected by drawing on experience.
> > You've asked me to concede that intelligent design isn't scientific
> > because it doesn't identify the name of the designer, but the fact
> > that the designer isn't named in this scientific endeavor is besides
> > the point. ID strives to isolate intelligent intervention and nothing
> > else!
> >
> >> Evoking your designer explains absolutely nothing.
> >
> > It actually explains much about the mysteries we see in the world of
> > lifeforms around us.
>
> It explains nothing. It can tell us nothing about how it was designed.
Abiogenesis doesn't either, yet you claim that it is science. You're
not being consistent.
> It's just religion in disguise,
If you say that about ID, then you have to say that about the SETI
program, forensics, and even abiogenesis research.
> intentionally created to force your theology down my kids' throats.
No force-feeding-- just putting more dishes on the table for people to
choose from.
If a hole in flesh can be known by experience to be expected to be a
bullet hole, then why would a code (genetic or Morse) not be expected
to be designed by intelligence?
> A forensic investigator can falsify his theory by taking a gun and firing it
> into a piece of flesh. Please explain how I can falsify ID.
ID can be tested by a scientist who sets out to use his intelligence
to synthesize proteins which are macromolecules of high order
complexity (ie. insulin). Once the experiment is completed, it can be
determined whether intelligence is capable of constructing that which
goes beyond low-order complexity. Now lets' see if natural laws alone
(without the aid of intelligence) might have the capability of
constructing a macromolecule of high order complexity (a protein).
Once that experiment has run its course, it can be determined whether
natural laws can construct anything that goes beyond low-order
complexity. Probability analysis (something that
abiogenesis-proponents loathe) can also be utilized to help determine
how likely something like this can occur without the input of
intelligence.
Both experiments (ID and abiogenesis) are falsifiable (the scientist
could fail after many attempts or the natural processes could fail
after many attempts).
What experiment do you put your money on? If you answer this question
right you might get a prize.
> >> > Now let's turn the tables. What in-the-field evidence do
> >> > evolutionists have to show that a pinching claw (a cell-composed
> >> > novelty in organism structure) can-- through chance mutations and
> >> > natural selection-- be built up over a number of generations in an
> >> > organism (even a rapidly reproducing microscopic organism) which at
> >> > one time had no such feature?
> >>
> >> Novelty is, in one respect, an illusion. Evolution only works with what is
> >> already there.
> >
> > If that's true then what already-existing set of bones in a fish
> > evolved into the pelvis bone structure we find in the bodies of
> > terrestrial vertebrates.
> >
> > If that's true then what already-existing structure(s) on reptiles
> > became the hair follicles/oil glands/arrector pili muscle triad?
Your lack of response here makes me think that you are without a clue
how to answer this.
> > If that's true then what already-existing structure(s) in reptiles
> > became the superior oblique/trochlea muscle/pulley system of the
> > mammalian orbit?
> >
> > Etc. . .
>
> That's the beauty. We see these transitions in the fossil record.
My first example has to do with skeletal structure (which can be
preserved in the fossil record). Can you tell me what
already-existing set of bones in a Devonian fish evolved into the
pelvis bone structure we find in the bodies of terrestrial
vertebrates?
> >
> >> Over multiple generations new structures will arise, but
> >> only out of previous structures. Consider nylon-ingesting bacteria.
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2C613B45 (scroll down to the last three
> > paragraphs.)
>
> This is ludicrous. Nylon didn't exist until the 1930s. Are you saying that
> your designer encoded for a molecule that didn't exist yet?
The encoding may have been around for a very long time (held in
reserve (along with many other enzyme capabilities)) for just such an
opportunity as this.
> >> >Can evolutionist ideas of the
> >> > constructive ability of Evolution (macro-scale) be tested? I'll even
> >> > allow for scientist control over selection pressures! Why do you
> >> > think Constructive evolution (construction of some new cell-composed
> >> > morphology (with new/additional function inherent)) is anything other
> >> > than unfalsifiable?
> >>
> >> Evolutionary theory makes predictions.
> >
> > Actually it's always used to explain that which has already taken
> > place. It's more of a metaphysical philosophy than a branch of
> > science. . .
>
> And now you betray ignorance of what "prediction" means in science.
I'm pretty sure I've got a good grasp on the word 'prediction'. Let's
talk about what predictions you're referring to. Is one example of
what you're talking about here the fact that speciation has occured?
When I speak of speciation, I'm referring to small groups of an animal
species becoming isolated from the parent population and then
becoming unable to produce offspring with the parent population after
mutations and time proceeded while they were isolated. If indeed this
is an example of what you were referring to when mentioning
evolutionist predictions, I'd like to know if you can cite a source
that indicates that evolutionists first made this prediction before it
was discovered. Could it be that it was first observed by scientists
and then incorporated afterwards in the philosophy of Evolution? The
way I see it is that scientists (alot of whom are Evolutionists) make
observations and then explain that evolution makes sense in the light
of this new finding for reasons A, B, and C. This pattern is seen
time and time again. Where are the predictions?
> >> We can go, gather data and compare
> >> that to the predictions. Perhaps your little fuzzy on how science works.
> >
> > Perhaps you're a little fuzzy on the short-comings of evolution's
> > predictive power (I'm talking about evolution on a macro-scale here).
>
> And now the artificial micro-macro barrier makes its introduction.
Even evolutionists recognize that there's a distinction between the
variation (including speciation events) we observe in animal
populations (like birds for instance) and the variation extrapolation
(which is an idea, as opposed to a scientific observation) that is
employed to take a ground-dwelling reptile to a bird of flight (avian
lung, long digit bones, feathers and all) or a ground-dwelling mammal
to a humpback whale (tale fluke, blowhole and all), or even a reptile
to a hairy mammal. To ignore the difference between observed
variation (bird to bird, lizard to lizard, human to human) and
unobserved made-up story-telling (algae to predatory microorganism
with flagellum for locomotion) is dishonest.
The alleged inconsistencies are often misunderstandings or deceptions
on the part of those who like to denigrate scripture. Sometimes the
"inconsistencies" have to do with the Hebrew language not having a
coined word for "sphere" or a certain animal identification which
would correspond to our language, etc. Other times, the Hebrew writer
uses language that approximates something which-- in our culture--
might be put in more exact language, but ends up more vague. There
are cultural differences that explain some of these "inconsistencies".
I've only named a few reasons here among many which explain some of
the passages atheists like to harp on. . . but there are a few others
that you could look into by buying a Commentary.
> >> You seem to make a lot of demands of evolution, and yet
> >> exclude your own beliefs from it.
> >
> > That's not at all true. My faith has been held to the fire and it has
> > been strong enough to withstand alot of flames.
>
> It seems that the only way you can maintain your faith is to mock science.
Depends on whether or not you define science as "accepting ideas of
abiogenesis and extrapolated variation concepts. . ."
If you truly read the Bible, you'd know that for thousands of years,
God has supported his people through thick and thin. If that's not
history, I don't know what is.
> >> any more than I see a history with Zeus, Ra or Brahma.
> >
> > Then you haven't read very much of the Bible-- there's real history in
> > there.
>
> AGain, I have. I have found nothing compelling there.
>
> >> Now your jumping right out of the ring. I will say it again,
> >> saying "God did it" has no explanatory power.
> >
> > Recognizing design has much explanatory power.
>
> Really. So how did God design things?
Recognizing design is what intelligent design scientist have done.
Determining 'how' may not be apparent to us, just as the 'how' of
Abiogenesis remains unapparent. I'd like to answer the 'how'
question, but I'm not the designer.
When archaeologists have discovered ruins of megalithic structures
which contain huge blocks of limestone rock placed upon one another
with such precision to mystify even current-day architects and
builders, they may have not been able to explain *how* these megaliths
were put into place, but they could confidently make an identification
that the structure was intelligently designed. Just because the *how*
may not be answerable, doesn't make the endeavor of the archaeologist
to identify the intelligent design of the structure any less
scientific.
Here's a website which brings up one of those areas where meticulously
placed megalithic blocks happen to be:
http://www.goddesstourstomalta.com/nm.html
The website makes a comment WRT archaeologists often coming upon
intelligently-designed artifacts that mystify them in the *how*
department: "Discovered artifacts usually produce as many questions as
they do clues about their origins"
Back in 1998, I commented about my position on viruses:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J6F9264F5
I have since firmed up on my opinion (somewhere around 2001), but it
can be plainly seen that I've moved no goalposts on this issue before
or after the synthesis of the polio virus was accomplished by
scientists.
Viruses are chemicals and not lifeforms.
> <snip>
>
> >
> >> As to spontaneous generation,
> >> I'm sure you realize that modern theories of abiogenesis do not make claims
> >> that cells pop into existence.
> >
> > Cells popping into existence are no less likely than cells gradually
> > coming together. . . Both are unobserved phenomena.
> >
> >> > Why don't we see proteins coming together spontaneously via unguided
> >> > processes in a broth of various amino acids when electricity and or
> >> > pressure are applied? Why are all the amino acids in lifeforms
> >> > oriented in the Levorotatory position (as opposed to 50/50 L/R
> >> > orientations we see in "natural" occurences of synthesized amino
> >> > acids)?
> >>
> >> Since we don't know the starting conditions, how can we repeat it?
> >
> > This is a statement that resembles what a creationist would say about
> > an omniscient, omnipotent God: 'Since we didn't observe the process
> > of creation, how can we repeat it?' Do you see the irony here?
> > Evolution proponents like to poke fun at creationists for saying
> > things like this, yet it gets the nod when it's used to shore up your
> > own position. I find that interesting.
>
> Even if I thought your objection meaningful, evolution is not dependent upon
> any particular theory of abiogenesis.
I suppose I should have said "abiogenesis-proponents" instead of
"evolutionists", so I'll be careful to waste more bandwidth typing in
those extra letters from now on. . . Sigh.
> >> But
> >> that's not to say we won't, and even if we can never repeat abiogenesis,
> >> that in no way falsifies evolution.
> >
> > It certainly doesn't help the position of Atheists, though.
>
> It doesn't effect the position of atheists at all.
Atheists would certainly get excited if abiogenesis experiments
started going right (which they aren't). Why? Because they would see
their dreams coming true right before their eyes. For now, though, it
seems that the atheist position hasn't been bolstered by what's going
on in that arena, and there's no denying that. In fact, probability
analyses have-- time and time again-- shown the whole of their ideas
to be doomed to dismal failure.
> >> > Without genetic-code guidance, These would all be involving miracles.
> >> >
> >> >> no
> >> >> more so than the condensation of the remnants of a supernova into a new
> >> >> stellar system or of a star collapsing into a blackhole.
> >> >
> >> > And why would you think that the law of gravity isn't anything other
> >> > than a supernatural force?
> >> >
> >> > Has science even come close to doing anything other than recognizing
> >> > that gravity is in existence? Here's the short answer: Scientists are
> >> > really good at giving the 'what it does' explanation when it comes to
> >> > gravity, but when it comes down to the question of "how", there's alot
> >> > of silence. . .
> >>
> >> Science has done a great deal more. Ever heard of Newton and Einstein?
> >
> > So you have knowledge that there are scientists who understand how
> > gravity works? (Or is it just that these scientists have some ideas of
> > how to conduct quantitative analyses of gravitational fields?-- That
> > would fall in the "what it does" category, as opposed to the "how"
> > category, btw.)
>
> They formulated falsifiable theories that have done very well at explaining
> behavior. Hopefully when we have a quantum theory of gravity we will
> understand that particular force much better.
I could see that force being harnessed, just as we've managed to
harness nuclear energy. Still, that doesn't mean we're going to be
creating gravity or even finding a way to make it vanish in certain
environments. . . The law of gravity will remain a mystery in the
*how* category, but the *what it does* category may well be expanded
down the road. . .
> You are arguing nothing more than a god-of-gaps notion here.
I think not.
The enzyme is not new cell-composed morphology (with new/additional
function inherent). It is new (well, in an old kind of way)
molecule/atom-composed morphology. "Cell-composed" is analogous to
"brick composed"-- they both refer to construction of a multi-cellular
body structure (or multi-brick structure). Your example isn't even in
the ballpark of fulfilling my request.
> >> Please show me citations in primary literature or
> >> in peer reviewed journals where any researcher makes this claim?
> >
> > I want you to find out for me if there is one instance of this kind of
> > constructive evolving in the literature. There should be at least one
> > or two observations of this kind in all of the world's evolutionary
> > research, if evolution truly worked this way back in the Devonian
> > period or the Permian period.
>
> You've already turned your face, waved your hands and buried your head in
> the sand.
Your example doesn't meet the criteria of the request.
> >> You wouldn't just be making the above up, would you?
> >
> > It's a challenge that I've presented to you-- a request. If you're
> > wondering whether it's my challenge or maybe that I've copied it from
> > another creationist, I'll respond by saying that it came from none
> > other than myself.
>
> I supplied one. Nylon-ingesting bacteria.
Not meeting the criteria of the request.
> You waved your hands and gave me a
> link to Answers in Genesis, which I wouldn't point my worst enemy to as a
> source of scientific information.
I guess we're naturally going to disagree on the validity of AiG, so
there's no sense in trying to change your mind on that one. . .
> >> > Alas, it doesn't seem that evolution (variation) really works in that
> >> > way at all.
> >> >
> >> >> > You can say that I accept variation, but that I don't accept common
> >> >> > descent of all species on the Earth (via mere speciation) from an
> >> >> > initial form of life.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you give me a definition of "variation"?
> >> >
> >> > Variation is evolution on a scale which has been observed (dogs which
> >> > spawn pups which don't grow as big as their parents, cats which have
> >> > different coloration than their relatives, and birds with slightly
> >> > shorter beaks than their parents had). Some call it micro-evolution.
> >> > I refer to it as variation because the variants tend to gravitate
> >> > around a general format organism, and don't tend to stray too far from
> >> > the homebase.
> >>
> >> Then you can explain the speciation events that have been observed.
> >
> > To me it makes sense.
>
> What makes sense? Please explain speciation.
Read what I wrote above (head upwards by about 1,000 lines!), and
you'll see that I have a good understanding of speciation. I don't
deny that speciation occurs. I and almost all creationists feel that
speciation is a significant aspect of variation within the realm of
the living world. Where scientists draw the lines between species
can be often somewhat arbitrary, though. Some animals that mate and
produce offspring are different species. . . (Squirrels that live on
either side of the Grand Canyon National Monument fall into this
category, as do coyotes and dogs.)
> >> >> >> > Since this isn't based on in-the-field observational evidence,
> >> >> >> > it is akin to believing in some sort of miracle. It is this belief
> >> >> >> > that binds the atheists to a world-view that has its basis in
> >> >> >> > Methodological Naturalism. Don't be so sure that Atheists "do not
> >> >> >> > share common beliefs".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Each of us have our own world view, not
> >> >> >> > > dictated by a preacher, or rabbi, or other spiritual leader or
> >> >> >> > > con artist.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Are you so sure that you haven't been conned?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> by whom were the atheists conned?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > By those teachers, preachers, or other spiritual leaders who didn't
> >> >> > live or teach in the way God prescribed they should live and teach.
> >> >> > Hypocrits abound in our world. Why look at hypocrits to determine
> >> >> > what ideology is most suitable, when you can look to the sourcebook
> >> >> > and see more clearly what the real truth of the ideology happens to
> >> >> > be?
> >> >>
> >> >> Please explain what the real truth of the ideology is.
> >> >
> >>
> >> <snip dull, tiring proselytizing>
> >>
> >> Don't waste your breath. I was speaking of evolution.
> >
> > I'm sorry you see it that way.
>
> I asked you for the real truth of the ideology of evolution. You poured
> some religious ramblings, and didn't give me an answer.
You didn't ask for the real truth of the ideology of evolution.
Here's what you asked:
I wrote: "Why look at hypocrits to determine what ideology [in context
of our conversation, ideology=religous faith] is most suitable, when
you can look to the sourcebook and see more clearly what the real
truth of the ideology happens to be?"
You responded: "Please explain what the real truth of the ideology
is."
We hadn't been talking about evolution in that part of the
conversation, AC. Maybe you've forgotten? Head on back to the thread
that contained that communication, and you'll soon have your memory
refreshed.
Steve A.
Matt Silberstein
A):
>> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:
There is an unmarked snip here that disrupts the context. Given
that I snipped a 700+ line post to under 100 you did not snip to
save space. It does not behove you to employ such deceptions.
>> Steve, I hope you realize this is *not* an argument against
>> evolution. It is, in fact, an argument against most creationist
>> claims. Electron and lunar orbits are, according to you, so
>> "intricate" that they were designed.
>
>Don't you find it at all interesting that what's happening on a
>cosmological level is analogous to what's happening at the atomic
>level? (Gravity being analogous to positive and negative charges at
>the atomic level.)
I find it interesting that you ignored my point and changed the
subject. As for this "analogy", I don't see it as particularly
interesting since electrons do not actually orbit. Now how about
my main point: if orbits show design then design does not argue
against evolution.
>> Yet we are able to describe
>> them and predict them without proposing that g(G)od(s) push the
>> elections or the Moon.
>
>You've brought up two things about gravity and atomic forces here:
>scientists "describe them" and "predict them".
>
>Describing is purely spelling out the data. Creationist and
>non-Creationist scientists analyze the same data. Data is data, but
>the interpretation of data is where the difference is.
This is both false and irrelevant. Creationists overwhelming
ignore the data. What little data they pay attention to they get
from reading scientific works, not from doing their own
experiments.
>Making predictions about these forces can be done based on scientific
>laws which were established from the beginning of the universe.
No, we make predictions based on our models which were developed
long after the beginning of the Universe. Our models may or may
not match the laws of the Universe.
>Employing the laws of science to make predictions has little to do
>with whether or not one thinks God was the causative factor for the
>laws.
You are the one who argued otherwise. You are the one who saw
design in the orbits.
> The laws of nature are the laws of nature, and can be utilized
>in making scientific predictions whether you're a Creationist or a
>Naturalistic Evolutionist.
You posit a false dichotomy here. You now use "creationist" to
mean someone who believes in God. With that definition someone
can be a creationist and support evolution. OTOH if "creationist"
means a young Earth scientific creationist then they can't use
the works of science since all those works conflict with their
views.
>As a proponent of intelligent design, I am not proposing that God has
>to physically push electrons around protons and planets around suns.
>That's your absurd strawman of my position. The scientific laws are
>established to propel that which needs to be propelled.
Are you arguing against evolution? If so, pay attention to my
point. If you identify design in an orbit then identifying design
in organisms does not suggest that common descent did not occur.
>The big question is this: WHERE DID THESE IMMUTABLE LAWS COME FROM?
And if you say "God" then I will respond "WHERE DID GOD COME
FROM?" You will assert God was always there. And I will counter
assert that perhaps the laws were always there. This is territory
was mined and abandoned hundreds of years ago.
>> The same goes for the diversity of life.
>> Perhaps g(G)od(s) (or some other designers) is behind it. But we
>> can treat it like we treat orbits and we can explain it like we
>> explain orbits.
>> [snip]
>
>Treating life itself like law-driven forces, eh?
>
>Let me ask you one thing, Matt. What law of nature puts amino acids
>together to form purposeful proteins from a prebiotic soup?
Suppose I can't answer. How does my inability say anything? How
does all of science's current inability to answer this, or any
other, question say a thing? 400 years ago people could not
explain orbits, that did not mean that God did it.
>Wait, I've got another question. . . What law of nature puts nascent
>cell-composed structures on organisms that-- a number of generations
>before-- completely lacked those structures? (ie. horns on
>once-hornless creatures or hair follicles/arrector pili anatomy on
>creatures that were reptiles with scales a number of generations back.
>. .)
Same answer except that science does have an answer to this. But
I am not going to get sidetracked. To put my point another way if
you say that you can identify design/God's Hand in one place that
implies that it is not in another place. Are you willing to claim
that there is something in the Universe undesigned? Something not
made by God?
>> >What I've mentioned above (orbitting matter) is a clue that points to
>> >intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
>> >point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
>> >even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
>> >commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
>> >design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
>> >that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
>> >get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
>>
>> I think you have missed it. You argue above that the "unorganized
>> jumble of rocks" is also so intricate it requires a designer.
>
>The jumble of rocks fell into place, and this wasn't done by
>intelligent design. Now, I'll admit that the matter they are
>comprised of and the downward direction to which they fell have to do
>with 1) matter created de novo long ago and 2) a law of gravity that
>was created de novo long ago, but that really isn't playing into the
>current state of what an intelligent design proponent has taken a
>stand on.
So God did not put the rocks there. It is something God does, but
not others. What if some rabbit, who was just too slow, was
killed in the rock fall. Is that instance of selection not from
God?
>The current state is that one portion of rock is a fantastic
>sculpture-- thanks to an intelligence input, while the other rocks are
>what they are (jumbled) because natural processes went uninterupted by
>intelligence input.
>
>Of course you already knew that. . .
>
>> Mt.
>> Rushmore is no more an argument for design than a sand dune or a
>> pile of rocks. Or do you wish to claim that there are things in
>> the world not designed by g(G)od(s)?
>
>Employing ID is exclusively about distinguishing whether natural
>processes (laws of nature already put into motion from the beginning
>are the only input involved) or an act of intelligence (a sentient
>conscious mind involved-- not just pre-established laws of nature)
>brought about something.
How can you tell that a sentient conscious mind is involved? I
know how to see that a human was involved, at least sometimes.
But not how to identify the abstract sentience.
>Understanding ID is actually not as hard as you're making it out to
>be.
I understand many of the ID claims, even the ones that are
inconsistent. You are the one who said that orbits, examples of
natural laws in action, show design in the world. Do you take
that back (and is that why you snipped our your own claims)?
>> [snip]
>>
>> >[Cases of spontaneous human combustion have been investigated by
>> >detectives and coroners, and the explanations have-- in certain
>> >cases-- ended up admitting that natural or intelligent human
>> >etiologies completely didn't make sense in the context of each
>> >individual killing. Are those detectives and coroners wrong for
>> >considering causes which are outside the realm of natural and
>> >human-intelligence causes?]
>>
>> I would like to see a valid reference for this. I strongly doubt
>> it ever occurred.
>
>The BBC program which I watched about a year or two ago gave some
>possible insights into naturalistic explanations for SHC, but there
>are some problems with what was asserted:
>
>See:
>
>http://www.alternativescience.com/spontaneous-human-combustion-burning-issue.htm
>
>http://www.alternativescience.com/spontaneous-human-combustion-cases.htm
>
>Here's a quote from the second page:
>"Mrs Conway is acknowledged to have been a careless smoker whose room
>contained evidence of many cigarette burns. Thus the Conway case was
>dismissed without further comment.
>
>What the film makers neglected to say, however, is that the time that
>elapsed between the grand-daughter handing Mrs Conway the matches and
>the firemen arriving to discover her completely consumed remains, was
>at most about 20 minutes and could have been as little as 6 minutes.
Your source on this is what?
>This information comes from Robert Meslin, a volunteer fireman (later
>Fire Marshall) in Upper Darby Township at the time of the fire, and
>one of the first on the scene. (It was Meslin who took the famous
>photographs of Mrs Conway's charred remains.)
>
>"The amazing part of the incident in my opinion", says Meslin, "is the
>time element." Meslin said that the grand-daughter made the fire alarm
>call within "three minutes" of having last spoken to her grandmother.
>That meant Mrs Conway was alive at 8:42 AM. The firemen arrived to
>find her remains at 8:48 AM.
>
>Once again, the "wick effect" can be completely ruled out. It is
>absolutely inexplicable that the makers of the BBC TV QED film should
>have stated that the "cause of the fire is known" when they must also
>have known that the fire that consumed Helen Conway did so in a time
>interval of not more than 20 and not less than 6 minutes. The film
>maker's own experiment showed them conclusively that the 'wick effect'
>would have taken a minimum of 7 hours to consume Mrs Conway."
>
>Does SHC occur? You bet it does. Can all cases of SHC be logically
>explained by scientists? No.
So your solution is that some sentient conscious mind, in
particular God, was behind it. Isn't that your claim?
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> >If a forensic scientist observes a hole in a body found in an alley
>> >that has traces of gun powder around it's opening, yet there is no
>> >bullet to put into the ziplock evidence bag, he uses the argument from
>> >analogy that the causative agent was a bullet fired from a gun.
>>
>> Yes, because he is familiar with guns and know what they do. He
>> know the abilities and limitations of a gun as a hole making
>> device.
>
>Just like anyone is familiar with the idea of a tool-maker
>(intelligent agent) who can make a pair of needlenose pliers designed
>to grab things (which is analogous to the designed claws a scorpion
>uses to grab things).
So, again, you have no way to distinguish known designed things
from anything else in the world. Your current answer to any
phenomenon is "It was designed" with no more detail at all.
>> > As a
>> >scientist (working in the historical sciences realm) it's his job to
>> >determine if the victim died of natural causes or from an
>> >intelligence-derived episode. Even though the scientist may not be
>> >able to determine the name of the perpetrator or even say exactly what
>> >kind of gun was used to fire the bullet, he still has employed science
>> >as he was supposed to when he determines that the guy didn't die of
>> >natural causes.
>>
>> He can point to a rather specific mechanism. He does not simply
>> say "something unknown did some unknown thing at some unknown
>> time".
>
>He says that "some sentient person operated some unknown kind of
>firearm within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
>before time Y, and after time X."
Yes, some *person*. Persons are known to exist at the appropriate
time and place and are know to have the appropriate ability.
>An analogous statement pertaining to an intelligent designer would go
>like this: "Some sentient entity (person?) operated some unknown kind
>of power within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
>before time Y." (Time Y would be a time before recorded history.)
Except no such persons are known to exist. Or any such beings
with the necessary ability at the necessary time and place.
[snip]
>> If ID is testable then we should be able to point to something
>> and say it was not designed. Do you have something in mind?
>
>The jumble of rocks near Mt. Rushmore.
So there are things in the world God did not do. Can I quote you
on that?
>It bears repeating that employing ID is exclusively about
>distinguishing whether natural processes (laws of nature already put
>into motion from the beginning are the only input involved in natural
>processes) or an act of intelligence (a sentient conscious mind
>involved-- not just pre-established laws of nature) brought about
>something.
>The jumbled rocks got where they are in that formation because of
>natural processes. Their formation is not the result of an act of
>intelligence (though their matter properties and the law of gravity
>that pulled them down were pre-established by the Designer's preset
>laws.
>
>> Would
>> you tell us of something that, IYHO, is not the result of the
>> action of this proposed designer?
>> [snip]
>
>A line can be drawn between natural processes and intelligence-driven
>occurances by employing the same scientific means that forensic
>scientists utilize.
You mean by identifying human actions?
> The jumble of rocks arrived at their destination
>by natural processes, and that's why they don't have any real
>semblance of order.
How about ice? Does that have a semblance of order?
Cobus Hechter
> Cobus Hechter wrote:
> > After a consideration of the feelings expressed in this grouping,
> > there remains a clear sense of returning to the essential topic of
> > this thread.
>
> Really? Well, unfortunately t.o. *does* fall a victim of usually
> well-intentioned (?) spate of off-topic postings. Usually they tend
> to peter off after a while.
>
> >
> > A clear exchange on the practical fundamentals of 'origins' may be
> > useful.
>
> I'm waiting all 'atwitter (whatever it means, sounded like a nice
> word at this point :^).
>
> >
> > Much frustration prevails in our contemporary society. We have lost
> > the basic formulae for salvation and suffer gravely because of this.
> > The facts pertaining to the origins of the religions call for
> > investigation. Such an undertaking will bring to light our common
> > heritage.
>
> What makes you think that the "basic formulae of salvation" is/are
> anything but mindless twitter of pig-ignorant fundamentalist preachers?
> What makes you believe that anyone else except those under *fundamentalist*
> religious oppression are suffering gravely (outside the obvious
> 3rd world countries with food problems and dictatorships)?
>
> >
> > Once basic fundamentals of religious concept can be agreed upon,
> > proper scientific consideration will be less hindered. Science is able
> > to lead humanity to the truth,
> >
>
> Gee, whuddavthunkovdat? Now, as for your next assignment, please
> return with "basic fundamentals of religious concept [that] can be
> agreed upon". As an add-on assignment, please report the number and
> quality of the different sharp objects hanging on your person and the
> count of your missing body parts.
>
> Meanwhile, the science just plods on (with a remarkable speed,
> without even a *need* of waiting for the fundies of different
> religious cults to get on the same map with one another).
>
> (I *may* have misread your initial message, bad-day-at-the-office,
> you know).
>
> Seppo P.
At least it got an entertaining response out of you. May this week
pour its contents joyfully on your frustrated head.
Take it easy.
Cobus
Steve A
> > Steve A wrote:
> >> Matt Silberstein wrote in message news:
> >> Steve, I hope you realize this is *not* an argument against
> >> evolution. It is, in fact, an argument against most creationist
> >> claims. Electron and lunar orbits are, according to you, so
> >> "intricate" that they were designed.
> >
> > Don't you find it at all interesting that what's happening on a
> > cosmological level is analogous to what's happening at the atomic
> > level? (Gravity being analogous to positive and negative charges at
> > the atomic level.)
>
> Like most analogies, this is weak. For instance, we know of only
> one kind of gravity, but positive and negative charges.
Actually, I should've pointed out before that there are two
pre-established forces keeping planets in their orbits-- gravity and
velocity (motion). One draws them inward while the other resists the
inward pull (so this is representative of both positive and negative
forces).
> It's probably true that analogies teach us very much about physics.
>
> >> Yet we are able to describe
> >> them and predict them without proposing that g(G)od(s) push the
> >> elections or the Moon.
> >
> > You've brought up two things about gravity and atomic forces here:
> > scientists "describe them" and "predict them".
> >
> > Describing is purely spelling out the data. Creationist and
> > non-Creationist scientists analyze the same data. Data is data, but
> > the interpretation of data is where the difference is.
> >
> > Making predictions about these forces can be done based on scientific
> > laws which were established from the beginning of the universe.
> > Employing the laws of science to make predictions has little to do
> > with whether or not one thinks God was the causative factor for the
> > laws.
>
> It isn't the cause of the laws which are in dispute: it is their suspension
> by events like the global flood which miraculously leaves no trace which
> is in dispute.
My problem with what Matt was trying to communicate with me is that he
confused primary designer causal activity in current day happenings
(cosmologic and atomic orbittal states) with the actual
set-in-motion-long-ago universal laws (secondary causal activity) that
govern matter placement. No creationist believes that the designer
actively pushes around every electron in its orbittal state (primary
designer causal activity). That's what the universal laws were
established for (secondary causal activity).
It's worth noting here that there's a distinction that can be drawn
between empirical science and historical science (examples of hist.
science being archaeology, forensics, and paleontology). The
already-set-in-motion laws of nature (and the pertinent mathematical
associations) are often utilized by scientists practicing empirical
science. When dealing with ID a historical scientist works to
determine whether or not something is intelligently designed by using
the analogical method (see my 9-19 message to AC where I bring up the
insulin synthesis example which deals with testability). Historical
science is an appropriate realm to expect a designer to employ primary
causal activity, whereas it's not necessary to expect anything other
than law-driven (secondary causal activity of the designer) in
empirical science. If you don't see it that way please explain to me
why.
> > The laws of nature are the laws of nature, and can be utilized
> > in making scientific predictions whether you're a Creationist or a
> > Naturalistic Evolutionist.
> >
> > As a proponent of intelligent design, I am not proposing that God has
> > to physically push electrons around protons and planets around suns.
> > That's your absurd strawman of my position. The scientific laws are
> > established to propel that which needs to be propelled.
>
> Then what action _did_ this intelligent designer perform?
Anyone associated with ID will tell you that the designer instituted
natural laws that have existed from the beginning (ie. gravity). The
designer created matter and energy as well as created lifeform. The
question of *what*-- to some degree-- can be easily answered.
> When?
Before recorded history.
> Where?
The entire universe.
> How?
This is one question that is not known (just as the details about how
abiogenesis processes pieced together cells over eons of time are not
known.).
> To what end?
This question is a philosophical question. To me it seems that this
question is completely outside the realm of science. I can give you
an answer to this question, but it would have the backing of what's
written in the Bible. Let me know if you want me to explain. . .
> Can you tell us _anything_ about what your creator _did_ do?
I known-- to a limited degree-- what the intelligent designer did.
It's the *how* that's beyond me.
> Intelligent Design is just a fancy placeholder for the words "I dunno, so
> God must have done it."
I could say the same of an Abiogenesis proponent: "I dunno, so natural
processes must have done it."
> > The big question is this: WHERE DID THESE IMMUTABLE LAWS COME FROM?
>
> It's not clear that the question is meaningful.
The question "Where did the U.S. laws come from?" is meaningful. Why
wouldn't my question above be meaningful?
> >> The same goes for the diversity of life.
> >> Perhaps g(G)od(s) (or some other designers) is behind it. But we
> >> can treat it like we treat orbits and we can explain it like we
> >> explain orbits.
> >> [snip]
> >
> > Treating life itself like law-driven forces, eh?
>
> There is no evidence that it is in anyway different, so yes.
The evidence is right there in the purposeful language of DNA every
cell contains.
> > Let me ask you one thing, Matt. What law of nature puts amino acids
> > together to form purposeful proteins from a prebiotic soup?
>
> It's chemistry of the garden variety. You can consider it physics
> if you'd like to subsume chemistry into physics.
If it was garden variety chemistry, shouldn't we be able to
occasionally see amino acids constructing themselves automatically
(without the aid of a directing genetic code) into proteins? My
impression-- since we never see this happen-- is that there's more
than just "garden variety" chemistry that's involved here. What
you're expecting me to believe sounds an awful lot like what the
scientists of Pasteur's day were expecting him to believe about
"garden variety" spontaneous generation (though your ideas are about
slower-than-spontaneous generation).
> > Wait, I've got another question. . . What law of nature puts nascent
> > cell-composed structures on organisms that-- a number of generations
> > before-- completely lacked those structures?
>
> More chemistry.
More intelligence-derived construction.
> > (ie. horns on
> > once-hornless creatures or hair follicles/arrector pili anatomy on
> > creatures that were reptiles with scales a number of generations back.
> > . .)
>
> That's Evolution, m'lad.
Evolution works with that which is already there. What structure of a
scaly reptile would be modified to ultimately become the
hair-follicles/arrector pili anatomy in today's mammals?
> >> >What I've mentioned above (orbitting matter) is a clue that points to
> >> >intelligence involvement. The "messy" aspects of the universe may not
> >> >point to a realization of design, but I find it odd that you didn't
> >> >even attempt to address the evidence I presented. It't like
> >> >commenting to someone standing next to you at Mt. Rushmore that the
> >> >design details are awe-inspiring and then getting a "yeah, but look at
> >> >that unorganized jumble of rocks over there" response. Do you ever
> >> >get the feeling that you're missing the boat?
> >>
> >> I think you have missed it. You argue above that the "unorganized
> >> jumble of rocks" is also so intricate it requires a designer.
> >
> > The jumble of rocks fell into place, and this wasn't done by
> > intelligent design.
>
> Really?
It shows no signs of a designer with a purpose, and purpose (which is
often comprised of aspects of complexity and organization) is one of
the signs of intelligence which scientists can actually detect. It's
appearing to be unorganized no matter how it's viewed.
> I show you to piles of rocks. One I made, the other just happened
> to form from natural forces. How can you tell the difference?
The only difference is that one pile was uncomplex and unorganized,
and the other pile was designed to appear uncomplex and unorganized.
When a scientist makes observations of these two piles, he's going to
walk away with one diagnosis: "They're uncomplex and unorganized, and
thus don't appear to have been intelligently designed".
You see, ID seeks to identify that which has a high degree of
complexity and a semblance of organization as being put there-- in
part-- by the use of cognitive intelligence. Everything that's not
labelled as designed by a scientist employing ID theory is therefore
undesigned or designed without complexity (and/or organization).
>snipped snyde comments about ID<
I've already spoken at length about abiogenesis above, so I'll deal
with SHC alone here.
A natural cause can't explain a pile of human ashes which would have
required temperatures above 2000 degrees Fahrenheit (if not 3000) to
take the body to that state within a time period of less than a half
hour. Also, the surrounding room furnishings and the ceiling above
tend to not significantly become damaged when ordinarily a fire of
that magnitude would've incinerated the whole room. The only set of
hypotheses a scientist can postulate would be that the energy (source
unknown) was focused on the person's body and some unknown invisible
barrier kept the surrounding environment from becoming affected by the
searing heat and intense fire.
By argument from analogy, it can be postulated that focused radiant
energy would destroy a person's body quickly like that (we've seen
this happen to soldiers who had torch-guns aimed their way). By this
analogy it can be plainly seen that the occurances of SHC could well
be the product of purposeful sentient intentions.
Now a scientist really can't name the source's name, but for all we
know it was a government agent who was out to complete a mission to
determine whether or not a high-technology weapon with a special fuel
can do what it's designed to do. It may not necessarily be a
non-human intelligent cause as you might want to think I'd claim here.
Whether or not it is a supernatural cause, is beside the point.
Determining if the cause is an intelligent source is what really is
the first and foremost concern, and I'm apt to think that SHCs are the
product of ID. . .
By the way, if SHCs were really coming from a natural source, wouldn't
you expect to have accounts of people's pets or farm animals also
undergoing SHC? Alas, this is not the case, as pretty much every case
is a human incineration. Don't believe me? Head on over to Google and
type "spontaneous animal combustion" into the search window (in
quotes). Not alot there, eh?
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>
> >> >If a forensic scientist observes a hole in a body found in an alley
> >> >that has traces of gun powder around it's opening, yet there is no
> >> >bullet to put into the ziplock evidence bag, he uses the argument from
> >> >analogy that the causative agent was a bullet fired from a gun.
> >>
> >> Yes, because he is familiar with guns and know what they do. He
> >> know the abilities and limitations of a gun as a hole making
> >> device.
> >
> > Just like anyone is familiar with the idea of a tool-maker
> > (intelligent agent) who can make a pair of needlenose pliers designed
> > to grab things (which is analogous to the designed claws a scorpion
> > uses to grab things).
>
> Piffle. You've presumed your conclusion.
I utilized the analogy method here, just like an archaeologist uses it
to be able to tell that shards from a broken piece of ceramic pottery
are intelligently designed (because there is similarity to the pattern
we see in today's intelligently designed pottery).
> You've never observed anyone
> designing a scorpion, and to suggest that one is intelligently designed
> because humans designed needle nosed pliers is simply begging the
> question.
The Claw is what we were discussing, not the whole scorpion. I'm
aware that humans can design pinching claws, and that is analogous to
the scorpion appendage. Remember, the analogy method is used in many
branches of science (including archaeology) to confirm ideas as being
rather probable. If you call my use of the argument from analogy
"begging the question" (and therefore unscientific), you'll have to
point the finger at archaeologists who employ the same method in their
scientific field.
> >> > As a
> >> >scientist (working in the historical sciences realm) it's his job to
> >> >determine if the victim died of natural causes or from an
> >> >intelligence-derived episode. Even though the scientist may not be
> >> >able to determine the name of the perpetrator or even say exactly what
> >> >kind of gun was used to fire the bullet, he still has employed science
> >> >as he was supposed to when he determines that the guy didn't die of
> >> >natural causes.
> >>
> >> He can point to a rather specific mechanism. He does not simply
> >> say "something unknown did some unknown thing at some unknown
> >> time".
> >
> > He says that "some sentient person operated some unknown kind of
> > firearm within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
> > before time Y, and after time X."
>
> Which is of course considerably more than _ANY_ ID theorist has ever
> claimed. It has the virtue of being falsifiable, for instance.
See my 9-19 message to AC which addresses this.
> > An analogous statement pertaining to an intelligent designer would go
> > like this: "Some sentient entity (person?) operated some unknown kind
> > of power within a timeframe that could be expected to have occured
> > before time Y." (Time Y would be a time before recorded history.)
>
> As weak as this statement is, I would like a reference to a single ID
> theorist who made any statement of this form.
If you are thinking that my thoughts aren't original, you are
mistaken. I had a thought cross my mind, and brought it forward,
hoping that I might get a response other than "who told you to say
that?"-- *Sigh*
Exactly why would you not agree with me that it is an analogous
statement to the one above it?
> I suspect that you are making this up.
What isn't analogous about my statement? That's all I was trying to
show, after all. . .
> > These two statements aren't really all that different, and this
> > demonstrates that a forensic scientist who practices science utilizes
> > the same method that an intelligent design proponent uses.
>
> Except you haven't actually given us an example. And of course the
> words "unknown kind of power" doesn't describe either the cause or
> effect of anything.
Now you're dragging me back to the *how* question. I dealt with that
above. . .
> >> >You've stated that ID isn't scientific because the designer and his
> >> >lab can't be paraded in front of our eyes, but you've totally
> >> >disregarded the argument from analogy which is a tool in any
> >> >historical scientist's toolbox. ID is just as scientific as forensic
> >> >science, because it's testable science. It delineates that which has
> >> >a natural cause from that which has an intelligence-derived cause by
> >> >employing arguments from analogy.
> >>
> >> If ID is testable then we should be able to point to something
> >> and say it was not designed. Do you have something in mind?
> >
> > The jumble of rocks near Mt. Rushmore.
>
> How do you know that I didn't make it? Or someone else? Perhaps that
> pile is the rocks that they chipped off and dumped, now weathered by
> decades so as to appear more natural. How can you tell?
ID doesn't have as its goal the interpreting of uncomplex and
unorganized things, but its goal is to identify as designed that which
is complex and organized. I thoroughly dealt with your "How can you
tell?" question at the beginning of this message.
> > It bears repeating that employing ID is exclusively about
> > distinguishing whether natural processes (laws of nature already put
> > into motion from the beginning are the only input involved in natural
> > processes) or an act of intelligence (a sentient conscious mind
> > involved-- not just pre-established laws of nature) brought about
> > something.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no such methodology.
I find assertions uninteresting.
> > The jumbled rocks got where they are in that formation because of
> > natural processes.
>
> Again, how can you tell? That's a presumption, not a conclusion.
I will concede that it's possible that the jumble got there because a
person was told to deposit them there (for some unknown reason). It's
still unorganized and uncomplex, and that makes it look like nothing
other than natural processes brought them to where they are. . . Since
ID mainly concerns itself with complex and organized things, the
aspect you are bringing up is moot.
> > Their formation is not the result of an act of
> > intelligence (though their matter properties and the law of gravity
> > that pulled them down were pre-established by the Designer's preset
> > laws.
>
> You presume a great deal.
I can say that it's highly likely that the jumble of rocks is not the
product of intelligent design, because I'm aware that there are piles
of rocks in countless places all over South Dakota which look alot
like the pile of rocks by Mt. Rushmore, and it wouldn't make any sense
to think that most of these numerous piles (similar in appearance to
the unorganized one we're looking at by Mount Rushmore) have been
derived by intelligent design. Again, the analogy method can be used
with a good probability of being right. Can it be absolutely known?
No. Can it be reasonably determined what is most probable? Yes, and
that's why the analogy method is utilized by archaeologists.
> >> Would
> >> you tell us of something that, IYHO, is not the result of the
> >> action of this proposed designer?
> >> [snip]
> >
> > A line can be drawn between natural processes and intelligence-driven
> > occurances by employing the same scientific means that forensic
> > scientists utilize.
>
> Examples?
The SHC example (where the argument from analogy is used) is discussed
above.
> > The jumble of rocks arrived at their destination
> > by natural processes, and that's why they don't have any real
> > semblance of order.
>
> When I go to the beach, I can observe certain portions which consist entirely
> of larger stones, and some with just sand. Is this order caused by design?
>
> Mark
This is questionable. What you've brought up here is organized, but
not really displaying complexity. It could be either designed or
undesigned. Now if you had brought forward an example which was both
organized and complex, I'd probably be more able to tell you that
intelligence was involved. . .
Steve A.
R. Baldwin
news:92c76e71.03092...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> My problem with what Matt was trying to communicate with me is that
he
> confused primary designer causal activity in current day happenings
> (cosmologic and atomic orbittal states) with the actual
> set-in-motion-long-ago universal laws (secondary causal activity)
that
> govern matter placement. No creationist believes that the designer
> actively pushes around every electron in its orbittal state (primary
> designer causal activity). That's what the universal laws were
> established for (secondary causal activity).
>
Actually, while you may not personally believe that the designer
actively pushes around every electron, there are many creationists who
believe something very similar. There is a Jack Chick tract called
"Big Daddy" that claims Jesus is the force keeping atomic nuclei from
flying apart. It is widely circulated in fundamentalist churches. I
used to have a copy back in the 70's when I attended such a church,
and it is still in print with a few changes.