Brothers! The evilution conspiracy continues, this time by GODLESS SCIENTISTS participating in a massive CONSPIRACY to claim evolution has been witnessed! The audacity! They are spitting in our Savior’s face! They are wrong, brethren and sisthren, for they DENY THE BIBLE and WORSHIP THE DEVIL! Praise be to JESUS’ holy name they’ll be burning in hell for all eternity!!!
Er, sorry. What I meant to say is scientists have witnessed evolution firsthand in a controlled study:
Observing the mechanisms of evolution in order to understand how a species adapts to another under different ecological conditions was the goal of researchers at the Laboratoire Écologie et Évolution…. They studied two bacteria — a predator and a prey — over 300 generations in a controlled environment.
For the first time, these scientists were able to demonstrate that the coevolutionary process is dependent on ecological conditions. Indeed, under certain conditions, the prey becomes resistant to the predator, which itself evolves so that it can attack this new prey. In addition, the scientists issued a warning against the previously envisaged use of this predator (Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus) as a “living antibiotic” because, like other antibiotics, this could lead to the selection of resistant pathogenic bacteria.
It seems we find more evidence for evolution each day. Yet when have you ever heard of evidence for creationism being discovered even once?
New evidence for evolution is generated every day. Every time someone does a bioinformatics screen to find the parts of a protein that are probably important and the parts that aren’t based on variation between species, every time that analysis comes back with a positive answer (which can then be checked by doing site-directed mutagenesis) rather than just random noise, we have more evidence for evolution. Every time someone does any research (and there’s quite a bit) which is depends on evolution being true, and comes out with a meaningful result (which is quite often), we have more evidence for evolution. Trouble is, because evolution is assumed by practically all scientists, it doesn’t exactly make headlines any more.
Evolution doesn’t make testable predictions, my arse. >_<
I guess what you meant by find more evidence was find evidence which is qualitatively new*, which I suppose is a bit more rare. Maybe every week or so. ;)
* is it still a straw man if I’m agreeing with you? Does that mean taking it to dinner instead of ripping it to pieces?
Don’t worry, creationists will just define the problem away as usual by calling it micro evolution and refusing to understand quite how idiotic they are being.
So the predator was able to adapt and overcome the struggle to destroy it’s prey, LOL… Anything can mutate within it’s genetic outline. Could it be that it’s already programmed to change in the event of an obstacle, much like our own anti-bodies? I think so. I’m betting on this bacteria always being some kind of bacteria and nothing else. Thanks for sharing.
It’s brilliant how Creatards will twist things to fit their worldview in concentric stages as one thing after another in which they are invested gets proven wrong. Tell me, J, what exactly is a “genetic outline”? Do you even know how genetic mutation occurs? Because I do, and I’m really betting that you don’t.
This is cool stuff. I also remember a few months ago, there was a paper published by Blount, Borland, Lenski et al about how they were able to show E. coli evolving to be able to metabolize citrate (which it normally cannot do). It sure got the fools over at Uncommon Descent and Conservapaedia in an uproar. Of course, all the intelligent design creationists have are a bunch of incoherent and thoroughly-disproved criticisms of evolution, and no actual testable alternative theory or research to back up their claims.
The study is fascinating and involved decades of meticulous experimental work and tens of thousands of generations of bacteria. For any biology wonks, here’s a link to a PZ Myers blog post about it over at Panda’s Thumb: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/historical-cont.html
Lest someone try to refute watching “300 generations” of bacteria in a lab, they need to understand a generation for bacteria could be minutes, hours or days. Not very long.
I also thought it was interesting a few weeks ago there was a lot of media attention to the resistance to Tamiflu, the medication in flu shots.
“According to an article in this week’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, just 12 percent of virus strains last year were resistant to the antiviral drug. This year, that figure has soared to 98 percent. Last year was the first time resistance to Tamiflu was noted at all.”
“The resistance to Tamiflu to the H1N1 virus strain was not unexpected, but the speed of the increase in resistance has been a surprise.” – USA News and World Report, 3/3/09
If this isn’t an adaptation by an organism (flu virus) to survive, I don’t know what is. Evolution.
Nah, the creotards will just say that since it was done in a lab, it’s obviously not natural selection, and therefore proof of intelligent design.
You guys are so naive.
Wow, 300 generations for an evolutionary change to take place. If it is so easy then a question for you boffins: Why does it take malaria 100 billions of billions (or 10^20) generations to produce 1 parasite which has effective resistance against chloroquinine drug ?. This number is taken from best available scientific literature ( http://www.jci.org/articles/view/21682/pdf ). Here is the pertinent quote: “Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years (14). This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 10^20 parasite multiplications”
To put the number 10^20 into perspective, it is about 100times more than all the MAMMALS that have EVER lived. For Darwin’s theory to remain true, we are supposed to believe in the fairy-tale that mammals somehow evolved from reptiles in 100 TIMES LESS generations than it takes to acquire ONE measly anti-drug mutation. I think I’d rather stick to believing in leprechauns as they have more convincing scientific evidence behind them.
“Wow, 300 generations for an evolutionary change to take place. If it is so easy then a question for you boffins: Why does it take malaria 100 billions of billions (or 10^20) generations to produce 1 parasite which has effective resistance against chloroquinine drug ?.”
No one said it was easy, nor has anyone said things evolve at the same rate. What is undisputable, as evidenced by your statement about maleria, is they do evolve. Some slower than others. The debate is over, evolution is true whether one likes it or not. What frightens people is it is not a moral system. It explains our origins …period.
I find the idea much more reasonable, and believable, than being created from dirt in a day, or from a clot of blood, a rib or virgin human birth.
Do not use science to disprove evolution, you have been warned by the bible.
Paul warned Timothy not to be like you, for it is written:-
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” 1 Timolty 6:20-21
Please use the bible to disprove scientific evolution.
So reptiles evolved first into primitive mammals. They, in turn, evolved into a dizzying variety of present day organisms spanning monkeys, whales, bats and everything in between. And – according to best scientific data we have – all this occured in 100 times less generations than what’s required to produce 1 anti-drug resistance in malaria. That’s reasonable ? What is this place ? A mental asylum or some kind of twilight-zone populated by braindead replicants ?! How could billions of mutations resulting in new mammalian species occur 100 times faster (in evolutionary terms) than 1 lame, purely destructive, drug-fighting mutation ?
Darwinism requires more faith than Spaghetti-monster cult but as I can see here it doesn’t lack naive adherents with no recognizable critical thinking ability whatsoever. You don’t have to believe in 6-day creation to start analyzing evolution for yourself instead of merely regurgitating pervading, lying propaganda. Michael’s Behe “The Edge of Evolution” book is a good start and a real eye-opener (plus even if you don’t accept its thesis you can learn a lot about molecular biology because it is written is terms anybody can understand).
“Michael’s Behe “The Edge of Evolution” book is a good start and a real eye-opener (plus even if you don’t accept its thesis you can learn a lot about molecular biology because it is written is terms anybody can understand).”
Is this the same Michael Behe who was used as a start witness for the good people of Pennsylvania in the modern Scopes Monkey Trial. The one the conservative federal judge (and Christian) called his level of research “breathtaking inanity?”
That Michael Behe?
What about evolution vs blibical christianity, does a person requires greater faith to believe in evolution?
What about evolution vs blibical christianity, does a person requires greater faith to believe in evolution, you know, the spaghetti-monster cult is satirical?
For the sake of the rest of us Christians out here trying to maintain a semblance of respect – can we please refrain from trying to disprove evolution by quoting books from non-respected scientists (I should probably say “scientists”) or from one paragraph proofs? And why are you always so angry and defensive about it? If you believe so strongly that God created the world, why are you seeking the approval of a bunch of atheists and scientists? Not exactly a shining monument to faith when you need science to back you up.
The Theory of Evolution has been constantly and consistently refined over hundreds of years by using the scientific method. I’m gonna go ahead and guess that no one reading this blog is an expert in evolutionary biology, so let’s not nitpick the details as evidence of evolutionary contradiction, ok?
Unless this evolution involves speciation, or a transition between “types” (whatever the hell that means), this new evidence will mean nothing to the creationist. They only accept evidence when it meets THEIR terms, which are not well defined and therefore impossible to meet.
In summary, NO amount of evidence, no matter how convincing, will convert a creationist.
A lo ng time ago my pastor fed me the 6000 yr old planet earth nonsense–i ha d to double take on it but i was so conditioned to want to believe in the “man of god” that i filed it away for later..
I’m ashamed to admit that it was’nt until the “man of god” was found out to be fuckin most of the young women and a drunk. I even remember standing next to him and smelling booze on his breath and completely ignoring it.
I noticed that the predator bacteria remained predators and the prey remained prey. Has a role reversal ever been observed? That would really be cool, but, I don’t know if it can happen or not.
why do athiests online go on the offensive when it comes to this subject? get over it! ok, we get it, you’re pissed when you found out santa wasn’t real…ok, get over it, what makes you soooo special that God had to answer your call but not that of others? or that you were special enough for God to tell you, don’t be an athiest, I’m here – but no, you would still not listen because you even continue to say that He’s a megalomaniac and so forth – as if there is a judge between God and man…do the ants understand when we trample them underfoot? we don’t understand anything much less the work of that of what keeps everything together…we ponder at the cells in our body, but as we peer into space, we see the same behavior in the solar system and in the greater scheme, yet, you have the knowledge to say cardinally, there is no god. we don’t know the architect who built the universe, but i wouldn’t want to mess with Him. if you want God at your door step, then you too humble yourself and remember Him who made you so He takes the time to remember you – after all, wouldn’t you run out your own children if they were trying to hang you and burn your home? there is no such thing as evolution, but if you want some proof that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, look in genesis, but for arguments sake – not even scientists know what dinosaurs’ skin looked like — as for the writer of this blog, you were never a christian, because in being christian is “Christ”-like and you don’t visit the fatherless or widows, you are an empty person and now pit your brethren against each other – you will have your reward one day.
I just ask that he discover punctuation and paragraphs. That made my head hurt and that wasn’t because of the lack of substance.
Back on the subject of Evolution :)
I remember Daniel posting that movie of a lecture of this biologist who talks about evolution and creationism.
He mentions this bacteria who learned to eat nylon.
I found it amazing and it made me smile.
The sheer meaning of this, that a living thing can adapt so much that it can in the end eat something we created which is completely synthetic.
The problem seems to be that you have to actually use your brain to learn and understand anything about science. And I have had fundamentalists actually say that higher education was “dangerous”. Most of them are loathe to admit that they just can’t wrap their brains around actual science. They would rather just think that god did it.
And Psycko, we understand more than you can imagine.
It is incredible that the biblical faith of God is unanwered, the greater or lesser faith and His judgement on those who dismay Him.
Maybe the recognition is somehow alien within a short timespan.
John
No one is personalizing science and looking to be loved back. That is a false choice that any self aware person can see through
I don’t need faith to get a warm fuzzy feeling for loved ones. I can even look at you and desire peace and happiness towards you and your own.
Science? Anyone ever check out a cell adhesion molecule called…Laminin? It literally holds everything together in our fearfully & wonderfully made bodies.
Sounds a lot like Col 1:17…By Him all things are upheld (held together).
The molecule is in the shape of a Cross, check it out.
To me it looks more like an asklepian. I guess there are Gods on Mt. Olympus, then, right?
Would you be willing to regard it as evidence of the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster if I could present a diagram of a vital enzyme in the shape of a noodle, or perhaps an S?
Only if it was written in meat sauce about 2000 years ago before it was proven to be true.
Great post Daniel! You hooked Wheelwright (who evidently still believes the world is flat and flies through space on a turtle) and AmericanPsycko (who exhibits all the finest traits of Christianity that have us flocking back to the Lord in droves–right down to the intolerant abuse and bad spelling). They make our own kind, civil and generous John C a man to cherish–even thought I do find his beliefs terribly barmy.
What about it, all you wavering Christians out there–have any of you been pushed an inch closer to rationality by our two guest godbots?
So, let me see if I got this straight, it WAS bacteria, and now it’s… wait for it BACTERIA! I can see why you are all so excited.
Don’t let it get to you brother – we know the end of the story and we win!!!!
Qs: So, is there proof that humans evolved from primoridial soup? Should textbooks say this is fact and THE truth and kids be presented as such? What do you say to the kid who says how did something come from nothing?
I hear mostly bashing of Christians for their belief in God, calling them ignorant and stupid and not having any intelligence. There have been quite of few scientists (from Newton to Galileo, kepler, Copernicus, Boyle, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, et al) who have made claim to believe in God. As well as CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and a plethora of other thinkers, scholars, and IQ geniuses. What would you say to them?
Oops -I guess I should have read your whole story about becoming disillusioned before I added my last comment -well I feel sorry that you have become spiritually lost-I’ll pray for you.Praise Yahweh in the name of Yeshua !!!!!
Okay, so you got a bacteria to be resistant to another bacteria… will it survive outside of the controlled environment? will it lead to another species? this is microevolution, are you saying it’s evidence of macroevolution?
I don’t have anything useful to contribute, except:
‘brethren and sisthren’ – made me snort my tea all over my keyboard. Thanks for the morning laugh!
This is actually not the first time.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Of course, since you can’t forget skepticism when things go your way, other labs are trying already to replicate the experiment.
Also, I’ve hear to many times the phrase “we have never witnessed a new specie pop up” from people that should at least bother to read a biology magazine if they were really interested, so it would be nice for them at least to get an idea of HOW new species do form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Natural_speciation
“A good example of natural speciation is **observed repeatedly** in the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish which frequently undergoes parapatric speciation into new freshwater colonies at the mouths of rivers.”
(Emphasys mine)
How to spot a hidden religious agenda
Amanda Gefter
New Scientist
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:35 UTC
As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to… well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I’d share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science’s clothing.
To read more, click on the link below:
https://www.sott.net/articles/show/177635-How-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda
Daniel’s post (if you read between the lines), and most of the subsequent comments, assume that Darwinian evolution is not compatible with a belief in God. Am I missing something, or didn’t geneticist Francis Collins publish a book debunking that assumption? I also seem to recall that in recent weeks the Vatican stated that belief in God could exist side-by-side with the theory of evolution. Perhaps this whole bitter debate is moot. And wouldn’t it be great if we could all evolve to have the ability to treat one another with civility in blog comments?
To WHOM:
With my Qs earlier, I did not mean to tie “something from nothing” with evolution, just wanted the explanation as related to atheism/Creator. Also, nobody can answer where’s the proof and why evolution is not taught as fact like 2 + 2.
And, do you explain the many scientists and great thinkers as idiots or ignoramuses because they believe in God?
I didn’t say they didn’t believe evolution happens. But evolution is not God, nor does it falisfy an existence of God.
And, the everywhere asnswer works both ways.
I’m not even religious and I see that most people on this site are very biased towards religion and it’s very obvious that there has been bad experiences with the church/religion. Please don’t let that determine your science.
Winermute:
Out of curiosity, if you have nothing against religion and it’s possible for the compatibility of science and religion, what keeps you from faith (being a devout Baptist with your wife)? What are the reasons you don’t believe?
boomSLANG: I am not anti-evolution (ASSumption on your part and a glimpse into obvious issues you have with pseudoChristians). I was on the evolution bandwagon and a great follower of the “gods,” but more recently I am questioning some of the scientists and the “origins of life” assumptions and the ruling out of intelligent design (some influence by Antony Flew). I am tired of scientists ruling out intelligent design (origins) without the evidence.
I am still quite open to science (love it) and see much evidence for evolution, but realize that it does not rule out intelligent design. All I would like from many of the commenters on here is to quit being so biased.
The answer to your question I would gather from most would be that gravitational theory and atomic theory aare not as closely connected to evolution in relation to intelligent design issues. In other words, I was taught in school tha evolution not only explains the change in life, but that there can be no God or Creator. I love biology, physics, chemistry, but when I was taught that I lost respect for the teacher and thought it was lacking in class.
Science aside, what keeps you guys from believing in a Creator or Cause to the universe?
If that question is addressed to me, I do believe in God. I DON’T believe in religion of any kind, and I especially object to politically active fundamentalists who are trying at every turn to deprive me of my second amendment rights.
Sheesh. What’s with the animosity? Why can’t evolution and creationism co-exist? I happen to believe in both, but I don’t attack or belittle people who believe solely in evolution. :roll:
Wheelwright (quote): “I equated the terms “generations” with “multiplications” with “individuals”, after all it is not like malaria has brothers and sisters. …
(just replace “generations” with “individuals” if that’s more to your liking). Is nitpicking on wording the best you can do ?”
Am I wrong, or this guy is equating ‘individual multiplication’ with ‘generation’. We people are about 6-7 billion now. Every year 140 million people are added (born). Will you say that human generations are 1.4 x 10^8 a year?
He seems to believe that those 10^20 multiplications took place serially. It really would be amazing that nothing happend in that amount of time.
—————————————————
To John C: Do you think that muslim, jewish, buddist, taoist, etc. biochemists could feel insulted by the fact that someone took Laminin “cross” shape as an evidence of “God is everywhere”?
—————————————————–
Is there a debate science vs. faith in other countries, or just in the US?
——————————————————-
Is Yaweh-Christ-Holy Spirit a better God than Krishna or Zeus? Better in terms of proof of existence, let away the “I feel his presence” statement.
—————————————————-
Sorry if I write like a monkey. English is my second language, but self thaught. Obviously, I came from a branch of monkey-like creatures far appart from the one that evolved into Shakespeare! ;)
It took an intelligent being to design the simple. Is there any evolution proof were the simple designed the intelligent?
Is it true than that nothing that is or was created without an intelligent design?
BJ
My position on this would be that IF there is a Creator or Designer, why would you think that things HAD to evolve?
In terms of creation/design, the argument of origins comes not from biology, but cosmology. Even if you believe in a big bang and everything happened from evolution, you still have the question of where it all came from in the first place? How many credible scientist believe that spontaneous generation created the universe? In other words, you can’t multiple nothing x nobody and come up with everything. Dawkins, Hawking… they have absolutely no answer for that and they admit it. In God Delusion, Dawkins says… “Darwin’s theory works for biology, but not for cosmology.” Then he says, “But don’t worry. We’ll figure it out eventually.” He’s got faith!
While I have been out of science for several years, I think it is very compatible with the possibility of a Creator God, and that ultimately this discussion must lead in a more philosphical direction, because science has yet to prove or disprove a creator.
As far as some evidence for a creator, it depends on what you believe about the evidence – example, there are 75 or so “fine-tunings” scientists reveal as precise marks of making the probability of life possible. You can’t argue with the data, but I guess you can prefer to say that it’s coincidence and random.
Does anyone know anything about the “Cambrian explosion?”
Pingback: Evolution Witnessed by Scientists « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day
Pingback: Evolution Witnessed by Scientists « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day
Does that mean that females are more holy than males because they have an extra x chromosome? Quick, better tell all the fundies they got it wrong!
Your faith is misplaced, woomeister.
Is Frances Collins a Christian?
Wow that was strange. I just wrote an incredibly long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t show up. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Anyways, just wanted to say wonderful blog!
Well, I don’t know about the “naive” assertion. I do know that we can sum up all the creotard objections under the following:
“GODDIDIT! GODDIDIT!GODDIDIT!!!11!”
Excuse me? WHO is the buffoon?
From reading your post (which shows your limited understanding of evolution), I’d say it’s not us scientists…
Wheelwright,
You should contact the Discovery Institute and see if their crack team of scientific researchers can sponsor your Theory of Intelligent Leprechaun design. I’m sure the DI or maybe the Templeton Foundation will have some research grant money for you to pursue this.
Just think, if you were to overthrow the modern theory of evolution (which has over 150 years of in-depth published research behind it), you’d probably be in line for a Nobel Prize. Good luck, I’ll be interested to see how your research turns out. Let us all know when you get your first paper published in Nature.
Wheelwright – from amazon “Behe argues that genetic mutation results in only clumsy solutions to selective pressures.”
“clumsy solutions” Have you seen the wide variety of finch beaks that evolved based purely on whether their location provided nuts or seeds? Certainly not clumsy. You should watch this video to see what I’m talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZv1Z4X0sgw&feature=PlayList&p=331C00F4255EFA00&index=0&playnext=1
Wheelwright,
I’m tellin’ ya, you need to get to work on those Discovery Institute research grant applications. Man-o-man, if you were to expose 150 years worth of evolutionary science research as bogus, you’d surely win a Nobel Prize–and you’d be better known in the history books than Darwin himself. Better get crackin’.
Evolution doesn’t say Reptiles -> Mammals -> Everything
It says Everything -> Everything (but more complex).
It’s not the ladder of life, but the tree of life.
One thing that you’re clearly not understanding is that a lizard did not hatch a cat. They didn’t just pop out a whole new species. The process was slow and gradual, over millions of years, and through millions of different ecological situations.
You’re arguing against the chances, but the problem with that argument? What are the chance that God did it all, but left behind no traces that he did it? If you ask me, the chances of that are SIGNIFICANTLY less.
STILL believing in God in these times isn’t a sign of strong faith, it’s a sign of strong ignorance, sometimes willful ignorance. God didn’t do it cause God doesn’t exist.
Perhaps you should actually read the source you quote rather than invent your own deluded conclusions. The article doesn’t say anything about 10^20 generations. It talks about 10^20 multiplications or individual parasites. It says so right there in your quote!
Since there are an estimated 10^17 malaria parasites at any time and they have a rather short lifetime, they can produce 10^20 individuals in a manner of a few years. In fact, the 10^20 number is an estimate derived from the number of times we have already observed parasites growing resistant to chloroquinine (somewhat less than ten times in the last fifty years).
So you’re simply demonstrating the typical creationist approcah: misrepresentation of honest research. Take a look at page 1091 in the link you provide, if you can be bothered to do some honest reading.
What is this place ? A mental asylum or some kind of twilight-zone populated by braindead replicants ?!
Michael’s Behe “The Edge of Evolution” book is a good start and a real eye-opener (plus even if you don’t accept its thesis you can learn a lot about molecular biology because it is written is terms anybody can understand).
First, welcome to the asylum. As braindead replicants go, you should fit right in.
Second, I can understand why you’d want to choose a book which is written in terms anybody can understand, seeing as you clearly have trouble understanding the nature of the science quoted in the given Science Daily source, that’s if you’ve bothered to read it at all.
If you want to be convincing in debate, it helps if you have some conception of what you’re talking about.
Vertebrate evolution is not terribly comparable to single cell evolution in a few significant ways. Clearly, asexual reproduction limits the difference in genome between the parent and “child” — single cell critters divide into nearly identical clones. However, sexual reproduction allows for large differences between the parents and children. Two individuals contribute genes, so the offsprings’ are pretty much guaranteed to be different from either parent. But I believe the process of meiosis might allow more errors than mitosis, allowing for even greater variation.
We’ve also seen canis lupus evolve into the huge variations in size and form that mark modern dogs. Getting from wolf to chihuahua (and greyhound and great dane, etc.) only took a few thousand years. So we know that selection on a species that reproduces sexually can produce a wide variety of physical forms over the course of a thousand years. You’re talking about the span of a few hundred million years. Of course early shrew-like mammals could diversify into hundreds of thousands of niches over the course of a hundred million years.
If you look at this, you’ll see that all of the big events in single-cell evolution happened on the scale of billions of years while the events for sexually reproductive animals and plants takes place on the scale of 10 or 100 million years, which would seem to support my premise: that single-celled organisms require more generations to introduce significant change into the genome than for multi-cellular sexually reproductive organisms.
Also, creationist probably arguments are total bullshit. You need to establish the validity of the premise of “probabilities” in this context. What are the “repeated trials” in this case? And of course, you can’t just base probabilities on the number of base pairs, because we already know that some parts of genomes are more likely to mutate than others. Which should be obvious, really. Any part of the genome that is used for anything vital to survival is unlikely to mutate without yielding a nonviable organism.
Nope, synapsids evolved into primitive mammals. Synapsids split from diapsids long before the former gave rise to reptiles.
The trial was Dover vs. Pennsylvania in 2006.
Oh, and your malaria point? Well, yeah, okay. I’ll let that stand, but I’ll also point out the topic that this thread started on. With witnessed evolution within 300 generations. So, you know, stfu. :)
I disagree with your sentiment we should limit the scope of the debate, Josh. Seems to me that’s what forums like this are for. Blogs like this are the modern version of the old public Debate Hall, with sometimes spirited or heated debate.
Further, it is a forums for raising questions, and, if you will, learning. If opposing views drives someone to further research a subject, so much the better.
It doesn’t matter if people are “experts” in any field, the majority are not. They do, however, have questions …and we should never be afraid of that.
That’s part of the problem…”trying to maintain a semblance of respect”. When you attempt to position God within the current paradigm of established science you invariably diminish your position, your argument and your God.
He is not concerned about whether He exists or not. For in Him we live & move and have our very being. Neither can He be proved in such a way. He does not ask us us to “prove” Him, but only to share the truth in love.
Science is mostly a matter based investigation of the physicial universe. God is spirit. Science as we know it may never “prove” or “disprove” God or any claims about Him. It’s His life in us, the internal blueprint, the change of nature that He is after.
When people see Him in the world, residing in human flesh, a unique property, something different they will take notice. It will be like the two on the road to Emmaus when joined by a stranger walking along together, talking and then suddenly…eureka, they realized all along that they were walking with the Lord Himself.
This is all the proof they will need. Christ in you (in us) is the mystery of the ages. Col 1:27
Evidence converted me, Alphonsus.
Also, since it’s pretty obvious where you got the malaria example from, here is a refutation of Behe’s calculations regarding the malaria parasite in his “The Edge of Evolution”. I don’t expect you to actually bother to read it though, but someone else might.
I equated the terms “generations” with “multiplications” with “individuals”, after all it is not like malaria has brothers and sisters. It is quite clear based on the context. Perhaps I wasn’t accurate enough but it doesn’t change anything because the comparison with mammals is still numerically identical (just replace “generations” with “individuals” if that’s more to your liking). Is nitpicking on wording the best you can do ?
So your defense of the divine allowance of evil is to suggest that God is a giant douche, trampling us underfoot like ants?
And of course, this is reflected in your actions, because that’s the level you’ve brought this conversation to with your mocking and your insults.
Yes, threaten us and insult us – that’ll really make us take you seriously. Not.
Many of us are ex-Christians. We’re not unfamiliar with Christianity. We know what it means to be a person of faith. You’re slandering us and lying when you say that “you were never a christian”.
How do you know that? You know none of us. Yet you’re so arrogant and so full of crap that you think you can judge all of us when you’ve never talked to one of us.
Everything you’ve written is baloney. Normally, I try to reason with people, but I suspect that you are beyond the reach of reason and dialogue.
Just look at how absurd and demeaning your statements are.
As Voltaire said, “Lord, please make my enemies ridiculous.”
Who can argue with this logic?
Take a deep breath Psycko. Did you take your medicine today?
Wow, I count at least eight or nine clichés in that one wall of text.
So Ray Comfort does have a long lost son after all?
For my sake, I never believe that there was a god, and I never expected anything from any god; not Thor or Mithras, or Jehovah. No signs, no special treatment, no pony.
All I ask for is that the people who do believe in a god provide some evidence that would suggest that said god exists. After all, how else can we know if any god (or, come to that, which god) exists?
Do you have any such evidence, or are you happy just flinging your poop around? Because that’s slightly less convincing.
Phil…
Unfortunately, you witnessed religion (external behavior modification attempts void of an internal change of nature) and it always stinks and falls short.
That is not what Christ came to bring, not the life He offers. Christ offers an internal change of nature, His within and peace, no heavyness.
Religion=oppressive, external, rule-keeping
Spirituality=liberating, internal, change of nature
Come on now. Regardless of how you feel about creationism, an ad hominem argument isn’t really constructive.
Phil,
Let me play, well, Devil’s Advocate.
John C says:
Religion=oppressive, external, rule-keeping
Spirituality: liberating, internal, change of nature
In contrast:
Atheism, or Freethinking = liberating, internal, change of nature, not “rule” keeping, not oppressive, enlightening, making sense of the natural world, not being gullible or credulous, thinking for yourself, questioning grand claims, living without dogma, willing to change your mind in light of evidence, living without the fear of eternal torture
I apologize, my sentiment was not that there shouldn’t be a debate, but rather that picking one seemingly far out example as proof that evolution is nonsense is simply ridiculous.
No multi-layered, complex theory such as evolution will be undone by a single statement.
The fact is, it is events or people like the drunk preacher Phil describes which cause one to start questioning everything. It is the spark to the fire. It may not be the sole thing causing someone to discard it, but it certainly raises questions in their minds to the credibility. One question leads to another …pretty soon it all comes tumbling down for them. Frankly, it’s very common.
John C?
wow, chop it up to meds – good argument
A friend of mine put it like this: “You can’t reason with crazy.” I tried to read that wall of text and all I got was, “You don’t believe my Gawd, so nyah, nyah!” That and “Daniel was NEVER a REAL Christian in the first place!”–that’s so cliche ’round this blog, it should be a macro on godbots’ keyboards. The nanosecond some godbotherer finds this blog, that’s usually the first or second accusation they hurl at Daniel, as though that somehow makes their own ignorant position much stronger. And I’d love to know where they find this Real Christian detectors. Does Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian ™ marke them?
Marcus…
The problem with that is…Self and the fruit of that old dead tree is rotten, not life-nourishing.
There is another tree (root system, source within) and it is the tree of life whose fruit is life-giving, eternal and not subject to temporal death & decay…Christ is the tree of life.
The Father offers to re-plant this living tree within us, as it was in the beginning. But we have forgotten what the original paradiasical condition was like, how lovely, bright and wonderful it was to be one with the One tree.
There were two trees…and there still is.
Yes.
So I’ve foundmy peace when i realized that i’m the one that creates it and takes responsibility for it.
In fact now I’M the principal deity of my own faith.
i don’t have to proslitize (spelling?)
i don’t have to prove anything.
and treating others with compassion takes less brain juice
This is the classic aurgument from extremes (if you are not with me you are against me). Lovely tree metaphors, too. What about the time billions of years agom when there were no trees, John? What did one use then. They are so simplistic and tiresome.
No, John, there were not two trees.
“The problem with that is…Self and the fruit of that old dead tree is rotten, not life-nourishing.” (I feel silly just writing that)
No again, John. I am not rotten and neither are you, nor is the tree. Evolution, by it’s very nature, is life nourishing.
It’s common because it’s the condition of the natural, not the spiritual man. The “religious” man is a natural man and thus wholly incapable of keeping to the high & holy standards of the law. It takes Christ within to live the Christian life, its His life anyway. He naturally fulfills the law. He is holy, pure.
Christianity is not an effort, a striving to “do good” but a dying to one’s Self. When this is in play He is free to manifest His (uncreated) life through our temporal existence.
This is the light & easy life that He describes.
insulting and silly was the first paragraph but it only makes sense to poke fun at the religious cause after all they’re the crazy ones, ok – can’t take what you dish?
You missed my point Marcus…I am not saying that you, original you is rotten, quite the opposite but rather the source from which we live is the issue.
We live from two different internal sources, this is eveident in our discussions. The question is…where do you derive your life from? What do you feed off?
Ha, funny Jabs…I caught that even if no one else did…good one.
simply, we’re arguing a point that has no end, like ignorance… enjoy your pearls
Perhaps…does this one have an insane love affair with bananas?
John, are you a closet masochist?
No, I just dont have any self identity or reputation of my own to protect any longer and oh how freeing that is! Galatians 2:20
…or the lack of understanding… (which ever makes you feel better in the end)
Now, now Shelly. When a godbot posts a wall of (God inspired!) text, know that it is God-inspired and it totally DOESN’T have to make one lick of sense.
…Yes in response to Marcus.
I see. So it doesn’t in any way invalidate your argument for the the sheer impossibility of malaria parasites developing resistance that we can in fact observe it to happen every few years?
You really don’t see how this makes your point ridiculous by a factor of 10^17?
And what exactly is the purpose of comparing the number of mammals to the number of malaria parasites, except to make some fallacious point about the impossibility of those parasites developing resistance, which is clearly proved false by nature? Your conclusion is fundamentally flawed, which is not surprising as it’s based on invalid premises.
If you’re going to label yourself a “Psycko,” is it really all that surprising someone suggests medication? ;)
You mean “chalk it up to meds.” And yes, you probably should be on some really STRONG ones.
I don’t think it’s meds, psycko.
I just think you’re dumb.
The problem with loving science is…it cant love you back. I love science too…but God more.
Thanks for so called: “refutation”. I tried to read it with an open mind but couldn’t contain a chuckle or two at how desperate and feeble Darwinazis’ attempts at disproving Behe have become. What’s most hilarious is how Darwinazis shoot themselves at the foot without even realizing it by claiming that:
“what we’re seeing here is not the sudden corruption of two “letters” in a DNA “sentence,” but rather the gradual accumulation of mutations, eventually gathering together to confer chloroquine resistance upon the lucky winner.”
So if the mutation conferring chloroqine resistance to malaria is the easy, gradual one – as they claim – then why the hell does it require 100 billions of billions organisms to obtain it ? Evolution works best via stepwise, slight changes so in this case the resistance should be reached orders of magnitude sooner than 10^20 if it is in fact the result of gradual process. The fact it isn’t reached sooner is a strong argument against the power of the classical Darwinian process, the argument which wasn’t even raised by Behe but by the Darwinazis themselves in an attempt to disprove and smear him. Talk about cutting off the branch you are sitting on! There is also a lie about what Behe really said thrown in the above quoted sentence. He said he “presumed” the two letters in the DNA sentence were switched but he wasn’t positive about it contrary to the article’s claims. He simply made a well informed guess based on the frequency of the effective mutation.
The author of the article also betrays complete ignorance and/or stupidity with respect to the distinction between “DNA sequence mutating” and “EFFECTIVE DNA sequence mutating”. That’s a crucial distinction at the very heart of Behe’s argument and the author confuses the two throughout the article losing little credibility ha has left in the process.
For instance, the author wrote: “What that paper says is that CQR has arisen independently in at least two – or, as we now know, four – places. That’s not the same thing as the DNA sequence mutating two or four times in fifty years to give the CQR sequence.”
The gross misrepresentation with this sentence is that neither professor White nor professor Behe claim that DNA sequence “mutated two or four times in fifty years”. They are talking about EFFECTIVE cluster of mutations that bestow resistance. There must have been billions of other mutations during the span of fifty years, but only a miniscule fraction of those was effective in any way.
I summary: the author lies about Behe’s arguments, has little clue about the molecular biology, ignores fundamental distinctions and substitutes hard empirical evidence with laboratory calculations and wishful speculations. Pure garbage.
John
No. What i experienced was authoritarian rule But he didn’t beat me up with it at first. Step by step lured me in by promising a departure FROM religion.
laid down by a fancy talkin bully.
I think it would take a Hunter S. thompson kind of investigating to get the whole scheme spelled out.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!!!
John C……”The problem with loving science is..[EDIT]”
The problem is that you errect a strawman, and call it a “problem”. To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything about “loving science”, as in, strong emotional/romantic attachments to it. For most Naturalists I know of, “science” is simply the best, *most reliable* method for knowing what is actually true about the Universe we live in.
Peace to you Phil in return my friend…thx
I understand Boomslang, I’m just saying there is more than meets the eye.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of Kings to search it out. Proverbs 25:2
I think you’re tying yourself up in knots here. When and how I ever suggested that there is “sheer impossibility of malaria parasites developing resistance” is beyond me especially since I quoted the paper specifically stating that “Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum HAS ARISEN spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years”. Besides, observing that something happened offers little clues with respect to why and how it happened so we should be careful about any assumptions or extrapolations. For instance: observing the change of organisms over time tells us nothing about the actual mechanism, in other words evidence for common descent can’t be common descent itself, lest we fall into circular reasoning.
Since there seems to be such lack of clarity on my main point, let me rephrase it again: it takes 100 times more organisms to yield a single choloquine-resistance than it takes to account for the entire evolution of mammals from reptiles into their present forms. See the “slight” problem here ? Can anybody be so blind ? Even if Behe is wrong by millions, or even billions orders of magnitude, his fundamental conclusion is still valid. The discrepancy between a) what has been observed that evolution can achieve (based on malaria for instance) and b) what is attributed to its “creative powers” is a mind boggling chasm that no amount of speculation or wishful thinking can ever bridge except in the minds of the brainwashed, naive or impressionate. Darwinian evolution (at least in its classical form) is completely dead because it has been factually refuted as much as any scientific theory can possibly be. Too bad the Darwinazis are actively censoring all Intelligent Design science papers in order to keep the truth from coming out.
The problem with your 10^20 number is that you’re using it to evaluate the entire field of evolution. You’re effectively using it to measure all living organisms through all of Earth’s living history.
Some mutations occur more frequently than others. What of it? Some may take 10^20 individuals to occur, some take considerably more, some considerably less. The number in itself is only relevant to CQ resistance, not to everything else, like the number of mammals. Not that it stops you from using it any way you like.
“Too bad the Darwinazis are actively censoring all Intelligent Design science papers in order to keep the truth from coming out.”
That is absolutely not true. The ID people have FAILED to establish ANY legitimacy for themselves as the Dover trial proved. The judge who presided over that trial was a CONSERVATIVE Republican appointed by GW Bush.
You seriously need to get your facts straight.
Your source is Michael Behe?
You mean the Michael Behe that has never published one bit of science about evolution in the scientific literature?
You mean the Behe that is neither a geneticist, paleontologist, nor in the field of evo-devo?
That Behe? The one that works with proteins, but not genes? That one?
The one that embarrassed himself in the courtroom in the Dover trial:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_056.html#transcript
That Behe?
Darwinazis? Nice one. Really lends weight to your arguments.
What don’t you understand? That resistance might require more than just one genetic change and as such occurs gradually? And what is it about the 10^20 individuals that is so incomprehensible? That number of malaria parasites exist within a decade, so what is the problem? Yeah, 10^20 is a big number, but so what?
As for the alleged misrepresentation of Behe:
I think you misunderstand – the two/four “places” are not point mutations, but geographical locations (like Asia and Africa). That Behe is talking about “effective” mutations, in the sense that they provide CQ resistance, is implied by the context, or so it appears to me. I don’t see any misrepresentation.
John C., attempts….”I understand Boomslang, I’m just saying there is more than meets the eye.”
So, you understand what a strawman fallacy is, then? I’m not sure you do, as you attempt them frequently, as well as other fallacies, such as “non sequiturs” and “bare assertions”.
That there *might be* “more than meets the eye” is a far cry from “Jesus is Lord!!!!”(non sequitur)
And you, “just saying”, that there is “more than meets the eye” is a bare assertion, because where the “metaphysical” is concerned, such a realm is unconfirmed.
To be fair, he did say “boffin”, not “buffoon”. Rather different meaning.
You call your superstitious woo “science”? Just because a molecule “looks” like it’s in the shape of a cross doesn’t mean diddly damned squat–of course, that doesn’t matter to woomongers like you–you’ve repeatedly ignored or woobabbled requests to provide scientific evidence of your imaginary sky friend (and no, the aforementioned molecule doesn’t cut it, kid).
Unfortunately, the laminin cross is only a cross when it’s depicted in an abstract diagram. I’d be more impressed if it actually resembled a cross (rather than just being curled up) when observed through a microscope in real life.
Yeah, you’ve mentioned this one before. And I’ve pointed out that it only looks like a cross in a structural diagram. In the real world, not so much.
Hey Rog…just once can you be somewhat nice? Even those who hold me in the most contempt are occasionally civil…but you? Not so much. I’ve been waiting a while to ask, but the time has come…I know you can do it man, I got “faith” in ya!!
I wouldn’t be more impressed if it actually resembled a cross. I’m sure we could photograph something macroscopic that resembles a swastika or a minus sign or part of His Noodley Appendage. But it’s all meaningless pattern finding.
I hate to agree…but that Psycko guy even made me look good! hahahaha. I almost said something to him but held my peace knowing how bad you guys would hammer the pot calling the kettle black!
No, I wouldn’t really be that impressed either. I’d just like such a claim to actually be supported by evidence in the first place. I mean, someone drawing a diagram depicting a cross is supposed to constitute some kind of evidence? Come on.
Yeah, you may be a little crazy, John, but at least you’re the happy, harmless kind of crazy ;-)
2005. But we all know which case you’re referring to.
Wha? So was it supposed to change from a bacteria into a flying monkey? That’s how evolution works. Two squirrels who are separated geographically may become genetically speciated, but they’re both still squirrels. Horses and donkey are still of the equine genus but they are different species. They are effectively speciated because their offspring is sterile (mules).
What more do you want?
You clearly have neither interest nor understanding of biology.
If you did you would realise that the bacteria comprise an entire domain of life, the variation in metabolism within bacteria is far greater than that within the entire animal, plant and fungi kingdoms.
Your effectively saying that your not impressed because you’ve not seen an evolutionary change in the lab that’s greater than that between a mushroom and a horse.
Who are you talkin to cottonwood? I’m confused.
Praise the Mighty FSM in the name of his Baby Noodle!
They’re bacteria. Of course they’ll survive. I’m not sure why you think their environment is artificial. Just because it is well controlled doesn’t mean it’s artificial. We give the bacteria a medium on which to feed and they do their own thing. It would be artificial if we were genetically altering the bacteria ourselves.
“this is microevolution, are you saying it’s evidence of macroevolution?”
There’s no such thing. Micro and Macro evolution are terms made up by creationists to muddy the waters. No evolutionary scientist ever uses them. They are meaningless, as ALL evolution happens in tiny pieces. The fact that, over time, those tiny pieces add up to major change is irrefutable.
If you actually want to learn something, do some research on a phenomenon called “ring species.” It will shoot that whole, “each thing according to its kind” crap all to pieces.
If you’d rather stay ignorant, just keep doing what you’re doing.
In case the icon wasn’t enough… I’m not this one. :)
Macro evolution involves micro evolution that leads to speciation. The two are inseparable:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
(the comment about the artificial nature of an experiment is what I inferred from your question about the bacteria surviving)
You seem to be equating Christianity with creationism. Not every Christian resists evolution, and not every Christian had the opportunity to do so. How would Newton be able to consider evolution?
As for something coming from nothing, that isn’t what evolution says.
How about bacteria to um… ‘not bacteria’ for starters?
Gah, *latter.
And it was Kitzmiller Vs. Dover School Board.
Everywhere.
Because religious fundamentalists object to anything being taught to their kids that might possibly contradict their own, bizarre, ahistorical interpretation of their holy book. And they have more political power than they deserve.
No. If they don’t believe that evolution happens, they’re clearly ignorant of biology, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same.
Evolution *IS* taught like fact.
Look, we don’t teach intelligent falling…and we don’t intelligent design, either.
Evolution is as well supported as gravity. The next you go outside, let me know if you fall up.
The next time someone you know reproduces, let me know if there isn’t some variation among the offspring.
Evolution is a bedrock of modern biology, and it is taught as such. Any other impression is bullshit.
“And, do you explain the many scientists and great thinkers as idiots or ignoramuses because they believe in God?”
Just because someone is an eminent scientist does not make them infallible, especially upon subjects that are outside their field of specialty.
For instance, Newton was also an alchemist; does that mean that we should start regarding alchemy as a plausible alternative to chemistry? Of course not, and to argue otherwise on those grounds is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/alchemy.html
No-one said it did. The majority of Christians around the world have no problem with evolution. It is just a small number of religious fundamentalists (mostly in America and the Middle East) who insist that evolution and religion are incompatible.
Do you mean that there is evidence against evolution, or in favour of a god? Feel free to provide a link to a summary of this evidence.
I was never religious, and have never had any strongly negative experiences with religion. My wife is a devout Baptist and (while we have discussed the reasons she believes and I don’t) I’ve never tried to deconvert her.
I have nothing against religion, and it does not figure into my thinking on science, though it does have an obvious effect on the public perception of science in this country.
aatheist: “Also, nobody can answer where’s the proof and why evolution is not taught as fact like 2 + 2.”
Scientific theories are not founded on “proof”; they are founded on *evidence*. “Proof” only applies to mathematics, as in, yes, “2 + 2″. The sum of “2 + 2″ is not provisional. Science, on the other hand, is provisional. In science, the Theory of Evolution is every bit a fact as Gravitational Theory and Atomic Theory. This begs the question—why aren’t you and your anti-Evolution constituents railing against the latter two “Theories” being “taught as fact”?
Continues: “….evolution is not God, nor does it falisfy an existence of God.”
Likewise, “evolution” does not “falsify” the existence of Allah, Zeus, or Quetzacoatl. Of course, there is no objective *evidence* for such beings, so there no reason to believe they exist, despite that “evolution” does not “falsify” them. This goes for “Yahweh”, too. Furthermore, the Theory(and fact) of Evolution doesn’t seek to explain the origins of life, like the endless list of supposed Creator-gods do.
aatheist,
What the hell, man? This thread is about evolution. We’re not even talking about religion.
Where’s the anti-scientific bias coming from other than from the creationists?
Most of us are in favor of science and we’ll go where the evidence takes us.
Part of that means that if there isn’t evidence of a deity, we may not believe those claims. Wow, you are winning the straw-man argument.
You build up your own false dilemma and knock it down. Way to employ the logical fallacies, aatheist.
Because this would disprove evolution, actually.
Ah-
So we’re nerdy or egg-heads rather than clownish idiots!
Being American myself, and having experienced quite the number of creationists who can’t spell worth diddly squat, you might see how I thought that boffin as a misspelling of buffoon.
Yeah, your teacher was a fool to make a claim like that. It no more proves that no gods exist than it proves that there is no teacup in orbit around Jupiter.
It was not the teacher’s place to say that there can be NO god. This is a philosophical issue to be argued by that crowd, not by science. (Not to say that some scientists don’t take up philosophical endeavors, because they do, but their arguments aren’t published in the scientific literature, they publish in books apart from that literature).
Simple enough. It’s the same reason I’m not an Odinist, or a Scientologist, or a believer in the Easter Bunny.
I have never been presented with convincing evidence that any “supernatural” entity exists. Until such evidence is presented, where’s the point in choosing one possible entity out of the infinite number that could exist to believe in?
Of course, even being given a reason to believe that a given god existed, it would not necessarily follow that I would choose to worship them; it would further need to be demonstrated that such a being was worthy of my worship, and that my worship would benefit either me or it.
aatheist:
Yes, I have nothing against religion. Yes, it is possible for science and religion to be compatible.
But there is a strong difference between *possibility* and *probability*.
Yes, it’s entirely possible that religion and science can co-exist. Is it probable?
That’s a decision which is best left to the individual.
Personally, I don’t think it is probable that religion and science are fully compatible. For example, I used to be a Christian. Is it possible that most of the Bible is metaphorical? Yes, that’s entirely possible.
Is it possible that the Bhagavad Gita and science are compatible? Yes, that is also possible. But I’ve never been a Hindu, and I suspect that you haven’t either.
So you see, compatibility is not enough. There must be some basic level of evidence or some compelling reason for me to believe certain religious claims – and so far, I have not found such evidence.
We aren’t ruling out ID without evidence. The problem with ID is that it is NOT science.
Science deals with the natural world only. ANYTHING beyond the natural world is beyond the scope of science. Therefore any speculation about the existence of a metaphysical (meaning supernatural or beyond the physical) being called god designing this world is beyond the scope of science.
The only way intelligent design would be science is if the scientific community could reliably and repeatedly observe God him/herself designing things. Only then would ID become scientific fact.
The fact that there’s no evidence pointing to such a thing.
wintermute hit it exactly.
There is no evidence that there is a creator. If there were, then I would believe in a creator.
So far, there isn’t any clear-cut indication of a creator.
Also, there can be a cause without there being a creator. While you’re warning us not to rule out the possibilities, I would ask you to do the same.
Besides, what evidence is there to differentiate any specific religious ideas from one another as being true, even if there is evidence for a creator?
The modern religions are cultural and societal constructs. They’re human. Even if there is a supernatural cause, I’m not sure what benefit believing in a religion would give you.
“The problem with ID is that it is NOT science.”
The problem is that all of science is based on induction, or ‘the uniformity of nature,’ and the atheist has exactly zero justification for it.
It is one thing to claim to be doing science, and another to be able to justify what you claim to be doing.
Without justification for the foundations of science, the results cannot be ‘fact,’ but merely a statement of faith – blind faith.
Except for the fact that it consistently and reliably works.
Sorry, but this notion is incorrect. The problem of induction means that the findings of science are not TRUTH. They are FACTS, however. (Truth and fact are different notions) Furthermore, science relies on evidence that allows us to develop powerful paradigms with predictive abilities. For this reason, science is very often quite reliable. (I mean- you wouldn’t go and fling yourself from the top of your church just because of the problem of induction concerning gravity, would you? –Cause even Jesus himself told the devil “no” when he suggested the same thing).
Saying we have ZERO justification is very very very wrong. We have LOTS of justification in the form of EVIDENCE. Evidence that is reliably and repeatedly gathered. It is the CONSENSUS of the scientific community (in which the experiments are repeated and found to agree with the results of other experiments) that gives a particular paradigm weight as far as being factual.
So, no there is NO blind faith involved in being a scientist. In fact there is quite a lot of skepticism involved– until a hypothesis is repeatedly and reliably tested it does not become a theory.
Sye,
Science has zero justification?
Really?
Sye, I think you are full of shit.
If you really believe that science has no justification whatsoever, quit using this computer, stop driving your car, and don’t eat any food that was produced using modern farming techniques. Because all of those things use science.
If you don’t like science, don’t use it. That’s the only way you can avoid looking like a hypocrite and a liar. You know that science is incredibly useful from your everyday life, Sye. Don’t try and pull this wool over your eyes. Try living without science and then tell me if it has no justification.
oops make that FIRST amendment! (US Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).
Problem is that to say that something DOES work, because it HAS worked is question begging.
Right. Just because the last thousand times I flipped this coin it came up either “heads” or “tails” is no reason to assume that, the next time I flip it, it won’t turn into a parrot in mid-air and fly away, right?
“Right. Just because the last thousand times I flipped this coin it came up either “heads” or “tails” is no reason to assume that, the next time I flip it, it won’t turn into a parrot in mid-air and fly away, right?”
Right. (Or, please, provide the reason for assuming that it won’t, in a non question-begging fashion).
So the coin won’t turn into a parrot because godidit?
No! Your extreme skepticism in this case is unfounded. You yourself know that the coin won’t turn into a parrot because you have NEVER experienced this. I have never experienced this. Wintermute has never experienced this.
Has nothing to do with god. It has to do with epistemic justification based on consensus.
“So the coin won’t turn into a parrot because godidit? No! Your extreme skepticism in this case is unfounded. You yourself know that the coin won’t turn into a parrot because you have NEVER experienced this.”
The difference being, that I have a basis for proceeding with the assumption that the future will be like the past (based on the promises of God), whereas the atheist does not.
Again, saying that the future WILL BE (or will even probably be like the past) BECAUSE the future HAS BEEN like the past in the past, is hopelessly circular.
“Has nothing to do with god. It has to do with epistemic justification based on consensus.”
Alright, on what basis do YOU proceed with the assumption that the future will be like the past?
I’m having difficulty finding the part of the Bible where Jehovah promises to never perform any miracles. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.
Also, if you did flip a coin and it turned into a parrot in mid-air, would you infer from that that Jehovah does not exist, or that his promises are not honestly made?
Based on the promises of god? NO you absolutely do not!
First of all, you have NO way to access god’s intentions, do you?
Careful here.
If you say “the bible” then I can criticize you based on miracles. Miracles mean that the supposed absolute reality that god “proves” (according to you) is faulty. If god doesn’t provide an absolutely regular law (which he doesn’t given miracles), then god is a liar.
If you say the holy spirit, then I can claim the problem of induction. If you have an experience (in the person who is you- just one person), well then you can’t claim universals, can you? Your experience alone is not enough to claim universals.
I’m sorry, but you are done here. Either you answer me rationally or I will continue to box you into a corner.
aatheist: “In other words, I was taught in school tha evolution not only explains the change in life, but that there can be no God or Creator.”
wintermute responds: “Yeah, your teacher was a fool to make a claim like that. It no more proves that no gods exist than it proves that there is no teacup in orbit around Jupiter.”
Precisely; thank you for making the same correction of aatheist’s non-sequitur that I attempted to make previously(which he or she ingored)
aatheist: “I am not anti-evolution (ASSumption on your part and a glimpse into obvious issues you have with pseudoChristians).”
If I’ve wrongfully accused you of being something you’re not, I can handle the correction, and even encourage you to do so, as I’d much rather acknowledge my errors than defend them inperpetuity. On the other hand, implying derrogatory names in the process, is needless.
In any event, as I understand your position, you have a beef with scientists who “rule out ID”. You go on to say……
“I am tired of scientists ruling out intelligent design (origins) without the evidence.”
Here, you commit the fallacy of negative proof. The “intelligent design” hypothesis remains pseudo-science. Invisible, conscious “Designers” are not falsifiable. Thus, the burden of proof is in the lap of the one who posits that such things are responsible for the origins of life, etc. There is not one scrap of objective evidence(that I know of) for such beings.
Alright, please give me one scientific fact that is not true.
Perhaps then you can tell me how you account for the very concepts of ‘evidence, fact, proof, and truth,’ without appealing to God.
Perhaps then you can tell me how you know that your reasoning about any of this is reliable, without appealing to God.
(And no, I would not fling myself from the top of my church, because I can account for the validity of induction, but why those who cannot account for its validity do not do these things exposes an inconsistency in their worldviews).
As I said, Truth is a philosophical concept. It assumes absolutes or universals exist (such as “chairness”, or “whiteness”, or “squareness” existing in Plato’s heaven).
In this way, saying “The chair is white” could be true. (Of course, what color is the chair in a dark room? Is it still white? If you believe in whiteness, they you say of course! But if you believe that light is reflected from surfaces, as scientists do, then you say the chair is now black.)
Fact is a scientific concept. Something becomes fact after repeated trials to establish that scientist A has run an experiment and found the same thing as scientist B, C, D, E…..N.
In keeping with the chair example, a scientist would gather information about the color change of the chair in differing lights then try to establish a hypothesis as to why this is the case. Then other scientists would repeat this experiment and compare their findings. If they all come up with the same thing, then it would become a theory– the theory that color is a property arising from light reflection that depends on the light source. Absolutely NO need to appeal to God in this process.
I don’t really see what the problem is with induction. Yes, it’s possible (even likely) that new data will come along that doesn’t fit our theories, and we’ll re-evaluate how we think the world works in light of that evidence.
On a stronger level, it’s possible that the laws by which the universe works will suddenly change. But they never have before (or at least, we have no reason to think they have), so it seems like a reasonable null hypothesis to say that this doesn’t happen. The idea that such changes can happen would require more explanation than the idea that they can’t, surely? What is wrong with the conclusion that the word appears to work in the way that it appears to work?
And how do you account for “the validity of induction”? Is it by positing an eternal, unchanging entity who sets the rules for the universe? If so, how do you account for the validity of the assumption that they won’t suddenly change the rules of the universe on a whim (say, by stopping the sun in the sky, or making intelligible words come out of a burning bush)? Isn’t that an equally inductive assumption?
“I don’t really see what the problem is with induction. Yes, it’s possible (even likely) that new data will come along that doesn’t fit our theories”
Sorry, so what was your reasoning for assuming that the coin would not turn into a parrot again? I must have missed it.
Really? Because it was the very first sentence you quoted. Induction works. What more do we need than that to make a working hypothesis? If induction stops working then we’ll (inductively) stop using it.
And are you going to answer why you think induction works? You claim that Jehovah has promised never to change the way the universe works, but you’ve not cited so much as a scriptural reference of him making such a promise, nor have you explained why you think Jehovah should be subject to constancy. Why does this question need to be answered for the universe, but not for Jehovah?
“Something becomes fact after repeated trials to establish that scientist A has run an experiment and found the same thing as scientist B, C, D, E…..N.”
Sorry, what is the scientific fact that is NOT true? I must have missed it. I also must have missed where you mentioned how you account for the very concepts of ‘evidence, fact, proof, and truth,’ and how you know that your reasoning about any of this is reliable, without appealing to God.
Cheers
“Induction works.”
Sorry, but where did you tell us how you know that induction works? Or are you sticking with ‘induction works’ because ‘induction HAS WORKED?’
If you are, then you obviously do not understand ‘question begging’ and continuing in this conversation is pointless.
Cheers.
No, I understand the concept of begging the question, and I fully accept that my understanding of this is circular. However, I am not a philosopher of science, and I don’t claim to understand every detail of scientific epistemology.
However, my argument is no more circular than “Induction works because God says it will (even though I can’t tell you where he says this), and I can inductively reason that inductive reasoning applies to God because induction works”, is it?
But you’re right. This conversation probably is pointless.
Sye-
I VERY clearly explained to you the difference between facts and truth. If you missed it, then either you are a poor reader or are dense.
NO fact is EVER a truth. PERIOD.
Do you get THAT?
I also CLEARLY accounted for the relationships between:
‘evidence, fact, proof, and truth,’
Please read the post again, since your reading comprehension is so very poor. Or else quit wasting my time with your smart mouth (and smart doesn’t mean intelligent here, capice?)
AND NO, you CANNOT account for laws by appealing to god.
God performed miracles (according to the bible).
So go ahead and fling yourself from the roof of your church. Cuz, you know, god’s miracles will save you.
(Not.)
Glenn,
This is one of the most civil places I’ve found. If you read all the threads, you would know how civil we are.
It bothers me when people read one thread when the creationists are being particularly obstinate (psykho) and people comment out of ignorance and assume that we’re not being civil when we’re really just trying to defuse the same bullshit that we see again and again and again.
Also, most creationists say that evolution and faith are incompatible. The nonreligious did not build that monster.
I assume it is incompatible with a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture. I have read Collins and am glad that some Christians can re-interpret Genesis in order to believe what’s true.
I don’t assume evolution is incompatible with God. I personally think it would be one crazy God who chose the method of evolution, but evolution does not mean God does not exist. I have not said that, nor is it an assumption on my part.
Wintermute, I think that’s perhaps an unfair thing to ask of people with faith (and I’m referring to any faith here – from my own Roman Catholicism to devotees of the FSM.)
Using scientific tools of language like “prove” and “evidence” in a discussion of faith is insulting to both science and faith. In my mind there is no need to convince or prove or make arguements for or provide testible evidence of faith. That is scientific thinking, scientific actions that cannot and should not be applied to my or to anyone’s faith.
As well, I would not allow the words and tools of faith to be used in the arena of my science (geology and zoology, with a focus on vertebrate paleontology.) I will provide proof and testable evidence of tyrannosaurid cranial kinesis, but I certainly won’t ask you to “believe” it.
We need to make sure that our use of language and our methodolgy are appropriate to the forums we are using them in.
So if everything was created, why did it have to evolve?
Without wanting to be overly snarky, it’s kind of like claiming that you believe in both gravity and invisible angels who push everything down, but you don’t belittle people who believe only in gravity.
More seriously, we have solid evidence that evolution by natural selection adequately accounts for the biodiversity we see today and in the fossil record. In fact, evolution is as close to fact as any other scientific theory out there. If people want to believe in some theistic version of it that was started and watched over by a deity, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it. But when people believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago exactly as we see it today, and insist that everyone else accepts this as true, then I think we have a right (nay, a duty!) to fight against this deliberate destruction of knowledge.
Many schools are deliberately avoiding teaching children what is well known to be valid science just because it might upset a handful of fundamentalists who have more political power than they deserve. This is bad for the children being so taught, and bad for a society that’s so willing to turn its back on hard-won knowledge in favour of bronze-age myths.
“Why can’t evolution and creationism co-exist?”
Yeah!
I mean, why can’t reality and Middle Earth coexist!! I believe in both, and I’ve put a lot of time into learning Sindarin. Don’t tell me it was a waste!!!!one11!!
“Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism: Teach the Contoversy”
I mean, Jumpin’ Jesus, why not BOTH?
Hey, it’s not like I go into churches and insist that the priest provides peer-reviewed evidence that Jehovah exists. But when people ask me “why don’t you believe?”, what can I possibly say other than that I’ve never been given a good reason to believe?
I’m perfectly happy not believing in any god. If there can be no evidence in favour of a god (or, more important yet, in favour of one specific god at the expense of another), then that’s fine by me. It just means that I’m not going to go to the effort of acting as if such an entity exists.
Is that fair?
I always argue that the best evidences of the non-existence of Yahweh is through the bible. Paul had warned Timolthy to live by his faith and not dabble with science. A true christian is prohibited by their faith according to the bible to prove the existence of God or deny the branch of science, that is evolution using science.
What alternative do they have to prove the existence of their God? There are plenty of ways found in the bible? Prepare a sacrfice and calling fire to come down from heaven to consume the sacrifice. Ok, one may argue that is OT stuff.
We know from the NT that the church is born by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had said to his followers to go to the world and preach the gospel of Him and signs, wonders and miracle would follow those who believe. You can find many of these type of assertion throughout the NT.We can also find many of these examples in the book of Acts.
Do we see this phenomenom happening in this present time? One might argue that there are such evidences, for example like Benny Hinn, Tod Bently and unforfunately Marjoe.
It is very easy for christian to prove the existence of Yahweh. Christians can approach Benny Hinn and ask for permission to set up a team of scientists, christians and non-christians for observations, verifications, documantations and other neccessary tests that what miracles that are claimed during his crusades has indeed happened.
I would really want to know such a God if what is claim truly exist, if I reject Him I deserved to be condemned because the NT did talk many good things about Him.
Plus, the more specific the attributes of this Creator are, the more absurd he tends to get. A general, deistic god makes a lot more sense to me than the self-contradictory mess that is the Christian God – although I do not see any need for a deistic god either.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen. Heb 11:1
The invitation is to walk in the spirit realm, the substance of spirit. The reward for faith is fellowship with God in the unseen realm, an unveiling of the mystical, the hidden things beyond the boundaries of time and limitation.
As long as you seek a sign (evidence) in this temporal life, you can not enter into the life of the ages.
Anyone can believe what their natural eyes are telling them, but “we look not at what is visible, for what is visible is only temporal (fading) but we look at what is invisible, for what is invisible is eternal, ever-lasting” 2 Cor 4:18.
So we hear (if we want to) “as many as are led by the spirit, these are the sons of God”. Romans 8:14
The spirit led life is a life of wonder, adventure and bright awakenings. If I told you where I have gone, what I have seen in the supernatural you would not believe me. But believe Him, the one who is before Abraham, before time that you too may may be shown “the great and mighty things that you do not know”. Jer 33:3
There were two trees in the garden, there still are, the garden is you, your inner man. There are two trees within you. The tree of Self and the tree of Life (Christ within), whichever you eat from (live out of) will determine the substance (quality) of your life experience for as it is said…you are what you eat.
Jesus says “eat my flesh, drink my blood” and be re-grafted back into the original mold, the One tree….the tree of life, Christ.
Food for thought.
Do you know what this means?
It’s saying that faith is, of itself, the evidence. People believe that Jehovah exists, therefore Jehovah exists.
Does that sound convincing to you? How about if we change “Jehovah” to “Xenu”? Is the existence of Scientologists evidence that the Scientologists are right?
So Thomas the Apostle was screwed, then? Not to mention Moses, Noah, Adam, and whoever it was who set out the lambskin to collect dew.
Besides, even if you’re right about this (and there’s no reason to believe that you are, is there?), then fine. I do not want to live forever. I cannot imagine any kind of eternal life that would not get incredibly boring even before the first hundred trillion years were up. With luck, when I die that shall be an end to me.
John C,
If we are all behind the veil of time and limitation, then how do we know about this spirit realm?
You say that there is a realm within us, that is of the spirit.
You quote Romans 8:14, which says that “as many as are led by the spirit, these are the sons of God”.
So John C, this I ask you:
Why do the people who are supposedly led by the spirit, who are supposedly the “sons of God”, why do these people act almost identically to those who are not “led by the spirit”?
Why is there no obvious difference?
If “you are what you eat”, why are those who eat of the “spirit fruit” no different from the rest of us?
Could you explain that?
People have thousands of different interpretations of Christianity even though they all claim to be led by the same spirit.
People who call themselves Christian and practice Christianity behave about the same as people who don’t practice Christianity.
What is the difference between Christianity and other religions? What is the difference between the religious and the non-religious?
As far as I can tell, there is no difference!
John C, your entire claim of statements, as long as you’ve been here, is predicated upon the notion that there is a difference, and I cannot see any difference whatsoever. Your entire case hinges upon the notice that there is a difference between Christians and other religious people, and that there is a difference between Christians and non-religious people. Yet where is the difference?
If there is no obvious difference, then where is your case?
I presume that your food for thought is for christians only. I think you know the book Hebrews was written to christians.
I believe you understand that supernatual/spiritual was menifested in the natural/flesh that led to the birth of christianity, the unnatural birth of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus(the sick are healed, the hungry fed, the dead are raised, the power over natural events, etc), all these things happened in the natural and not in someone’s mind according to the bible.
The church was birthed through supernatural happenings in the natural, the Spirit manifested in natural bodies, for example speaking in a language you never learn, many examples I can give.
If you really study the NT without bias, you will agree with me apart from the argument of the exisitence of God. If we really desire to search for the truth for ourselves, cherry picking mentality must be discarded.
@ john c
” The spirit led life is a life of wonder, adventure and bright awakenings. If I told you where I have gone, what I have seen in the supernatural you would not believe me. ”
mark: Ok but on the other hand if a muslim, jew, hindu or bhudist made this exact claim you would not believe them.
Why is that John C?
Resident, proselytizing “Christian” refers to one of his latest posts as “Food for thought.”
John C.,
I’ve already thought about what you are proposing, and I reject it. Your premise – specifically, what is required(according to you) to become “spiritual” – is totally circular. Essentially, what you are proposing, today, is “faith”(hope) = “EVIDENCE”. In other words, if one makes a conscious decision to simply believe, in lack of tangible evidence, then that act *is* the “evidence”. ‘Absurd.
Furthermore, you incessantly warn of the ill-effects of “religion” and those wrong-minded “Christians” who extract and promote various biblical passages, when they attempt to minister to non-Christians…. yet, you, hypocrite, extract and promote “scripture”, as well.
Again, why should we believe that *you* are exempt from human error, and that all those wrong-minded Christians (evidentally) have a proclivity to human error? Please put it into some sort of objective terms, for once.
Wave dynamics are very simple. River erosion is very simple. The coastline of Norway is very complex.
Slartibartfast aside, there’s no evidence that any intelligent agent deliberately designed the coast of Norway, and plenty of evidence that it formed without needing any intelligent input.
Complexity can arise from simplicity, information can increase over time, and order can arise from chaos, requiring no more than the physical rules of nature. A designer is not required.
This is perhaps more evident in mathematics than in biology which tends to have all kinds of distracting and correlating details when observed. Using mathematics, we can actually provide not just evidence, but positive proof of these phenomena.
Or, if you want to use biology, a simple sequencing of the chromosomes will often reveal offspring to have an increased genetic complexity, due to mutation and (in bi-sex organisms) recombination.
Ok but on the other hand if a muslim, jew, hindu or bhudist made this exact claim you would not believe them.
Yeah. What John describes is what some call a trancendent experience. And this expereince is reported throughout the world, from people with varying religious backgrounds, “uniting with the source of life” or transcending this realm. This has been an eastern religious concept for eons. I don’t disbelieve John’s truth for himself but I think he is in error that this only happens to Christians and can only be learned from the Bible.
Winter…when you say “I cannot imagine any kind of eternal life that would not get incredibly boring” simply means you have not (yet) tasted of this (quality) of life. It is nothing like this earthly kind of existence, this temporal life.
You cant imagine it Winter because its better than you can imagine…literally.
“Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, Neither hath it entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love Him”
It is pure exuberance, utopia, joy unspeakable, indescribable. Death is not possible in this realm. He tasted death (already) for every man that we might never taste it…again. Or did you not know that we have already died and we are living in a “dead” world?
I have had a deposit, a small sampling of it and can not wrap my arms (heart) around it fully yet either.
This is what I have been trying to tell you guys all along. I am convinced that one of our biggest obstacles is that things are just too wonderful, too majestic for us to comprehend, so we dont believe. How can we? We are trapped in this seemingly “God-forsaken world” with all its heartbreak, death and misery…its hard to believe w/o the eyes of faith.
Think fairy tales…go ahead, laugh all you want but they are trying to tell us something if we will only hear. How do we hear? We begin to hunger, to long for more than what we can see, to wonder, to be childlike…again. This is the gate-keeper into the unseen.
What is the real offer, the real message of Christ??
So, I can’t imagine it and there’s no evidence that it’s true…
Wow. Colour me convinced.
It is the evidence that leads to faith, even believing things written in the gospel leads to faith.
Faith is the result of evidence. One has to believe in whatever spoken or wrtten by someone in order to have faith.
He won an award for that didn’t he?
You misunderstand my point. I am not saying that science has zero justification, I am saying that THE ATHEIST has zero justification for the validity of inductive reasoning, and therefore science.
Sure, you will doubt my claim, but please tell me, on what basis do YOU proceed with the assumption that nature IS uniform?
Sye, let me quote what I said earlier:
So, how do you account for constancy in nature without question-begging? How do you know that Jehovah won’t change the laws of the universe again, as he so often did in the good old days?
“So, how do you account for constancy in nature without question-begging? ”
Simple, I believe in a God who governs the universe such that man can ‘have dominion’ over it, and based on His promises, I can proceed with the assumption that the future will very likely be like the past.
What was your basis for this assumption again, I must have missed it?
So you believe that Jehovah has declared it impossible for a human to be born of a virgin, or to rise from the dead? Or for the sun to stop in the sky or sticks to turn into snakes or people to walk on water?
If that’s the case, why do you put so much trust in a book that claims that all these things happened?
How do you know that Jehovah won’t choose to work yet more miracles?
“How do you know that Jehovah won’t choose to work yet more miracles?”
Irrelevant. The miraculous events in the Bible were so rare as to not affect the assumption that the future would most likely be like the past based on God’s promises, whereas YOU have, as yet, not given us ANY basis for your assumption that the future will be like the past, other than the hopelessly circular ‘it will, because it has.’
(Not to mention the fact that you have exactly zero basis for assuming that your reasoning about any of this is valid)(I’ll spare you the embarassment of positting that you reason that your reasoning is valid).
Cheers.
Sye-
You clearly don’t understand the problem of induction, nor how it relates to absolutes/universals enough to actually criticize science.
The HUGE mistake you are making is:
if we scientists who have EVIDENCE are questioned by people like you as to the validity of our epistemic justifications, how much more is someone like you questionable because of your LACK of epistemic justification. Your LACK of epistemic justification comes from the fact that universals CAN’T be proven. In fact, NOTHING can be proven with any CERTAINTY. It doesn’t exist!!!!
So we scientists have a hell of a lot less ‘splainin’ to do when it comes to what we believe because we have EVIDENCE on our side, EVIDENCE that you lack as you make SPECULATIVE claims about some sky god along with the SPECULATIVE claims of the thousands of other religions on this planet.
If you can’t understand what I’ve just said, then tough titty. Educate yourself and stop with the sarcasm. You’re only making yourself look bad.
Because you can not see into another’s “garden”, his inner man. You can only see and hear (in the natural) what is manifested in the flesh realm.
“no one can know the thoughts of God except God’s Spirit. … for who of men hath known the things of a man except the spirit of the man … he knows all things, and he searches all things, even the deep things of God”. 1 Cor 2:11
Most “christians” are natural men even though if they be regenerate (spirit indwellt) they possess that passport of heavenly (spiritual) travel, insight, revelation, etc. We must penetrate the darkness, the ancient strongholds that keep us in the proverbial dark as to our true identities, etc. Our consciousness must change from within, that is how we are changed by the “renewing of our minds, being renewed in the spirit of our minds”. Notice the link scripture makes between spirit & mind?? Interesting.
The spiritual life, the bright awakenings come through the denial of the Self life. I once spent a solid year in a sequestered state with very little human interaction, no external inputs, no TV, etc. I gave myself to prayer, fasting, reading, contemplation, etc. In the absence of all these external influences I found a blooming life within and heard and SAW many wonderful and mysterious things previously unknown to me. So I am speaking of things that I have personally experienced, not mere speculation. This is why I frequently say there is more, there is a life.
When asked where this “kingdom” of His was, Jesus said “the kingdom cometh not by observation”…in other words you cant see it…”the kingdom of Heaven is within you”.
You said “Why do the people who are supposedly led by the spirit, who are supposedly the “sons of God”, why do these people act almost identically to those who are not “led by the spirit”?
Because man has become a prisoner of the natural, visible flesh realm as a consequence of his insistance of independence. This is the same independence that the forum readers here insist on maintaining. This keeps us limited to the natural man’s perceptions of deducement, reasoning, etc. But if we can get hungry, humble, open and are found longing…
Have you ever read the Song of Solomon? or sometimes called the Song of Songs? It’s a beautiful illustration of the union, the marriage of Christ and the bride. Our souls must be wholly wed and subject to His spirit within, this is the life of the ages.
I dont have a “case”, only a Christ and that mystery (Christ in you) is available to all who long to know Him, to know Truth in this life.
In other words, you just have to trust John C.
Thanks Daniel, I’ll remember that next time.
Yes, it’s a shame we can’t experience the other plane of reality he experiences. It is obviously quite interesting judging from the way he thinks.
Then again, I think mushrooms might get pretty close…
@readers of UF
John C is delusional. He is, in every sense of the word, drunk, on Christian faith.
Fire the most venomous insults you can slip by the moderator and all you’ll get back is a hate-the-sin, love-the sinner “I’ll pray for you.”
This makes any conversation, while initially entertaining, increasingly futile.
I just finished a substantial email debate with occasional UF visitor Pastor Stephen Webb, and though I thought many of his arguments were logically flawed or appeals to the touchy-feely, even he didn’t stoop to referencing the Bible as proof of its own validity.
This guy is drunk. Let him sleep it off somewhere else.
(And John, yes, thanks for the prayer. I love you too.)
@Daniel: we can actually experience it.
You’d be surprised that many of the things John C says I’ve had actually experienced.
Only, I’m atheist, materialist, I’ve a degree in physics and love biology.
Even if they wrap these concept in mystic-babble, the brain CAN be trained to experience happiness, bliss, compassion and peace of mind.
No metaphysics involved, no strings attached, it just requires a lot of training and introspection and’s a hell hard to achieve.
@reckoner71: you seems to feel very superior to John C.
Watch out, I usually see such self-righteousness in the fundies.
John C may be obnoxious and self-absorbed, but he does not enjoy labeling or hurting people or feeling superior.
To many people, this makes him a better human than you are.
You may want to try to ‘hate the sin, not the sinner’, it works.
@John C: I can feel as good as you about mindlessness, bliss, happiness and wholeness, yet I don’t believe in God or in anything else that transcends our physical world.
What you speak about can be achieved with a different set beliefs, such as in Buddhism, or with (almost?) no beliefs at all, such as in my case.
An atheist and skeptic CAN be spiritual.
BTW, I’m having serious troubles making sense of many of your concepts.
Most of the audience you’ll get here have brains that work a lot differently than yours, if you want to communicate effectively, you’ll have to take this into account.
reckoner71,
Stephen Hit-and-Run, I-post-my-comments-for-others-to-read-but-don’t-read-their-comments, I-don’t-get-no-answers-because-I-refuse-to-read-them, I-challenge-others-to-email-not-comment-to-me-but-I-will-reply-to-my-emails-in-these-comments, passive-aggressive-by-calling-people-”cute”, Drive-by Webb?
Gee, ya think?
You mean the Stephen Webb who wove The Tangled Webb of Hypocrisy?
Gee, ya think?
@claidheamh mor
It’s funny you say that about Pastor Stephen, I had to coax the second part of our debate out of him (and he didn’t answer a single question I asked), and his answer to the third part is still pending – five days and counting.
I had hoped his “ask me a million questions” was genuine, but they may have been too difficult.
The only time I’ve ever experienced the spiritual drunkenness that people talk about is the ONE and only time I took 1/4 (yes 1/4) of an exstasy pill. (Shameful, I admit!!! I was in my very early 20′s) I felt sure that the world could solve its problems and that people could love one another. Then it wore off, and my usual caution and realism (some would call it pessimism) came back. Oh well. It was fake happiness while it lasted!
What is time Daniel? Is it real or merely an illusion? What is reality? What is spacetime really?
There is more…
Yes.
Over a period of tens or hundred of millions of years, soft-bodied creatures started to evolve hard parts that fossilised easily. Before we could accurately measure the age of fossils, and before we had excellent examples of Precambrian fossils, it really did look like life had just “exploded” in the Cambrian. Now, not so much.
Let me google for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
The cambrian explosion is something creationists point to, right as happening during Noah’s flood, right? But there really is no thing as the cambrian explosion? I didn’t know that.
Well, there is such a thing as the “Cambrian Explosion”. You’ll find reference to it in all the textbooks. It’s just not as impressive as it sounds. The “Cambrian Radiation”, or the “Cambrian Very Slow Fuse” might be better terms, if “explosion” wasn’t so deeply embedded in both the public and scientific conciousness.
Well, there was a major increase in complex animals (and, more significantly, it was at about that time multicellular organisms occured, if I’m not mistaken), but the Cambrian period was 60 mio years long. The denser creationists like to pretend that it was something happening almost overnight.
What is more, John? What is your faith? Is it real or merely an illusion? There is more than more! Trust me.
Good response D…I like it!
Colonel Sandurz: Try here. Stop.
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You’re looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We’re at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can’t.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: How soon?
You are mistaken. Multicellular animals are now well known in the Precambrian (see the Ediacaran fauna, for example). However, hard shells (that fossilise a lot more easily than soft parts) first appeared in the Cambrian, leading to the early opinion that this marked the first appearance of life, or of life large enough to see (depending on exactly who you asked).
That’s what I like about this forum. You learn something about both religion and science from your fellow debaters.
Wintermute,
Sorry, but I have to say you got it wrong.
Heb11:1, just talk about evidence. The verse is saying that you have see the evidence supernaturally manifested micraculous work of Jesus in the natural world done in Jesus’ name( CAN BE SEEN) that proves the existence of God(CAN NOT BE SEEN).
It says “Faith is … the evidence of things not seen”.
Are you saying that faith is not the evidence? That there are other things that are the evidence of things not seen?
Why must the Bible always lie to me!?
Ahahahahah… brother.
The one great irony in all of this is that none of you godbots will actually be around after you die to realise you wasted your one life on a mishmash of ancient superstition. The closest you’ll get to god’s glory is when your atoms join everyone else’s on an exhilarating trip through a supernova or two.
Wow JC…if you’re confused, then this guy is a real loony. Praise yeshua and pass the salt!
But it’s still bacteria, right? ;-)
Have you read any of these replies?
No, of course Sye hasn’t. Sye is too busy being a smart alec.
Sye, please READ our responses and reply to them thoughtfully, lest prove yourself ridiculous.
science will never prove or disprove a creator. it is beyond the scope of science.
Nah, Sara
You seem to be most rational. We appreciate your input. Thanks!
:)
UTTER HERESY
The FSM never had a baby noodle–that was only a perversion of true scripture fostered by the Antipasto! Truly, the only revelation that His Noodly Appendage has preserved for us is the word of His holy pasta prophet.
Ramen.
–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)
He’s like the poster child for ‘Religion as Escapism.’
no, i meant “chop” as in “chopping cocaine” it was a joke but it flew right over your head
It didn’t go over his head. It was so low, it went under his feet.
What about the Divine Pizza? I declare to you all the gospel of the Divine Pizza, so perfectly round and cheesy and full of taste. It comes to bring you pizza and more abundantly–believe, or be cast into outer non-pizzaness!
The powerful message and eloquent delivery are sure to turn the tide of human thought and destiny. Thousands of souls, moved by this articulate message, are sure to be won over to Christ.
This spiteful, bitter beacon of Christianity must surely be a true representative of the lord Jesus Christ’s pure vileness and hate.
I can feel the hatred radiating from this Christian soul who wrote so nastily and spitefully… I am dedicating my life to Christ now -
and will preach the good news with the same illiterate, incoherent, irrational, name-calling, hate-filled rambling as this soul that has moved me so powerfully with his hatred, in his writing above.
The true hatred of a punitive, hate-filled Christian. I will translate his above good-news gospel. He is saying:
“I pretend to love, but actually I am filled with a deep hate.”
“You are in for a big surprise/nasty shock when you die, and then you will see that I was right and you were wrong. I will get my reward (the really good stuff), and you will finally get your comeuppance that I have been waiting and longing for, (the really really bad stuff), and it will be FOREVER! And then I shall laugh and gloat, bwaaaaahahahahaha…..”
Emerson said it so well, a century and a half ago:
“You sin now, we shall sin by-and-by; we would sin now, if we could; not being successful we expect our revenge tomorrow.”
Such loving Christians.
Thank you, Roger.
You just told the story of my life.
All my bafflement at not getting a glimmering of reason coming back to me, explained.
They don’t out-reason me; they just out-asshole me with a blast of vitriol and hate.
You put it more succinctly than that saying about arguing with irrational Christians being like playing chess with pigeons: they crap on the board and fly away, declaring victory to their flock.
I think of him as our nonhostile village idiot.
You can almost see him on the street in front of the general store’s porch, importuning everybody who passes by.
No, you didn’t.
You don’t have one.