Comments by Theo

1. Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

Comment #247860 by Theo on September 15, 2008 at 8:02 am

Strange, I was under the impression that this was done already. I guess it was probably due to previous article spin.

Nucleic acids in a fatty acid bubble is still a veeery long way from actual life. It is good to see that a little progress has been made though, hope they keep it up.

2. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #230383 by Theo on August 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Lee,
I find it nonsensical that I can answer all your points by copying and pasting my previous points. Please re-read and if you still need answers, then I'll copy and paste.

3. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #203793 by Theo on July 3, 2008 at 3:32 pm

irate_atheist

Shit. I stop posting on this site for a single day and a twat like Theo turns up.

Yup. Waited until you left so that I could turn up on this thread, I was too afraid to tackle you face to face considering your formidable interlect :)

In capital letters, just so you can't miss them:
THEO - WHERE'S YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE

I guess you probably missed it seeing that I did not type it in capitals; it is there from comment 75 on this thread.

4. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #202705 by Theo on July 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Comment #195754 by fizhburn

Just because the only place we have observed protobionts is in the laboratory does not mean that they must only occur because they were purposely created.

Protobiont life has never been observed in the laboratory. It exists only in the minds of theorists as a hypothetical cell. The reason for this is that the most primitive form of life ever observed is, in the minds of some, too complex to have been assembled spontaneously. This has lead some scientists to hypothesize a type of life that is simpler than the most primitive form of life yet complex enough to fit the criteria for life i.e. self sustaining and replicating (to put it in a nutshell)

So, the fact that they are in a sense the product of intelligence (setting up the lab and initial conditions on purpose) does not confer the status of not-naturally-explicable.

Now when I said that life fits the criteria for artificiality, I did not state this on the basis of scientists using intelligence to create "protobiont life" as I explained above. I understand that they are merely using their intelligence to recreate the natural conditions of primitive earth hence if life is ever produced, it will not be on the basis of intelligence but by natural processes existing on primitive earth. What I am saying however is that that protobiont life fits the criteria for artificiality because it is:

1. Naturally inexplicable
2. Analogous to intelligence (possesses complex specified information)

As a result of this, I conclude (scientifically that is) that protobiont life is artificial until it can be demonstrated that nature can spontaneously generate complex specified information (as opposed to just modifying it Darwinian natural selection).

5. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #195696 by Theo on June 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Will be be busy for a few days. Hope to reply ASAP

6. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #195694 by Theo on June 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Zara

Wrong on two counts. First, you have to describe a method of determining how something is not in principle naturally explicable

Zara, if you can show me a scientific fact that is based not on evidence but rather a hope of evidence; I could probably give your argument some consideration. Until then, your argument from faith remains fallacious.

Second, that does not get you to intelligence. It simply leaves you with inexplicable. Intelligence has to be independently demonstrated.

Then apparently SETI is wasting time.

I disagree profoundly with Sam Harris.

What about James Randi?

No, they aren't sufficient evidence.

You do not care for evidence, remember?

Because Natural Selection showed for the first time that complexity can arise by itself, with no intelligent intervention. This is a general argument. It changes our views of all complexity, and means we always have to consider blind natural processes.

Zara, Darwinian natural selection has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Darwinian natural selection shows how complexity is modified, not how it originated. Even Richard Dawkins in TGD states that it happened by chance

Then you don't understand complexity. Please give your estimate of the complexity of, say, the Christian God; eternal, all-knowing, all powerful. Now give your estimate of the complexity of even a single cell. The God answer has to be abandoned.

In science we abandon theories based on the lack of supporting evidence, not the fact that something is "too complex to exist".

You are profoundly mistaken. SETI signals aren't replicating entities. They can't evolve complexity. This is not the same thing at all.

Information, replicating or not, is always produced by intelligence. If you disagree, please provide sufficient evidence supporting your claim.

7. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #195692 by Theo on June 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Comment #195083 by fizhburn

Given that some things are designed, how can you tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is not designed? I could design something that would look natural, for instance in building a film set, or by employing dynamite to create a cliff where once had been a hillside.

These features have two explanations (natural and intelligence) only because these explanations have been actually observed to produce such (evidence), as opposed to protobiont life which is obviously not applicable (natural mechanisms never accounted for it).

Alternatively, you could explain what about a feature of some (example) organism is analogous to the apparent anomalousness of the sinusoidal pattern in your SETI example. In astronomical observation we expect the equivalent of random signals along all frequencies in nearly every direction; but organisms are not so disorganized, so you have to explain how we would recognize as "not supposed to be there" in a natural, self-organized organic system. This is equivalent to explaining what things would look like if there were no "artificial" features in organisms.

Artificiality merely describes something that is naturally inexplicable, therefore like the sinusoidal pattern which carries that attribute, protobiont life is itself artificial, not, as you said, possessing "artificial features"

8. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #194909 by Theo on June 17, 2008 at 11:51 am

Comment #194050 by fizhburn

Even if some phenomenon were not naturally explicable, this would not be evidence of intelligence, merely evidence of supernatural "causation". You must mean that the specific not-naturally-explicable phenomena you will point to are of such a nature that they can only have been not merely supernaturally caused but also (1) designed (2) intelligently.

The scientific criterion for detecting intelligence is described by SETI as the concept of artificiality, which is in fact, the same concept that I have been describing in my discussions. For example SETI states that an endless sinusoidal signal (a dead simple tone) is not complex but artificial, such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes and would suggest intelligence. Therefore if the SETI institute receives a signal that is out of context with the natural environment (not-naturally-explicable phenomena); it would be reasonable to deduce intelligence. Hence the reason I use artificiality as the criterion for deducing intelligence in this debate.

9. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #194023 by Theo on June 16, 2008 at 9:42 am

Zara

No. God is excess to requirements, and is infinitely complex. The "God exists" and "God does not exist" statements are not of equal weight in terms of the burden of proof.

The existence of simple and complex entities are both united under the umbrella of sufficient evidence, fallacious arguments will not change that fact.

Please explain what would be the nature of evidence for the supernatural, and it could be proved that it was not some unknown natural phenomenon. "Supernatural" is a positive claim - that some phenomena are permanently beyond natural description.

I am contrasting natural phenomena with intelligence. Some atheists believe that the universe was caused by an uncaused cause which, as the name implies, is outside time and the laws of nature. The way in which my argument differentiates from such is that I merely add intelligence to the attributes of the uncaused cause (by evidence of course). The nature of evidence for intelligence is where phenomena are not naturally explicable (even in principle) after significant scientific scrutiny. Sam Harris once said that if Jesus came and displayed sufficient supernatural power, any scientist in his right mind would believe, but according to you, what would prevent someone from raising their hands saying "prove to me that this will never be explained"?. James Randi has set up many investigations to find evidence of the supernatural but according to you, this is a big farce because if such an investigation should reveal positive supernatural evidence, it can be dismissed on grounds that it is not "permanently beyond natural description."

Rubbish. It was falsified by Darwin, who showed that complexity could arise by Natural Selection.

What does Darwin and natural selection have to do with abiogenesis?

Your assertion does not apply to faulty replicators, which is what life is.

DNA by itself is a faulty replicator, which is why it functions in conjunction with RNA etc.

The hypothesis that life on Earth arose by natural phenomena can obviously be falsified. Suppose we discovered the remains of a spacecraft in 4-billion year old rocks, with a sign that we decoded as "Panspermia Ltd of Alpha Centaurii".

Zara, this does not resolve anything concerning the origin of life; it just shifts the problem to another part of the universe.

Invoking intelligence is never a good idea as a default position. Intelligence is extremely complex. One has to work through less complex alternatives first.

Intelligence was not a default position but rather a concluded position after working through less complex alternatives.


Comment #193432 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

This is the problem with science by analogy. I've never been a fan of analogies as they limit thinking. If you actually understood what DNA was, not the pop science analogies you just wouldn't dream of saying this.

Actually it was the study of this molecule that facilitated my exit from atheism.

Comment #193434 by fizhburn

You seem to be pushing two lines here. The first is that some deity exists. The second is that ID is correct. You can't be a Deist and hold both these positions.

Just as atheism has varying ideologies, so does deism; some deists do not believe in abiogenesis.

This is a comparison of atheistic logic to my logic:

ATHEISM:

1. Presupposition - there is no designer
2. Therefore evidence cannot point to a designer
3. Therefore there is no evidence for a designer
4. Hence there is no designer


THEISM (at least for me)

1. Presupposition - neutral i.e. Gods existence or non-existence unknown
2. The evidence should be followed wherever it points to
3. Protobiont life shows evidence of design (that is presently naturally inexplicable)
4. Evidence of unexplained design tentatively suggests a designer

10. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #193418 by Theo on June 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Epeeist

A much wiser person than I said "if an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present."

Makes sense . . . providing that there is not sufficient evidence for entity X. Codes that give detailed instructions on how to build nanotech machines are always the product of intelligence, this is the evidence we have - yet to be falsified because it is capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny.

But using the tentative methods of science we can advance the hypothesis that gods do not exist. This is falsifiable given substantive evidence.

First of all, atheists do not want evidence, they want direct observation hence you can advance such a hypothesis providing that you ignore the evidence. Furthermore, we can also advance the hypothesis that the genetic code arose by intelligence - which can be falsified if it is ever produced by natural phenomena. Or we can advance the hypothesis that life arose by natural phenomena . . . which can never be falsified.

11. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #193367 by Theo on June 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Lee,

There are natural explanations, I didn't say they were right, proven or the likelihood of being correct, merely that they have yet to be falsified and that these natural explanations are more likely than invoking any god that 'one day' made the decision to create the universe with us (mankind) in mind.

How can they be falsified? Also, present evidence points to a designer thus this conclusion is more likely than an imagination that so happens to be natural.

Sounds reasonable... do you know of any such design that will never be explained by a natural phenomena and please provide details how you are certain that it will never be explainable.

Well I could say that almost anything manmade (cars, computers etc.) will never have a natural explanation, but I know this is not what you mean. I am not saying that design will never be explained by natural phenomena. I am saying however that I cannot conclude that there is a natural explanation because there is no evidence to base that conclusion on. In science, we make tentative conclusions, i.e. conclusions exist until evidence to the contrary arises. Therefore, if there is sufficient evidence that life arose naturally, my conclusion will change but until then, based on the evidence we have so far, I can tentatively conclude that life arose by intelligence. Please do not just tell me I am wrong, give me sufficient evidence so I can base my conclusion on it.

I am asking you why you have jumped passed deism straight to theism.
What is your reasoning? What is your justification?

Well actually Lee, deism is a subset of theism hence Christians and deists are both theists. I have chosen to argue from the point of deism because this is the point of divergence. Any attempt to discuss the bible will be fruitless unless the issue of Gods existence is cleared up first.

For me, I see no exploratory value in deism, it is better just to say something is unknown. Add to that the problem of the unlikelihood of having a god that can make a decision to create the universe as we observe it is unlikely, it can be rejected by Ockham's razor for any unfalsified natural process.

As for theism, I see no evidence for it, and this is why I reject theism.

For me, instead of rejecting evidence because it contradicts my bias (and then calling it unknown), I follow the evidence wherever it leads.


Zara

This is a very common sort of statement. It is nonsense. Or, at least, I consider it nonsense until someone comes up with a method for demonstrating that any given phenomenon can never be explained by any kind of natural cause, known or unknown.

Zara, I cannot prove that a phenomenon will never be explained naturally just as you cannot prove the non-existence of God. In fact, I could be just as preposterous by stating that atheism is nonsense until someone comes up with a method for demonstrating that God will never be discovered. This is an illogical argument to the future - "I do not have evidence to back up my claim now but I may have it in the future therefore you should take my position". Fortunately for us, scientists get rid of that confusion by simply accepting conclusions based on the evidence they have gathered (as opposed to what they have not gathered) and if future contradictory data should arise, old conclusions are merely discarded or modified to fit the new evidence. Impermanence is the main principle in science and therefore describes the nature of my conclusion.

"God of the gaps" arguments are considered inappropriate by many religious people, from theologists to popes. Unfortunately, "Supernaturalism of the gaps" is just as flawed.

As said before I have no ontological predisposition, if you want to call that supernaturalism, that is your choice; I however seek to fill gaps with evidence rather than "precedent".

12. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #187822 by Theo on June 2, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Hi Lee,

Both the above have natural explanations I believe (I can talk more about the second than the first)

No they do not. What they have are attempts at explanations that are so riddled with implausible assumptions that those who hold on to them do so out of a commitment to metaphysical naturalism.

Neither has been proven of course. . .

R.D. implied that belief without evidence is called delusion. (Atheists are exempted I guess)

. . . or complete. . .

Not sure what constitutes "complete".

. . . but do you have not given any reason to reject the natural explanation and replace it with a supernatural one?

Design that cannot be explained by natural phenomena is probably designed.

Also (as pointed out by fizhburn) deism would resolve these little problems of yours, so you have offered no reason why your Christian God should exist.

Now if deism would resolve these "little" problems, why are you atheist?

13. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #185740 by Theo on May 28, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Lee,

The last time Theo and I spoke he was no deist - I recall a claim that comes right out of the bible. I'm hoping an exam in petroleum engineering had cleared some things up.

I said in my first comment on the tread:" Let's just say that when investigating ones biblical belief, one may encounter evidence that may seem to be against it and later, evidence for it. For a while, even now, I reside in the previous."
Right now, I am in a phase where I am taking a skeptical look at my Biblical beliefs as a result of information that I stumbled upon; this is not the first time this has happened. What typically happens is that upon intense investigation and research, answers are usually found for my questions. I believe that this is the honest way to find truth. At present I have not found any answers so I am at a weak point on my journey. So in light of what I just said, your question

or have you changed your opinion on the age of the Earth?

No comment unless I have a lawyer :)

Care to share your evidence - what evidence do you have that doesn't appear to have a natural explanation?

The origin of life and to a lesser extent, the origin of the universe.

I will always try and be a polite as always...

Likewise.

Just a little off topic, I am slowly realizing that not much people are into the theism vs. atheism debates. Most people are more into politics and sports. Oh the loneliness :)

14. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #185335 by Theo on May 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Ah yes... another unrefined atheist, I guess it was not a matter of "if" but" when".

Apologies for:
1. The misunderstanding.
2. The assumption that the discussion would have remained civil.

I asked you what the OPPOSITE would be in order to show what a stupid claim yours was.

I do not perceive how asking the opposite would "show what a stupid claim mines was", seeing that it was not metaphysical supernaturalism but methodological naturalism I was arguing for.

If however, metaphysical supernaturalism connotes metaphysical neutralism i.e. it allows for the possibility of supernatural causes only when phenomena cannot be explained by natural means, then I cannot at this time foresee any negative consequence.

15. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #184360 by Theo on May 24, 2008 at 7:12 pm

spinoza

Theo, what exactly would metaphysical supernaturalism [sic] under the banner of "science" be?

Metaphysical Naturalism is a philosophical disposition that predetermines the type of conclusion gained by scientific inquiry; it predetermines what the evidence should point to.

16. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184013 by Theo on May 23, 2008 at 12:07 pm

As someone who is very familiar with pets and small farm animals, these facts were known to me for quite a while (and cherished!)

As a theist, I didn't know it was supposed to be a bad thing. Damn you Sparky!

17. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #183635 by Theo on May 22, 2008 at 11:54 am

Apologies for the delay.

No - they are not compatible in my view, at the fundamental level at least, but being a theist doesn't stop you doing science. That was all.

Well in my view they are compatible. It is metaphysical naturalism touted under the banner of "science" that is incompatible with theism. But science without atheistic philosophy is compatible with theism.

Personally, I think there should be evidence for a theistic God BEFORE you believe in it…

Agreed. That is how I became a theist

18. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182078 by Theo on May 19, 2008 at 7:41 am

Hey Lee, glad to see everything's OK.

How did the exams go... you took a break so many months ago to revise for petroleum engineering wasn't it?

Exams went well and of course the break was not for exams alone. Let's just say that when investigating ones biblical belief, one may encounter evidence that may seem to be against it and later, evidence for it. For a while, even now, I reside in the previous.

My statement on the matter is that you cannot be true to both the scientific method AND the traditional theistic God described in the bible.

Care to discuss?

Yes I am willing to discuss. Are you saying that, putting aside the biblical God, science and theism (not religion) are compatible?

P.S. Are Billy and J.C. still around?

19. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #181938 by Theo on May 18, 2008 at 9:15 pm

*yawn* Its been a while. Whats that? Science makes you "not believe in God"? Strange, seeing that I am both a Theist and a lover of Science.

Hey Lee whats up?

20. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68751 by Theo on September 8, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Hi guys,

its been a long time (i almost forgot my password). I am currently sleep deprived and virtually drowning in work. It seems as though i will not be able to debate until February (if I'm still alive!)so you guys take care and hopefully if by that time this thread is still alive, i will charge into it. bye.

21. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #50449 by Theo on June 18, 2007 at 7:41 am

Hi Guys,

Just popping in to say that I still have a pulse.
I will be coming back shortly, just have some things to deal with first.

D.U. welcome back from your old nemesis Theo

22. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38629 by Theo on May 8, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Billy,
Thanks for the reply.

No, dont you remember saying what a bunch of top chaps we were and how you were wrong, and we were all invited over for a holiday. This was before you said you were going bunjee jumping without a helmet :-)
Sorry, silly mood catching

This reminds me of your wet laxative episode :)

P.S. were you all right after that episode?

J.C. Samuelson,

Clarification please: Do you mean it could not be falsified at this point (as in, it hasn't reached that stage), or that it just could not be falsified period? If it's the former, we may chalk it up to miscommunication. If you mean the latter, that's an entirely different story.

Its the latter.

Hey don't forget that I need your opinion on comment 1068. thanks

23. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38474 by Theo on May 8, 2007 at 8:34 am

J.C. Samuelson

If by "over my head" you mean that I don't accept them, then I agree. If you're casting aspersions on my reading or comprehension, please back that up with some specific examples. I've read and re-read your ever shifting arguments and frankly I'm tired of trying to guess your mind.

I was not trying to cast any aspersions on your reading or comprehension. It is normal that when someone is reading something in a hasty manner, points are overlooked. If you believe that I have somehow insulted your intelligence then I apologize, I was merely suggesting a more careful reading, nothing more nothing less. This has happened already:

Comment 622, you said:

My apologies. I admit that on a second reading you did not say what I thought you were saying. I was hasty, and this is only the first time in the latter post. Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say.

First, more apologies for my hasty reading of your post. The appearance of "steady-state theory" put me in a certain mode of thought…

Now let me say again for about the third time, that while I was debating with LeeC, I realized that S.G. could not be falsified. Therefore when you returned to the thread, you replied to a post that was a few months old. In my reply to that post I conceded to your point when I stated that S.G. could not be falsified (which would mean that it is not falsified now). Hence concerning the fact that SG is not falsified, I agree with you J.C., I agree with you, please…please see this.

Good grief, Theo! Are you daft?

Duuuhh …Iduhno :)

Clues? yes. Convincing clues? Not really

Really? If so, you better call the Discovery Institute, because their scientists (who, as I'm sure you're aware, have tried to find something that fits with your assertion here) have failed to come up with jack squat that qualifies as irreducibly complex. Damn, Theo. I thought you were smarter than this. When a layperson thinks he/she knows something about science that trained scientists don't, that person can safely be deemed a fool.

I am guessing this was supposed to refute my comment? In all my life I have seen blueprint codes being produced by intelligence (which is comparable to the genetic code), I have no evidence of any complex code being produced by chance, but since you thought I was "smarter than this" I guess you can provide some?


Concerning that something must have always existed,
You said

I'll accept that logic does demand that.

Epeeist said (comment 1062)

Logic doesn't demand anything of the sort.

You atheists give me a headache.

I've given you some of the clues we have that indicate a possible natural origin, and remained technically agnostic (which again means "I don't know")

Is it correct to assume that you are agnostic rather than atheist?

I choose to be more cautious. I have not asserted that SG happened, only that it appears to be plausible based on what we know so far (emp. added)

While I see that life appears to be designed more plausible based on what we know so far.

More plausible, at any rate, than some enormously implausible being that, if you or the Bible are to be taken seriously, plays hide-and-seek with its creation.

More accurately 8% of his creation and that is only because they like playing the game.


Billy,

You are biasing your arguement with your own presupposition of the way you think that life must have arisen,

Couldn't I say the same thing about you guys? You all think life must have arisen by natural chance (except J.C.)

and the requrements that it needs to be life. In the simplest terms, all you need is a simple self replicating molecule. Once you have that, then you can evolve more efficient ways of replication. Thats the thing about abiogenesis (and evolution) you do not go from simple replicator to cell in one jump.

Yes, I know, not in one jump. But it cannot explain how self organization took place, or how complex information originated.

Quetz,

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but if the simplest life form NOW is sophisticated, it does not follow that the first life form was. After all, the bacteria we see now are the products of hundreds of millions of years of evolution from their earliest forms. As I'm sure you know Theo, single-celled life forms have very fast generations, so there's scope for a great deal of change. So on that level, your analogy falls down.

In order for even a protobiont to survive and reproduce independently, sophisticated machinery is still required.


LeeC,

Hope one of us is right – it would be embarrassing if we are both wrong!!

Doubt it. Either God exists or he doesn't. If you are right, we both rest in peace. If I am right, well…

Hardly weak arguments… it's just that a theist ignores them altogether unless science is able to give a 100% complete "arguments" – whatever that is?.

Where did I ever say that I wanted 100% complete evidence?

100% evidence… why? You do not need 100% proof to convict a criminal of a crime in a court since it would be impossible to have 100% proof, just guilty beyond reasonable doubt since there will always be a gap in the knowledge at some point – so long as we have enough clues to point to the smoking gun and the hand that pulled the trigger, and that is enough.

In court there needs to be sufficient evidence in order to make a conviction. Just because someone owns a gun does not mean he committed the crime. There may be clues, but those clues must add up to information that is comprehensive and sufficient (not 100%) so that a conviction can be made

On your line of logic we should ignore Newton laws on gravity since we do not know how or where his constant G comes from… his theories must be useless and explain nothing in your book since Newton could not explain his constant G in the equations or where it came from - he had insufficient evidence… it's all must be rubbish?

No that was your line of logic, I never demanded 100% evidence in the first place. We can launch a satellite into orbit or have it land at a particular location using such laws because they work (sufficient evidence). All I ask of SG is that it produces a living reproducing cell. It does not have to be as efficient or robust as would be required for survival, but at least show that it can happen.

However, your question was for the simplest form of life, how about if man was designed?

Why change my question? Couldn't answer it?

think if we found written on our bones "Made by God" or "Insert soul here" on the inside of our skulls… it would be all the proof I need for a god.

Evolution could not explain that… this would be impossible for an atheist to answer.

If theists were to point that out, they would be accused of worshipping gaps in science, followed by a long lecture on all the things that science could now explain that it previously couldn't.

Why do we need god?
Answer… we don't – so why would he exist?

We don't need mosquitoes, do they exist?

You said

Hi again Theo,

I really enjoy talking to you…All good fun though…

I said

Theo's method (lol) what's a thread without pulling someone's leg!

You said

Your just pulling your own Theo …People who have their eyes open to reason and logic merely laugh at them. So I will thank you for the joke – I did "LOL" but not at the joke, but at the joker.

You are probably one of those rare people who like to have fun by themselves. Sorry for the light moment thought, won't happen again.

So your challenge is to prove evolution wrong!!!!

Was I absent when the debate shifted from origins to evolution?


epeeist

The second part of your sentence is a false dichotomy. It could be the universe, the multiverse, a virtual simulation or anything else someone could postulate.

Then let me make it easier, it can be either a natural or supernatural entity

f I can demonstrate steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 then I can make a reasonable inference about step 7 if the same mechanism is followed. As is usual it is a contingent hypothesis but we don't need to say "goddidit" just because we are missing a stage.

That is because we know that 7 comes after 6. But we do not know if the steps of abiogenesis are even plausible.

24. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38472 by Theo on May 8, 2007 at 8:26 am

Hi Guys,

One question, does this represent your collective positions? - Reason allows for the possibility of an eternal God, but that does not mean nor will it ever mean He exists.

Can you all correct me if I am wrong please?

I am going to post a reply to your comments, it is not complete as you will notice that I did not address some of your concerns. These will be dealt with in a later comment, but can you all post a reply to this question first before getting into the one I am about to post? thanks.

25. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37193 by Theo on May 3, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Billy,

Also, assuming the eternal existence of a creator proves nothing. You have to prove he exists first.

I am trying to figure out the possibility of a living replicating cell forming just like that. How molecules came together to form the phospholipid layer and ribosomes while other molecules came together to form RNA/DNA which just so happen to have formed in such a way as to be chemically encoded with information on how to build phospholipid layers and ribosomes. It just so happen also that this advanced information storage system was assembled with replicating machinery as well as energy harnessing machinery. It's a good thing that science has provided proof that this really happened, otherwise someone would have been free to disagree!

Epeeist,

They may disappear towards the asymptotic limit, but that doesn't mean to say they are zero.

And as Aristotle said "Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities."

With atheism nothing is impossible, I understand.

LeeC,

However, my problem with the god idea is not just his creation… it's the lack of evidence for him… Please feel free to give me some that I can test or observe.

Again I ask, did you read the information I linked to you?

So science does not know 100% all the answers, maybe only 90% or 80%… so because of this little gap… it must be god?

Come on, you can do better than that.

And history is on my side if you play the "gap in knowledge game"… almost funny.

A gap in science is really when you do not have enough evidence to back up your claims, that's it, nothing more. Therefore when a gap in science is encountered it does not mean that you win the argument. An atheist, rather than scold the theist for not accepting insufficient or no evidence, should wait until sufficient evidence is amassed before engaging the theist. Anything other than this is to expect that a theist will simply accept weak atheistic arguments.

BTW, it is not the theist who trusts in gaps in science, it is the atheist. The problem arises when the theist does not hold trust in those gaps as much as the atheist.

No Physics of the day could explain an older sun in the order of billions of years. So what happened? Did everyone say "That's it, it must be god?"

All the Laws that were discovered by scientists did not point away from a creator since in order for a law to exist there must be a lawgiver.

No, there is not good logic for that… no - science just said there must be another answer, and within a few years they discovered nuclear physics… do you want more examples of where the theist was wrong to trust in the gaps?

You did not give any before, sure why not.

How silly they look now…

Don't know, who were those silly theists who objected to the study of the sun?

how silly do you think the theist of today will look in 50 years?

Probably half the Silly Factor of an atheist before God at the end of his life.

Can you prove or test anything in this statement of yours?

We have examples of something coming from something everyday. There is no evidence of something coming from nothing unless something was driving the process.

gave you examples of particles coming into existence in a vacuum… at the quantum level a lot is possible so long as the time is short – the uncertainty of it all?

No you didn't, you merely postulated that in order for something to come from nothing, something must have existed before.

Interesting question, you tell me?

Thought I was the one who asked.

If I were god, I would first write a little "Made by God" in the DNA code… I am god, so I could do this… most of the DNA in man is "junk" DNA, so he could use some of this to make his trademark.

Nice joke, because "made by God" on DNA can be attributed to chance. Remember, nothing is impossible with atheism. ("Made by God" is mind bogglingly simpler than the information that is actually encoded on it)

I would not give the impression that life was just evolved. I would make each life form unique and different as proof that evolution could not do this..

Darn! Why would God make life to look as though it was apparently
designed by Him?
Other than that your argument is pure and applied rubbish because firstly, evolution was never a prerequisite for atheism, in other words if evolution is proven false, there would still be atheists. Secondly, well.. ok …I will stop right there, don't want to start on evolution just yet.
Therefore my question remains unanswered, try harder Lee!

Why not you give me some proof it was designed… every time a theist has tried, evolution can answer… so go on – try something new

Already did, evolution could not answer so you used the most powerful argument: a gap in science.

And you calculated these odds by what method?

Theo's method (lol) what's a thread without pulling someone's leg!

You have not got any evidence of anything outside the scope of science… maybe a singularity, but that is only within one, and by definition this cannot interact with our universe anymore… (The black hole can, but not the singularity within)

Lee, I may be going out on a limb here, but if something is outside the scope of science, can it be directly observed? You cannot directly measure the singularity so why do you believe it existed; it can't be evidence since apparently evidence is not enough (with God that is)

Come on, this is all I want, some evidence…. it does not have to be 100% proof.

In all our discussion you have not given me any proof, merely "you can not explain this – so it must be god"

Maybe this IS your evidence? Hasn't history shown this is foolish logic?

So you want evidence of an eternal designer yet showing you his design is not enough, since you say it could have just assembled for itself (although there is no proof of this)
This is like trying to prove that Stonehenge was designed to someone who says that it formed by chance. You ask him how could it have arisen by chance and he says, "Don't know, gap in knowledge therefore I win!" an argument that would work or even man made machines! BTW, if you had read the link I provided then you would have had your proof, unless your "I believe anything can assemble by chance" attitude gets in the way

Playing the gaps game as history has shown is silly.

And the atheist single most "powerful" argument! (lol)


Billy,

f you claim this is logic, then it must also be used on god. To do otherwise is to resort to special pleading it is not evidence . To do otherwise is also to say that you only accept logic as long as it agrees with your belief. If you are going to use logic, then you have to cnclude that either something can come from nothing, or that god has to come from something - you are not being consistent here.

So what about the part about God always existing? No wait there's more…

If you want to assert that god has always existed, then you have neither evidence for that - or his existence. This gives you no rational starting point for your arguement on the existence of God.

Logic demands that something must have always existed, it could be either the universe or God, since the simplest form of life is designed, you know where my money is. I will ask you the same question: If the simplest and "earliest" form of life was indeed designed, what would it look like?


J.C. Samuelson,

I see that my points flew completely over your head. I said that it was only during this debate that I realized that SG could not be falsified which had some consequences. Please J.C. I ask that you re-read what I said because I see you are still asserting that SG is not falsified.

The fact is that no one really knows. The present state of abiogenesis as a field is such that all we have are clues pointing toward the possibility of natural origins.

Really? Chemicals reacting to form organic chemicals are clues? I have evidence that complex codes can only be intelligently generated, therefore the "earliest" and simplest form of life which would be in possession of this genetic code (AND MUCH MORE) would point to an intelligent designer

As for your probability arguments, they have been shown by RD and others to be vacuous. Part of the enormous problem (for you) is that by positing an extreme improbability for complex life, you simultaneously posit an even more extreme improbability for your chosen designer. It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever to apply different standards simply because it makes you happy. It's just another form of confirmation bias.

Once again, my much repeated argument is this: Logic demands that something must have always existed, it could be either the universe or God, since the simplest form of life is designed, you know where my money is. I will ask you the same question: If the simplest and "earliest" form of life was indeed designed, what would it look like?

Skepticism of existing or future science is not evidence. It's really not that hard to understand.

Gaps in science is not evidence either.

26. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36945 by Theo on May 2, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Hi Lee,

So are you saying, "Just because we can calculate the odds on something to happen, does not mean it will happen…"?

Yup, probabilities can reach to such absurd points that you can term them as impossible.

I think the chances of a laptop forming out of "thin air" is remote enough to not even to have to think about it… although we probably could calculate the odds of it happening, I doubt it ever will.

I hold the same view of even the "earliest" and simplest form of life. BTW did you study the info on DNA replication? It reeks of design.

OK, my example was talking about particles within space… so the field is a physical quantity in space.

We are going deep into quantum theory (of which I am more than a little rusty – I just looked at an old text book of mine and I have no idea what the maths means any more – oh dear)

As you know we have not got all the physics yet to explain everything… although QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) are very good.

They still do not answer everything… however a theory that can predict an experiment result down to 1 part in 10 billion is good enough to prove we are on the right track.

In the beginning there was nothing….which exploded…. but you do not know exactly how… I am sure you would understand if I am a wee bit skeptical about this. Well anyway let's go back to logic; something cannot come from nothing therefore, since something exists, something must have always existed. If there is design in life then there must have always been a designer since intelligence cannot come from nothing.

Even though life starting may be "unlikely", with a billion-billion galaxies, with a billion-billion stars in each, given 14 billion years…. We may… just have that chance… the proof for me is life on Earth.

Question: if the simplest life form was indeed designed, what would it look like?

The chances of winning the national lottery is/was something like 13 million to one. Now I could go out and buy 13 millions tickets, and I may win – should win in fact.

If the possibility of life was as likely as 13 million to 1, SG would have been plausible. But it's more like 1 with 13 million zeroes after it to one. It is much easier to look at the probability of something existing outside the scope of science than to push logic until breaks at absurd values of probabilities

As for the blind watchmaker… I do not have the book anymore so I cannot confirm or deny… would be strange if Dawkins wrote something that went against his believes and evolution. Not his style.

Well I am comfortable because I have it before my very eyes; therefore I know what probabilities termed impossible by even R.D.

BTW, if (science forbid!) evolution was proven false tomorrow, what would the probability of Humans spontaneously forming in a snap?

27. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36815 by Theo on May 2, 2007 at 12:06 pm

hi Lee,
Thanks for the avatar info


Quetz,
Thanks for the avatar info also.Concerning your comment,its not that i don't want to comment on your points, its just that i thought i should wrap up the first debate before we start another (not doing this was the main cause of debaters going around in circles). That is why I was reluctant in the first place to answer Lee's question on the age of the earth, because I knew another debate would have started. therefore i will comment on it when the "age of the earth debate" begins. Do you understand where I am coming from?

epeeist,

If we are looking at this from a probabilistic point of view, then it would be seen that a designer is more probable since even the simplest life form is incredibly sophisticated and cannot be satisfactorily explained by chance

28. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36626 by Theo on May 1, 2007 at 7:18 pm

J.C. Samuelson,

As the atheism vs. theism debate raged on, some theists found it fit to argue the point that one cannot disprove the existence of God. This argument was later destroyed by the teapot analogy: Can someone disprove the claim that there is a teapot floating somewhere in space? From this analogy, many similar forms arose, such as the fact that you cannot disprove Thor and the other gods, fairies at the bottom of the garden and the flying spaghetti monster. These illustrations all have one thing in common; they cannot be scientifically proven false. In order to deal with such supernatural claims, the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine stated that one of the main criteria used to verify whether a claim is scientific or not is its ability to be falsified:

"It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.
The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.
For example, the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old. Similarly, the true claim that water freezes at 32° F is falsifiable; it would be falsified if water were to freeze at, say, 34° F. Each of these claims is firmly established as scientific "fact," and we do not expect either claim ever to be falsified; however, the point is that either could be. Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; that is, it would not be making a factual assertion -- it would instead be making an emotive statement, a declaration of the way the claimant feels about the world. Nonfalsifiable claims do communicate information, but what they describe is the claimant's value orientation. They communicate nothing whatsoever of a factual nature, and hence are neither true nor false. Nonfalsifiable statements are propositionally vacuous." (Winter 1990 edition)

(This was copied from a previous comment). These standards disqualified many claims from being scientific, including the God hypothesis and thus atheism reigned supreme. That was until I questioned the very foundation of atheism – S.G. . I then realized during this debate that this hypothesis too did not meet the standards of science it too could not be falsified.

At this juncture, some atheists would either downplay falsifiability or find excuses as to how SG can be falsified. Seeing that the importance of falsifiability has already been published, I believe that the latter move would be resorted to. Therefore, the argument may be made that only when all avenues have been exhausted for SG, only then will it be considered falsified. You and I both know that this is simply not true; SG will not be disproved merely because someones personal belief is that all avenues have been exhausted. The excuse that all possibilities have not been explored yet will always be a "valid argument" for all seasons; someone will always be willing to do one more experiment (which will go on ad infinitum) and so there will ALWAYS be an unexplored possibility thus SG will never be disproven. It is here that I understand Lee C when he said,"I believe in SG"; that atheism does not rest on science but on belief.

29. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36624 by Theo on May 1, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Hi Lee,

I have boiled down your post to the main points.

Which is more likely and probable . . . However you never really answered this question. You statement has always been "God exists, therefore more likely"

I totally agree that if everything had a beginning, God would indeed be less probable than simple life. I believe we can both agree to this. And using this logic, even if evolution is proven false tomorrow, it can still be said that it is more probable that human bodies were assembled by chance in one moment rather than being created, because God will always be "too complex" to be "more probable".

But back to your point, if your strongest proof for god is creation, then I would say is that all?

You know that I am happy with science's theories of breaking down the steps of life into smaller and smaller pieces until it is "probably" by chance alone that life came into existence.

I quite agree, for I understand that almost anything can happen in theory. But because someone creates a computer program to show that when a pen and paper interacts with the wind my full name can be written, does not mean that it happened or will happen. A computer program that explores all the ways a laptop can form by chance would not make me hope that one would form in my lap!

The king called his subjects fools, but they could see he was naked… it was the king who was the fool for what he believed in what was not there because he believed only in what he was told and did not think for himself. He chose to ignore the plain observation that he was naked…

This illustration is based on the assumption that the truth was he was indeed naked. It works well for clothes but not God simply because of the fact that God cannot be directly observed

Maybe energy and matter just "appeared" from nothing… and started off the big bang – energy and matter coming into and out of existence happens all the time… negative energy is great… and the uncertainty principle actually allows for it.

Firstly, this is the first time I am hearing someone using negative energy as a cause for the singularity, but I will go along. Secondly, doesn't negative energy occur due to fluctuations of an already existing field at zero energy? So where did that field come from?

My rule is that everything can be explained by Physical laws and theories… just that we do not know them all yet.

When I said that a materialist is someone who believes that all reality is within the scope of science, you disagreed . . . Why?

I know I read it over 10 years ago but I do not remember Richard making any statement like the one you quoted without then going on to prove where the original statement had errors in the assumptions or proving how much smaller steps can answers the bigger problem. Richard would have solved this problem in the book with an explanation… you seem to have missed this out.

You seem to have missed out when I said that the explanation given was cumulative selection (a mechanism of evolution)

I believe therefore you are misquoting from the book

Sorry, I am not misquoting (ch 3 pgs44 – 45).

30. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36618 by Theo on May 1, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Hi Guys I'm back
Hey Lee jus curious, how did u do the avatar?

31. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #26929 by Theo on March 22, 2007 at 10:59 am

Hi Lee,
Comment 868:

Well I'm a 24 yr. old petroleum engineering student and I have a reservoir eng. exam tomorrow (unfortunately it is not the last!) and the rest of the semester would be littered with such until Finals (which would start on the 16th of next month)so as you probably figured out by now I may not be able to respond to your lengthy but pertinent post within my usual response time. But don't worry, I'll start a draft asap.

It is interesting that I ended up in this field as my first love was Physics! Not surprising that everything I know (well almost)is as a result of studying for fun! Unfortunately Lee where I'm from, there are no opportunities for Physicists.

Well anyway, I've got to get back to the books!
Hope to reply soon!
Theo

32. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #26813 by Theo on March 21, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Hi Guys,

Lee,
I really believe that we should at least have some closure on the previous discussion before commencing another for as you know from my initiating statements, that I see no reason to debate on things that have nothing to do with Gods existence. I will be the one to tell you though that just as science does not give you both sides of the story concerning the evidence for God's existence;it is the very same way it does not give the whole story concerning the age of the universe. I do not believe I have the time for such a debate as yet as examinations are just around the corner for me. So I look forward to at least wrapping up the first debate and hopefully starting "the age of the universe" with you sometime in the future!

Theo

33. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #26425 by Theo on March 19, 2007 at 8:43 am

Hi Lee,

I hold the same view as Mark for the same reasons and more.(Mark I could not have said it better myself, good job!)

Why did God leave around so many "puzzles and clues" pointing to a much older Earth and Universe?

Here is a parable by Garth Wiebe:

Chris and Lucy entered a building looking for Manuel. In a room they found a note and a lighted candle. Chris looked at the note and read it aloud:

"Hi! It's 2:30, and I'm leaving to run some errands. I'll be back in a couple of hours. BTW, the electricity is out, so I lit a candle for you. - Manuel."

Then Lucy said, "I know how we can find out how long it's been since he left! Look, the candle has been burning since he lit it and has a significant amount of wax that's melted and dripped down. If we figure out what the rate is which the wax is melting and measure the amount of wax that has thus far dripped, we can work backwards to find out how long it has been since he left."

Chris said, "Why waste your time? The note says he left at 2:30." Lucy said, "Don't believe everything you read." Chris replied, "Look, I've known Manuel for a long time, and this is his handwriting. Don't be ridiculous."

Lucy replied, "Ah yes, but what does he mean by "2:30"? A note like that is subject to interpretation. Suppose he was talking about another time zone or something." And so a short philosophical argument ensued about the note. However, Lucy prevailed and insisted on performing the measurement and calculations.

A few minutes later, Lucy announced: "Well, I've got bad news for us. Based on the amount of wax that has melted and the rate at which the wax is melting, I can confidently tell you that it has been at least one whole day since this guy left. He was probably talking about 2:30 yesterday. And since he said that he'd be back "in a couple of hours", we can assume that something happened to him and he's not coming back at all. So much for your "note"."

Just then, Manuel walked in. Lucy said, "Are you this guy "Manuel"? What took you so long?" Manuel replied, "What are you talking about? I left you guys a note saying I'd be back in a couple of hours. It hasn't even been that long." Lucy said, "Never mind the note. I measured the amount of wax that has dripped off your candle, and the rate which the wax was melting. I know you've been gone since yesterday."

Manuel replied, "First of all, that candle isn't burning anywhere near as brightly as when I first lit it. Second of all, I didn't light a new candle, but a used one. And thirdly, I used another candle to light this candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one.'

Lucy said, "So you set up that candle to deceive us, to make it look like you left the room over a day ago, when in fact it's been less than a couple of hours." Manuel replied, "Look, I left you a note telling you when I left. I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left. I put the candle there so you guys would have some light."

34. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #25863 by Theo on March 15, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Hi Lee,

So god had no origin? Any proof on this?

You cried foul earlier about SG since it would be difficult to falsify, how can I test this theory of yours?

So where was god when the Universe began? Inside looking out or outside looking in? This is serious question.

How could I provide proof for something that I clearly stated was outside the scope of science? You stated that there would be a problem with creation, not because it lacked evidence, but because it would raise more questions than answers. Now answer me this: where did the singularity come from? And whatever produced the singularity, where did that come from? And so the question goes on to infinity. The concept of the singularity also raises more questions than answers, but is the concept of the singularity dismissed because of infinite regress as creation? Of course not! But infinite regress does give us an important answer concerning reality, and that answer is that something must have always existed. As Billy pointed out, why not the universe instead of God? I would have accepted this if the origin of life on earth did not point to an intelligent designer.

So basically, if you a theist can not prove god exists to themselves (they have faith for that), the theist will make it damn will impossible for anyone to prove god by making up rules. . .

Can you describe to me exactly how I made up the rules? Note well that atheists cannot prove that S.G. took place (they have faith for that also)

You are merely trying to take god outside of physics... is a theist worried about what science can prove so much that they have to change the rules? Of course you would say you did not make the rules... which is a fair comment.

I am not saying that, I am asking you to describe how I did it.

The problem though with your theory (as I have stated) is that as science learns more it does not matter where you hide your god. You see, the thing is, science is looking for god - we just have not found him yet and finding less and less need for him.

Actually Lee the more science discovers, the more we theists appreciate the intelligence and power of the Creator. You keep forgetting Lee that theists are not anti science! God going into hiding? From where?

Out of interest, you never responded to my comment in 829. Comment #23820.

It just sounds like the "Emperor's New Clothes" - only clever people can see the fine clothes (or God), and fools like us can only see what there is (or not).

If you are saying that clever people accept that there are things existing beyond observation while fools do not, then I agree with your analogy.

Where is this infinite being you talk about, I have never seen him, heard him or have any proof of him... not so infinite is he? Besides, the god of the bible does . . .

No bible talk remember?


Comment 851

I am really glad that you could acknowledge that an atheists faith rests on a scientifically meaningless claim. Therefore the discussion now is which faith is more probable.

Is this all it would take for millions to lose their faith or just you to lose yours (you said you were an atheist once)?

I can only speak for myself, though I would consider it foolish for a theist to believe in a theory that has been proven wrong.

If I did have life in a test tube, it would only be very simple life... you could claim that God made it better or something and the debate goes on. Or more likely claim the experiment false and not believe what you see.

Of course being the critical thinker that I am, questions must be asked. You do not want someone placing a germ in a test tube and exclaim that he created life, do you?

Lets face it; this last one is more likely. Science has proved the Earth and the moon to be 4.5 billion years old... really proved it, yet some theist still hold onto the belief that the world is a few thousand years old. (Sorry Theo - have to ask now - How old do you think the Earth is by the way - just want to check which side of the fence you are on?)

There is no need to answer this question; it would only take away attention from the issue at hand. I will reveal that If however, rocks did form in a closed environment and if it was formed without daughter isotopes, then the earth must be about 4.5 billion years old!

Another point though, your statement means that the only reason for believing in god is the life you see around you... well didn't I previously use this evidence as proof of SG, but you were not convinced? (And why should you be on such an empty argument - but it works for you and god doesn't it)

If it is seen that the origin of life points to a Designer, how can someone possibly conclude that this is evidence for spontaneous generation?! . . . now I have a headache!

My point is that a simple life form with just a few thousand or millions of atoms is far more likely to "pop" into existence than 10^23 atoms all appearing in one place to form a pen-knife (or a god?). This is the problem with analogies

Here is an excerpt from the Blind Watchmaker:

"To generate a biological molecule like haemoglobin, the red pigment in blood, by simple sieving would be equivalent to taking all the amino-acid building blocks of haemoglobin, jumbling them up at random, and hoping that the haemoglobin molecule would reconstitute itself by sheer luck. The amount of luck that would be required for this feat is unthinkable, and has been used as a telling mind-boggier by Isaac Asimov and others. A haemoglobin molecule consists of four chains of amino acids twisted together. Let us think about just one of these four chains. It consists of 146 amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids commonly found in living things. The number of possible ways of arranging 20 kinds of thing in chains 146 links long is an inconceivably large number, which Asimov calls the 'haemoglobin number'. It is easy to calculate, but impossible to visualize the answer. The first link in the 146-long chain could be any one of the 20 possible amino acids. The second link could also be any one of the 20, so the number of possible 2-link chains is 20 x 10, or 400. The number of possible 3-link chains is 20 x 20 x 20, or 8,000. The number of possible 146-link chains is 20 times itself 146 times. This is a staggeringly large number. A million is a 1 with 6 noughts after it. A billion 11,000 million) is a 1 with 9 noughts after it. The number we seek, the 'haemoglobin number', is (near enough) a 1 with 190 noughts after it! This is the chance against happening to hit upon haemoglobin by luck. And a haemoglobin molecule has only a minute fraction of the complexity of a living body. Simple sieving, on its own, is obviously nowhere near capable of generating the amount of order in a living thing"

Now if the amount of luck that would be required for the S.G. of one molecule haemoglobin is unthinkable and thus can only be explained by means of cumulative selection, how much more for a living replicating cell that comprises of many molecules of greater complexity!

is it the simplest possible living thing that the scientists agree on, or just the simplest around at the moment after all the early primitive stuff evolved or became extinct?

Yes, it is generally accepted in the scientific community that the first cell was prokaryotic.

No need . . . Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" pg 130-132 talks all about the flagellum motor

That is why I had "optional" in brackets, meaning that the first cell did not necessarily have to possess this motor.

Since you bring it up, could you please response to Richards's arguments? I assume you have read the book . . . if not please do; it will help with the debates on this site.

Right now I am occupied with the Blind Watchmaker; I will start the G.D. when I am through.

However I don't actually see your point on this discussion- all what you have described is covered in the debate "Evolution and natural selection"... this is not what we were discussing. You pick me up on this before when I went off the argument

As mentioned earlier, the scientific community agrees that the first cell was indeed prokaryotic. Structures always present in these cells are: phospholipid cell membranes, DNA and ribosomes. Any living cell must possess machinery that would enable it to harness energy from its environment incorporated with information duplication machinery to ensure acceptable replication. DNA and ribosomes which are arguably more complex than haemoglobin, all working together with other structures to produce a cell . . . by chance is "unthinkable". I guess that it is because of such complexity you really thought we were moving the debate to evolution and natural selection!
Now if such is the complex machinery of the first and simplest cell, it certainly points to a Creator! I just cannot find the foolishness within myself to dismiss such overwhelming evidence ONLY BECAUSE SCIENCE IS "LIMITED" AND CANNOT DEAL WITH THE RESULTS!

35. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #25382 by Theo on March 12, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Hi Lee,

I mentioned already I disagree... mainly because you could prove SG to be true an any point in time in the future, so it is a testable theory...

However I take your point that it may be difficult to falsify - who can say how long it may take to prove true but this makes it only a poor theory - one that should be re-written, not totally wrong.

Actually Lee, the ability of a theory to be falsified is a central concept in the scientific method. In fact so much so that theories that cannot be falsified are not considered scientific! Professor James Lett in his article: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking published in The Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (Winter 1990) stated:

"It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.
The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.
For example, the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old. Similarly, the true claim that water freezes at 32° F is falsifiable; it would be falsified if water were to freeze at, say, 34° F. Each of these claims is firmly established as scientific "fact," and we do not expect either claim ever to be falsified; however, the point is that either could be. Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; that is, it would not be making a factual assertion -- it would instead be making an emotive statement, a declaration of the way the claimant feels about the world. Nonfalsifiable claims do communicate information, but what they describe is the claimant's value orientation. They communicate nothing whatsoever of a factual nature, and hence are neither true nor false. Nonfalsifiable statements are propositionally vacuous."

Special creation is rejected because of its inability to be falsified, but the issue is that it has been replaced by a "scientific" theory that is equally unscientific.

But lets not forget this definition of SG is your theory, it is a very simple theory, and it can be tested and proved wrong. So as I stated, I am happy to discuss this theory of SG.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying here, but S.G. is not my theory.

So to repeat, the theory can be tested and proved wrong, but we will agree the SG theory you have described is not a great theory - but that is only because we have kept the theory simple for our discussion. You did not want to talk science and we do not need a complex theory for our discussions.

Can you describe to me exactly how S.G. can be tested and proven wrong?

Question though, if this SG theory is so poor, what about the other theory, god? How can I prove that god does not exist? What tests are there for his existence? If you want to talk about the quality of a theory, lets talk about this god theory.

First of all, creation was never the one claiming to be scientific; it was spontaneous generation that made that specific claim. So if there is any answering to be done, it must be done by the one not living up to its claim!

However, even though creation is not a "scientific" theory so to speak, it can be falsified. If life is created in the lab from raw chemicals, then that would mean that life could have arisen without the need for a creator. This would destroy the primary evidence of a creator thus falsifying special creation.

To me the penknife is, in one important way, more complex than the simplest form of chemistry we can call life...

It's size, the number of atoms that needed to be in the right place at the right time.

Now Lee, we all know that more particles do not mean more complex; a brick may have more atoms than a microchip but does that mean it is more complex? What about nanotechnology?

To add to that, I do not think you understand the complexity of the simplest living reproducing prokaryotic cell.
A living cell would have to contain DNA which is the most information dense material in the world. Not only that, but DNA replication is extremely complex, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication#DNA_Replication

Time would not permit me to speak in detail of the engineering of the flagellum motor (optional), the intracellular membranes devoted to special metabolic properties, e. g. photosynthesis or chemolithotrophy, characteristics of the simplest form of life.
This is only the tip of the iceberg but we get the point, and this is why I maintain that a living replicating cell is more complex than a penknife.

36. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #25297 by Theo on March 11, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Billy,

Made a correction to my comment of you saying: "A reproducing cell that was assembled by chance is easier to believe than a cell being created by intelligence . . . you lost me there. What? So where did God come from? See above". You didnt put it quotation marks so I thought it was actually you who was lost, so sorry about that.

Theo

37. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #24951 by Theo on March 9, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Billy

The belief in evolution was never a prerequisite for atheism. Atheism was around before Darwin. My argument is that even if evolution was true, it still does not validate atheism. Sorry you wrote a whole post about something I was not arguing about.

Believe me Billy I KNOW that this is time consuming. I think I will be stuck here for a while though, hope to chat again sometime.

T.O.

38. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #24950 by Theo on March 9, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Hi Lee:

Which is more probable, a penknife being assembled by blundering chance or a penknife being assembled by an intelligent designer?..
..the origin of life on earth points to a designer rather than blind chance


This is a classic reply, as you know, to the creation Vs evolution and has, I am sure, had a reply already. So I will not repeat earlier responses. Merely that I disagree with the logic (I will expand on this only if you need me to repeat others)

No it has not been answered already. The classic reply is given as natural selection, but I am dealing with the first cell and therefore the principles of evolution do not apply here. Hence the penknife analogy still stands Lee.

I will however turn the logic back on you as I have before.

Is this single cell more complex than your god?
Which is more likely to come out of a blundering chance experiment? A complex god or the simplest form of life?

Sorry to burst your bubble Lee but you using my logic against me would have actually worked if the Creator had an origin, which you would have probably noticed later down.

An infinite regress does not, by definition stop anywhere... it goes on indefinitely - it is impossible to say therefore something came before it - the creator of the creator just goes on and on and on - forever. It never has a beginning, there is never a first creator because with "Infinite Regress" something created it.

Infinite regress is a term used to point out the so called problem creation would encounter in the scientific arena i.e. who created the creator? An Infinite Being would not be affected by infinite regress because He Himself would have no beginning. An Infinite Being by definition does not have beginning to relapse.

To create your god on this logic would require an infinite amount of time... I can not wait that long to find out... erm, but I am here asking the question so an infinite amount of time has not passed. So therefore, with your logic - god cannot exist!

Fundamental Flaw: you cannot create an infinite being, a created infinite being is paradoxical.

This hurt my head I have to tell you... thinking about infinity has that affect on me.

Don't hurt your head, just transfer the very same idea of the singularity and apply it to the Creator.

I said

I do believe that S.G. has been given special license...

I will wait until you reply to it in detail before I comment

Later,
T.O.

39. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #24389 by Theo on March 6, 2007 at 10:58 am

Hi Lee,

Sorry for the delayed response, but you know how busy it can be sometimes.

I read your responses to my comments, and saw one main point pervading. So for the sake of time I will concentrate on this point.

Your position is (and correct me if I am wrong): the probability of life having a natural origin is greater than the probability of it arising supernaturally.

Lee, a cell is significantly more complex than a penknife, so if this analogy works for a penknife it would definitely work for a cell. Which is more probable, a penknife being assembled by blundering chance or a penknife being assembled by an intelligent designer? Is the probability of the spontaneous generation of a penknife greater than the intelligent design of the same? We both know the answers; how much more for the complex precision of a self replicating cell? If we are dealing with probabilities, then a functional piece of machinery such as a cell has a much greater probability of being designed than being spontaneously generated. Hence this is why in terms of probability, the origin of life on earth points to a designer rather than blind chance.

Creation is therefore not rejected because evidence does not point to a designer (for we know it does), but it is rejected because of the type of designer it points to . Infinite Regress stalls at an Infinite Being, and that would be outside the scope of science. When we ask what is the probability of such a Being, what we are really asking is what is the probability of that Being existing outside the scope of science. If you disagree with my definition of a materialist then you should agree with this: if evidence points to it, the probability of something existing outside the scope of science is greater than the probability of the wind just so happening to assemble a penknife.

Or did you mean that man would never create life in the lab? Science may in a few billion years... this is how long life had to create itself, if not longer

I do believe that S.G. has been given special license and if I were to apply that same license to say Newtons 2nd Law: F = ma, where force is directly proportional to the acceleration of a fixed mass, then someone could conclude that it is very difficult to produce a force that is not proportional to the acceleration of the mass in the same conditions, maybe in a billion years we might be able to produce it, we just do not know how yet. But of course, the way science works is that, to avoid this confusion, the current data is simply accepted until evidence to the contrary is produced. This applies to every theory of science except S.G.

If you disagree, the main point is this: if S.G. is wrong, then it has been placed in a truly unassailable position, i.e. it would never be falsified. Because even after a "billion years" there would always be one more experiment, and this would go on ad infinitum. It may be the only scientifically accepted theory that cannot be falsified.


Hope to reply soon
T to the O.

40. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23769 by Theo on March 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Quetz.

Comparing a creator with the tooth fairy and pagan gods is not a viable argument.
If I placed an object in a box and asked persons to guess what is in box, would unearthly guesses nullify the fact that there is an object existing in the box? Would calling it the tooth fairy nullify the fact that the object exists? Therefore caricatures of the Creators title would never invalidate His existence. But you can still have them coming, they are quite entertaining!

Billy:

No Theo, you have already presumed the existance of a creator. Since you want to propose a creator and not specifically your god, then a creator surely presupposes a creator of him then and so on to infinity.

Infinite regress stops at an infinite being.

Compared to this, a naturalistic explanation of life must surely be a simpler and more likely possibility

A reproducing cell that was assembled by chance is easier to believe than a cell being created by intelligence . . . you lost me there. What? So where did God come from? See above

Accepting Spontaneous Generation without any proof is even poorer Billy.


No it is not, see above.

This is why atheists should not object to atheism being called a faith. To believe in a scientifically falsified theory over a theory that cannot be scientifically tested is truly delusional.

Unfortunately you are ultimately argueing for the existance of your god, and he says creation took place in 6 days. You seem to be setting the rules to suit yourself here. The fact is that the fossil record, geology, genetics, radiochemisrty all say this did not happen. This I why I say that your specific god cannot be the creator. If you want to take the deist view (which you dont) you still have to explain the existance of the creator.

Actually Billy I am arguing from a deistic perspective (for argument sake) because the bible/ Christianity/ Evolution does not have any bearing on the existence of a creator. I have wasted enough time on debating the bible with atheists, even though I have refuted all claims directed to me about the scriptures it seems that no profit was gained. I am not squandering any more time going back there.

I chose this example cafefully. The point is that anyone can reproduce Rutherford's experiment and get the same data. All you really have is that life looks designed, therefore it must be, or how can life spontaneously arise? - I cant understand it, so it must be god. It is hardly the same as reproducible evidence. You have provided none. Evolution shows life increasing in complexity and that destroys your version of the god hypothesis - regardless of opinions about origins.

You have provided no reproducible evidence that life could have arisen without a creator, do you really want me to believe in the falsified S.G. hypothesis? That is absurd to say the least! The burden of proof is on you Billy. (I could however delude myself into actually accepting a falsified theory so that atheists would label me a "Critical Thinker")

BTW we can directly visualise atoms now. 12 billion years of "creation" and no one has a photo of yahweh

BTW there is a difference between an atom and an electron.

41. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23626 by Theo on March 1, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Billy

You have provided no evidence for your claims of life.

Um, yes I did. Evidence for a Creator is Creation. Its elementary.

. If a god of the gaps arguement is your reason for believing, that is a pretty poor one.

Accepting Spontaneous Generation without any proof is even poorer Billy.

One thing is for sure though, as mentioned above complex life only appears late on in the fossil record and follows a ligical sequence. Literal 6 day creationism is therefore not an option. Given the random nature of mutation, guided evolution is not an option either.

Nope, I am not arguing from a biblical perspective (for expedient reasons). The debate is concerning the evidence for a Creator looking at purely extra biblical evidence . As I said before Billy, I will not indulge in evolution either; I am looking at origins.

Since when has it become necessary to prove the non existence of something for which there is no evidence. Do you feel the need to disprove any theory that states fairies created life?

Of course the "fairy" argument sounds nice, except it is not fairies we are dealing with. The difference between a creator and fairies is . . . life exists!

Over 100 years ago, If I said matter was made from atoms that no one had seen, you would quite rightly put the burden of proof on me. No one has seen god, so provide direct proof

Did scientists discover atoms because they saw them? Or did they use evidence from the cathode ray and gold foil experiment? They proved the existence of atoms based on indirect observation. Please consider the folly, "No one has seen electrons, so provide direct proof." Savvy?

(actually moses has seen him, even though the bible says no one may see him and live - i discuss this near the start of the thread- strange that from a book that is allegedly the truth!). No one has countered my earlier claims that messianic prophecies are made up either

Well I am not going to go into a bible debate here since it can also be done on a deist site. But I visited your link on" good selection of contradictions" and I must admit atheists win hands down . . . for quote mining! Here is a whole site that is that is actually dedicated to this art. At least you can rest assured that you are not alone because for me also those "links just leave me exasperated at the ignorance and misrepresentations on the sites"

42. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23528 by Theo on March 1, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Hi LeeC,

I agree with you on the fact that bible discussion is fruitless concerning Gods existence. As I said before, if the bible is false, it does not mean that God does not exist, it means He did not write it. Likewise, the discussion on evolution is fruitless also; there are many theists who believe in evolution (because you do not have to be Christian to be theist). As this is an atheist site, the most pertinent question that must be discussed is,"Does God Exist?"

It must be pointed out that both atheist and theist rely on the same data, it is the interpretation of this data that causes the clash. For example you cannot directly observe reptiles turning into mammals, but scientist can look at the fossil record and infer that evolution has taken place. In the same light theists cannot directly observe God, but they look at life on earth and infer a creator. Therefore, just as scientists cannot show an observable transformation from reptile to mammal to prove evolution, it is the very same way a theist cannot show a visible God to prove creation, they both rely on evidence

The question now becomes, "is there evidence for Gods existence?" the answer is yes, the evidence - life on earth. There are two competing theories regarding the origin of life on earth: Spontaneous Generation (S.G.) and Creation. In other words, life either occurred naturally or supernaturally, there is no third alternative that logic can supply. The problem that some have with creation is that it is not scientifically testable (it cannot be proven nor unproven). However S.G. is testable, in 1952 the Miller Urey experiment yielded some organic compounds, which we all know is light years away from an actual living cell. From that one experiment it was seen that life did not arise naturally. However numerous S.G. experiments were conducted in its various forms (clay theory etc) for over 50 years until now, but still no life, and these experiments will go on in indefinitely until the desire of the experimenters is achieved.

Therefore current data shows that life did not arise naturally, and this will remain so until a living cell is actually produced. So we see that:

1. Life originated EITHER naturally OR supernaturally.
2. Current data shows that life did not arise naturally.
3. Life exists.

The conclusion is obvious. However, an atheist would cry foul saying that this is a "God of the Gap" argument and that we should remain agnostic (not atheistic?) on the matter. This objection would have carried some weight if there was a third alternative, meaning: if it is not A and we cannot test B, then it might be C. but this is not the case, it is an either A or B situation. For that reason, when an atheist claims that it does not have to be creation, it is really a sugar coated way of saying, "life arose by S.G., we just cannot prove it yet!"

We must understand that for the materialist, S.G is embraced as a philosophical necessity rather than being because it is true. Why? Because anything other than S.G is outside the scope of science. Now this is one of my gripes with materialism where in order for something to exist or be true, it must be limited to the scope of science which is quite disturbing. I do believe there are truths that are independent of scientific discovery, truth is not subject to science but rather science is subject to truth. Theists are not anti - science, we just have a healthy respect for what it is: a growing body of knowledge that is limited to repeatable and observable phenomena. The atheist on the other hand seems to be of the viewpoint that all reality is within the scope of science. e.g. "God does not exist because He is not testable." Of course theists are labeled anti science when objecting to this view point.

Therefore, contrary to atheistic propaganda, the burden of proof lies on the atheist himself because he has to prove that life arose without the need for a Creator, and until such evidence is produced, reason constrains me to remain a theist.

43. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #22380 by Theo on February 15, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Hi guys, just popping in for a while because I am really busy.

Quetzacoatl

Apologies for the delayed response

. . . However, practically all of the books that form the New Testament were written decades after Jesus' death, including the Gospels. . .

Yes, the books of the N.T. were written years after the death of Christ. However, this as no bearing on the validity of what was written. If what the bible claims is true, that the Holy Spirit inspired the message of the scripture, then it would not matter how long after the account was written because the source would always be available.

Also at one time what the Church included within the NT was very different. Over the centuries, books have fallen from favour, discredited books have been introduced, and lines added. In the first 300 years following Christ, there was no universally accepted testament.

Correction, there was no fixed canon for those 300 years, not the absence of an accepted Testament. We must understand that there were books in the N.T. that were undisputed, such as the Gospels, the Pauline epistles and Acts. These books form the core of the N.T. those that were the subject of the debate were books such as James, Jude, 1 & 2 Peter, etc. It must be pointed out that the main criterion for the selection of books was actually stated in the undisputed books, namely the Pauline epistles. Therefore any book that contradicted the undisputed books was automatically disqualified. This is why certain books fell out of favor and were rejected.

I do not know of any discredited books being introduced, I know of books whose inspiration have been questioned. These were disputed books (not discredited) and they were included in the canon because their teaching was not contradictory to the undisputed books; other criteria used were apostolic authority and widespread church usage.

One of the most beautiful aspects of the N.T. is the fact that we have over 20,000 manuscripts in which we can compare newer ones with older. From such studies, we have seen that the N.T. is remarkably preserved and this is the reason why we can detect edited versions of the scripture, because we have the preserved documents to compare it to.

Not too sure when I will be able to respond again, hopefully it would be soon!

44. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18978 by Theo on January 24, 2007 at 6:26 am

Quetzacoatl,

The New Testament has often been claimed to be an improvement/addition/replacement to the Old Testament. There are also numerous examples of glaring contradictions and some quite appalling moral guidelines within the Bible itself, that belie its claim to be the Word of a "loving" God.

Firstly I said that the Bible claimed to be the final revelation of God to man, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament stated that a New Testament was imminent, and therefore when the N.T. was established, it declared that it was final thus sealing the entire Bible. If however, the N.T. stated that there was another covenant coming, then I would have been open to latter documents. But even if that were the case, the Koran and book of mormon would still come up short because of external and internal contradictions.

Through my own conversations and reading of articles on this website, I've seen that Christians confronted with these issues often say that they "know" it is true because they have prayed on it- another parallel with the Mormons you mentioned.

I understand that you are new to this blog; therefore I should point out that if you were to follow my posts you will see that the flawed thinking of a few theists have no bearing on my own thinking. I am opposed to such so called reasoning and will continue to do so, however it must be pointed out that atheists should not be in the habit of faulty generalizations. On this thread I have experienced rude insults and name calling. Though it is a common stereotype of atheists, I do not believe that all atheists behave in that manner. I have had the pleasure of debating with persons such as BillySands and J.C. Samuelson who did not fit that stereotype. Therefore I kindly ask that the broad brushing of both atheists and theists be stopped.

I know that in your response to Shauntheboy you will provide evidence for your concerns so I will be waiting.

45. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18846 by Theo on January 23, 2007 at 7:34 am

Hi NLHB,

Yes, I am a Christian. You asked why Christianity and not Islam or Mormonism.

Well first of all, I had a study with two Mormon missionaries. It must be noted that the book of Mormon claims that the Bible is the word of God and that it is an addition to the Bible. The Bible claims that it is the final revelation of God to man, therefore any document claiming to be an addition to the Bible is fundamentally flawed. There were also certain facts that contradicted the Bible and also contradictions within the book of Mormon itself. When I questioned them on these issues they said that they prayed about it and therefore they know it is true . . . and they never came back. As a result my current status is that the book of Mormon is fundamentally flawed, contradicts itself and the Bible and therefore cannot be authored by God.

The Koran also falls into the same category. It claims that it is the final revelation of God to mankind. It claims that the Bible is the word of God and that the prophets of the Bible must be believed thus the Koran is an addition to the Bible. Other than being fundamentally flawed in this aspect, the Koran contradicts the very prophets it highly esteems as true. As a result of this, until these issues are cleared up, the Koran is also fundamentally flawed and contradicts its parent document-the Bible.

If you have any more questions or need more detail just let me know.

I also have a question for you; can you tell me the factors that led you to lose your belief? I am curious to