Comments by gimlibengloin

1. Fleabytes

Comment #154361 by gimlibengloin on April 3, 2008 at 6:19 am

Roland_F

"Hilarious !! The Saul/Paul who never met Jesus in person and just got a heatstroke on the way to the Dead Sea area to arrest the apostles lead by James and heard voices during his heat stroke. The most notorious liar in the entire Bible."

And you can prove this of course.
Talk about wishful thinking. Maybe you're the one suffering heatstroke. You need to get in out of the sun.

kind regards, GBG

2. Fleabytes

Comment #154360 by gimlibengloin on April 3, 2008 at 6:15 am

Phillip1978

"GBG you have absolutely no clue about evolution and how it works, you know nothing of what the fossil record shows and what people have discovered"


"Now, I have no great knowledge about much more of this, my knowledge of evolution is borderline awful"

This is amusing. Your knowledge of evolution is "borderline awful" yet you feel free to not only criticise mine but assert that there is far more info on evolution than God.

Anyway, see the aforementioned Dr Sarfati on

www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250

3. Fleabytes

Comment #154297 by gimlibengloin on April 3, 2008 at 4:27 am

Billy Sands (7563)

"You haveent actually answered concerning god lying, and you will need to point out your answer to steve about how you know paul is not lying (this thread moves fast)"

I have answered it but you don't like the answer. In regard to Paul lying that isn't even an option for anyone who can read. CS Lewis argued that when he read something about the gospels being myth or legend he wasn't interested in how long that scholar had spent studying that portion of text. What he was interested in was how many myths and legends he/she had read. Lewis asserted that he had been reading myths , legends, poetry, vision literature, romance all of his life and he knew what they were like. He also knew that none of them were like the gospels. In regard to the gospels there were only two options either they were records of actual events very close to the facts or somebody in the 2nd century without any predecessors suddenly discovered the whole modern novel writing technique of realistic narrative. He asserted that anybody who doesn't see this simply hasn't learnt how to read.
Now, a similar principle applies to the writings of Paul. It is possible if one reads Paul's letters while one is half-asleep and drunk as a skunk, to believe that he was lying but if one is of at of at least reasonable intelligence and not under the influence the possibility doesn't even present itself. Take 1 Corinthians 15:14-19

"if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith is also in vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified concerning God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised….and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins………if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied"

Romans 9:1-3

"I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, from Christ for the sake of my brethren..who are Israelites"

Or take Philippians 2:3,4

"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.."

2:25-27

"But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus …because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick…but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow"
When we read Paul's letters we discover a man who is ruthless in his application of logic to his own beliefs and teaching. He doesn't shy away from acknowledging the consequences of false belief. He doesn't hesitate to call God as a witness to the truth of not merely his words but also his conscience which is surely extraordinary especially for a Jew. He doesn't fail to acknowledge his weaknesses, his own struggles, his loneliness at times. The man is transparent.
I don't know that there are even many liberal scholars who would give credence to the notion that Paul was a liar. We'd have to end up denying everything we read.

"Yet Jeremiah is under the impression that god has told him something else - are you suggesting that some of the bible may not be the word of god then?"

This is becoming silly. It is true that God allowed many of the FALSE prophets of Israel to be deceived and to deceive a idolatrous Israelite nation that had persistently rebelled against God. Yet it is also the case that God was allowing Israel to suffer the consequences of its own sin. This is a consistent teaching throughout scripture. God did not lie to the people but he did allow the prophets to do so and personally I have no problem with that.
In regard to Jeremiah being "under the impression" that God had deceived the people this may be so but the prophet only records what he said 'Then I said, "Ah, Lord God! Surely you have utterly deceived this people…saying, "You will have peace"'. However, it is clear that God did not tell them they would have peace but rather this was the message of the false prophets.

Of course, Jeremiah like Job (Job 1:6-12 & 2:1-6), was unaware of what was going on
Either Jeremiah was under the impression that God had directly deceived the people or he was inferring that God being sovereign was ultimately in control of the situation. If the first then he was clearly mistaken but, as I said, Jeremiah tells us what he cried out in anguish over the fate of the people not what he should have said.

It is also the case that even though God allowed the false prophets to deceive the people he still, through Micaiah for example made the true situation clear (1 Ki 22:19-24). So even when God judges sinners he still offers a way out.

"See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity…….I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life" Deut 30:15,19

God not only offers life but in case we are too stupid to know what we should do he even tells us.
It is easy enough to find contradictions in scripture when you ignore the context and go looking for them but then you wouldn't apply the same method to other writings would you?




"And this proves what exactly? we still have the transitional fossils. Think about what you are also suggesting here in the last 6000 years there have been 4 billion species - sounds a bit strange to me, and we have no trilobites, ediacarians, graptolites or dinosaurs alive today - they all appear in specific rock bands of a particular age"

"Ah, the fallacy of the argument from authority. I gave you a list of anatomical features, you gave me a quote probably taken out of context."

Its perfectly acceptable to quote a authority as long as one doesn't misrepresent them. For example, take this quote from Stephen Jay Gould who is citing authority:

"George Gaylord Simpson, the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century…acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically abrupt origin as the outstanding general fact of the fossil record."
(Punctuated Equilibrium, p26, 2007)

Dr Gould then goes on to quote Simpson's opinion on the fossil record. Please note that Gould not only quotes Simpson but actually emphasises his stature by calling him the "greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century". Isn't this appealing to authority? Furthermore Gould actually quotes him despite the fact that Simpson was an opponent of Gould's theory of evolution.
This is no less than what the creationists do when they quote evolutionists on the fossil record. Nobody is claiming that the authority being cited would agree with creationism in fact it is precisely because they oppose it that creationists cite them. If a evolutionist acknowledges the lack of evidence for evolutionary development in the rocks then that is strong evidence for such absence. The creationist then argues that such absence is a direct prediction of creation but not of evolution. The Genesis account predicts it whereas the evolutionists have to pull of all sorts of torturous contortions to accommodate it.

"Temporal distrobution -you might want to type transitional fossil in to talk origins. Try this for starters http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html looks like you are wrong about numbers."

Now who's appealing to authority? I'll have a look though.





"Ah, the logic of denial - the fossil record is incomplete, so that is evidence of creation vs there is no evidence of a change in Archaeopteryx."

I might have misunderstood you here but evolution is change. So if we have no evidence for one then neither do we have it for the other.




7564. Comment #154136 by AlanF on April 2, 2008 at 6:31 pm
BillySands commented to GBG:

"It appears that GBG has taken his claim from the Young-Earth Creationist website "Answers in Genesis" ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp ) from an article by the well-known YEC Jonathan Sarfati, who quotes from "Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist" as follows:

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." From Feduccia, A.; in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764-65, 5 February 1993."

Thanks for that, AlanF, I'd forgotten that it was Feduccia.

"Of course, a great deal has been learned from the paleontological record since 1993, and I suspect that even such a scientist as Feduccia will have changed his mind by now."

Well, you can suspect all you like but suspect doesn't equal evidence. As Sarfati pointed out Feduccia isn't just your average bird watcher and he made his views more than clear on Arch'y. If he has changed his mind someone needs to dig up the evidence.

"Whatever Feduccia thought or thinks, even as of 1993 most paleontologists realized that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form, in the sense of having a body structure that has strong features of both coelurosaurian dinosaurs and modern birds. I researched this topic thoroughly in 1991-1992 and presented a summary here: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-5-gulf-between-reptiles-and-birds.html . Today the evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs is far stronger."

I'll read that as well as Billy's suggestion but again the real issue is lineage isn't it? Take the Platypus as an example.

GBG

PS I'm aware this thread moves fast but as I wrote previously I do have other commitments.

4. Fleabytes

Comment #154043 by gimlibengloin on April 2, 2008 at 12:45 pm

(7498) Steve Zara

"Sorry to be rather pedantic and tiresome here"

"No. The Scriptures are a record of what some individuals have written."


Yes, pedantic and tiresome and then some. Jeremiah 4:10 reads, "Then I said…" Its funny because I was just on Youtube where a Christian was complaining about how its typical of evolutionists to complain about little things like mispronunciation, grammatical errors and so on and completely ignore the main points made.

'"prove"?'

I think your getting too upset about this. Billy's point was that Jeremiah 4:10 is evidence that God lies. My point was it simply records what people like Jeremiah said whether what they said was correct or otherwise. For example the book of Job contains much of what Job said concerning God but near the end in chapter 38:2 God tells Job "You don't know what you're talking about" (my paraphase).
In fact this is one of the evidences of the reliability of scripture. Peter is recorded as denying Christ. Jesus is recorded as saying to Peter who was to become a prominent figure in the early church, "Get behind me satan". Women are recorded as being the discoverers of the empty tomb even though women were regarded as unreliable witnesses. Paul's dispute with Barnabas over John Mark. The charge against the disciples that they stole the body. The honesty, transparency, integrity as well as sanity and intelligence of the writers of the NT is clear to all but the wilfully blind.


Billy Sands (7500)

"Hey Gimpythingy"

Ha, ha, ha. I like that. Gimli son of Gloin is a character in Mr Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and I just added the "ben" from the Hebrew usage. Clever, eh?

"How about he said it with respect to being decieved!"

How about it?

"Erm no they dont, they show that god uses lies."
Well, this is why I disappear for long periods of time because we never end up agreeing. I mean its all good fun in the short term but contrary to popular opinion even Christians can have something resembling a life.

"You forgot to tell us how you know Paul did not lie or was decieved."

I've given something of an answer to this in response to the amiable Mr Zara above.


"Absolutly not. You just stated it was a bird and dissapeared for about a year (unless you have been using the name devolved too)."

"Think I asked you where all the fossilised humans are in the dinosaur beds too."

I think I asked you about this statement a few years ago in National Geographic:

"The fossil record is like a film of evolution in which 999 of a thousand frames have been lost on the cutting room floor".

Apparently 99.9% of the evidence for evolution isn't there. And you think YEC has problems.

Isn't this precisely what we would expect if organisms were created? Plenty of variation but no onward and upward evolution?
In regard to Archaeopteryx one can say that on the whole the fossil evidence for evolution is pitiful which is precisely what one would expect if it wasn't true. Archaeopteryx is one of the few examples that can be put forward yet evolutionists disagree even over this. I quoted you one leading authority (not a creationist) who stated that Archaeopteryx was no more than a perching bird. Further as one would expect the fossils show no gradual evolution for Arch'y.

GBG

5. Fleabytes

Comment #153971 by gimlibengloin on April 2, 2008 at 9:48 am

Billy Sands? No way!

(7493) Jer 4:10? You're clearly going to have to do better than that. As you will know the Scriptures give a record of what individuals said it doesn't limit itself to what they should have said. You will be quoting the serpent in Gen 3:4 next as evidence that God lies. Silly Billy.

In regard to the other two scriptures all they prove is that God judges unrepentant sinners by handing them over to their sins eg Romans 1:18-32. Sometimes it leads them to repentance sometimes it doesn't. But don't forget that God isn't willing that any should perish and he wants all to be saved including you, Billy.
In regard to Archaeoteryx didn't I answer that one?

6. Fleabytes

Comment #153850 by gimlibengloin on April 2, 2008 at 6:46 am

Quetzalcoatl (7441)

"Gimlibengloin
careful, your assumptions are showing. If God acts in accordance with who he is, is it possible for him to act in another way, ie in an evil fashion? If it is possible, then he cannot be all-good. If it is not possible, then he is bound by his own nature, which means he is not all-powerful, since an omnipotent God would be able to do anything."

I would take your second option, Q, and say he cannot act contrary to his own nature. However, no Biblically derived philosophy would assert that God can do anything. Paul wrote, "God, who cannot lie" (Tit 1:2). God can't make two plus two equal five. He can't make square-circles.

Mphil (7442)

"If god's characteristics are not determined by himself, they are either necessarily so or contingently determined by something else. In either case, since it is not god himself that determines his nature there is something either prior or "higher" (in order) that does. And if moral values are depenend on god's character, and he has not determined that character himself - they are in the end determined by whatever determines god's character."

The two options presented are that God's characteristics are either (1) Necessarily so or (2) contingently determined by something else.
I would take the first option. Your objection to this is that this would mean that "there is something either prior or higher" that determines his nature. This is clearly incorrect for it would involve a impossibility namely that a necessary being is dependent on something else. You seem to be arguing that because God does not actively create or will his characteristics therefore they must be dependant on something else. But all it entails is that God's characteristics are Absolute they are 'bound up' with who he is. God is a Necessary Being. Therefore his characteristics are Necessary and Absolute and this provides a basis for absolute moral standards whereas atheism provides no basis for condemning an atheist like Stalin.

7. Fleabytes

Comment #153811 by gimlibengloin on April 2, 2008 at 5:47 am

MPhil (7429)

"in the latter case you have the other horn: God's nature is determined not by himself - whether necessary or not, then god is bound by his nature and the moral values are thus dependent on what determines god's nature - and thus of a higher order than god himself."

A rather interesting reponse but surely incorrect. To say that God is bound by his own nature and that his nature determines moral laws is NOT to say that he is dependent on a higher order. It is to say that he acts in accordance with who he is.

8. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #152110 by gimlibengloin on March 30, 2008 at 6:32 am

Creationists would argue that since God created land animals and humans on the same day therefore dinosaurs by virtue of being land animalsmust have coexisted with humans. The only question is whether there exists evidence for such a belief. Obviously the fossil record is a problem, in a sense, for the creationists because we don't find humans and dinosaurs fossilised together. On the other hand the creationists assert that the fossil record is an even bigger problem for evolutionists due to the lack of evidence for gradual change. Rather organisms tend to just appear in the record with no ancestors or descendants. Also they argue the record is just a reflection of the fact that dinosaurs and humans didn't live in the same areas ie we don't find humans and tigers buried together.
In regard to 'history' though as opposed to pre-history the creationists will point to ancient art eg literature, paintings, engravings which do bear a resemblance to large reptiles. They would argue that this shows evidence that dinosaurs and humans have coexisted. I wonder what we do with such 'evidence'?

9. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #151791 by gimlibengloin on March 29, 2008 at 11:47 am

The above article, though, is pretty awful. Any one who ventures onto a creationist website and searches for "dinosaurs" will discover that they most certainly believe that dinosaurs existed and that the fossils are genuine. the author is clearly being dishonest.

10. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135165 by gimlibengloin on February 28, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Fryslan (77)"That atheists are amoral is a widely held belief. Richard Dawkins and others do their best to counter that view, but many theists believe that if you have no guiding principles set down in a book of moral laws, then you must not know what is right and wrong. (nor can others know what you consider morally right or wrong) "

The belief is not that atheists are immoral nor that the atheist cannot recognise right and wrong when he/she sees it. Rather the atheist has no foundation for objective morality. Why do we hold that murder, rape, child abuse are immoral? If Prof Dawkins and his ilk are right then moral jugements are merely the result of time chance matter. They are merely the product of chemical processes resulting from a purposeless evolutionary process. One atheist (like yourself) rejects mass murder. Another like Stalin approved of it. The atheist Bertrand Russell affirmed he judged between right and wrong on the basis of "feeling". Ravi Zacharias has pointed out that in some cultures they love their neighbour and in others they eat them both on the basis of feeling. So which is the individual atheists preference?

regards, GBG

11. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #134282 by gimlibengloin on February 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Good evening!

(44)rod-the-farmer. Point taken. Your first two points suggested (at least to me) that you were running with the issue raised in 24 and 25 but maybe I misunderstood you.

However, in regard to the alleged confusion of the origin of life with evolution this is really an evolutionists attempt to 'confuse the issue'. It may be true that the supposed mechanism of evolution ie selection and mutation is not applicable to origin of life. However, the main reason for seperating the two is because there are so many problems with the chance origin of life the average evolutionist prefers to leave it on one side if only for polemic purposes. Afterall, does not Prof Dawkins et al believe that life evolved from chemicals and then subsequently diversified?

My main reason for citing the Dr Sarfati link was that it seemed that some were raising questions that had already been dealt with. Its preferable, at least in my opinion, to know what creationists have and ae saying rather than just guess.

kind regards, GBG

12. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #134131 by gimlibengloin on February 27, 2008 at 10:03 am

see also richard dawkins

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

happy viewing.

13. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #134126 by gimlibengloin on February 27, 2008 at 9:53 am

Although comments 24, 25, 39 raise understandable objections against the Genesis account it would appear that they are unfamiliar with the well publicised creationist answers to such objections. For example

www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831

which provides not only a response to the issue raised but also a summary of the creationist position on the limitations of biological change.

14. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #54424 by gimlibengloin on July 7, 2007 at 2:47 am

Billy Sands (33)

"Really? I haven't read much of the blind watchmaker, although my peers discussed it a lot (Richard forgive me). I think you actually mean interpretation, not evidence."

You're argument here appears to be the same as Quetzacoatl above who asserts:

"No, they have said that things APPEAR designed. Something appearing to be a certain way is not necessarily evidence that it IS a certain way."

Of course this is a pretty weak argument as for something to appear designed it must have the qualities of things that we know are designed and this is acknowledged by Dawkins et al. Similarly, as Davies and Hoyle and Hawking have pointed out it is highly improbable mathematically that the physical constants of the universe are the result of chance.

"Like I say, Evolution argues against design. The fact that the universe is so huge with so many planets and is so old and the fact that humans have only been around for an insignificant fraction of this time argue against design - I can see where your need to deny science comes from though."

This is really poor, Billy, especially for an intellectual like yourself. None of these examples even touch upon the question of design. In fact, short of some further elabaoration by your good self they don't even contradict Genesis.

"ant a bet? look up opsin gene duplication and mutation. Look up selective breeding - look what can happen is only a few years - imagine you had billions to play with."

Well, I've yet to do this but in regard to selective breeding as Phillip Johnson has pointed out this is the purposeful work of intelligent human beings so the analogy to NS is flawed to say the least. Similarly, your appeal to'imagination'further serves to highlight the weakness of your case. This is not about lack of imagination its about lack of evidence - evidence for evolution.

"Em no. this is really poor reasoning - considering you have not provided any evidence against evolution or indeed considered other possibilities - like the multiverse or the universe always existing in some form. It appears that you want there to be a designer, so you have logic filters in place."

Not at all. It is the scientists like Hawking, Hoyle, and Davies who are admitting that it is as if a super-intellect has been playing around with the laws of physics. I've simply shown that the attempt to dismiss a Designer by asking where did it come from is flawed. The evidence leads to a designer and the arguments against a designer are false. I don't dny you can come up with alternatives but I deny that they are the most reasonable.

"hat a total lie. Is this the best that you can do? I really am offended by this"

I can only go on the evidence you provide Billy and the example of chimps was an ad hoc explanation. If you can do better then feel free to do so.

"h the old tactic of trying to exagerate differences. The view you refer to is by no means mainstream,or even very well supported - I presume this is why you have not presented an anatomical challenge - going stroppy and stamping your feet will not give archaeopteryx an anapsid skull for example"

Nope, 99.9% of fossilevidence for evolution isn't there and the best examples eg Archaeopteryx are questionable. For a specialist to say it is no more than a perching bird is a denial of the claims you're making

kind regards
GBG

15. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #54289 by gimlibengloin on July 6, 2007 at 9:29 am

Wheww!! Too many responses so I'm going to have to ignore everyone except Billy and Phillip1978.
I'll start with Phillip1978 and respond to Billy in a few days as i have limited access.

Phillip1978

"Thing is I find the Bible to be incredibly false, mainly due to its numerous translations, revisions by a multitude of authors. I am convinced more and more that many of its stories have been plagiarised by its authors from other religions such as Buddhism, Judaism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Pagan Religions. Its historically inaccurate, it has many contradictions and there is more evidence to show that most of its characters, especially Jesus, never existed."

Have to disagree here but I'm sure you'll admit that in this first paragraph you offer your opinion and specific examples come later. I am amazed by the suggestion that jesus never existed though. Even if the gospels etc were all we had they would easily be enough to establish his historical existence as the personality of jesus is on every page.


"How for example did Jesus get born twice? He was either born in about 6BC and about 4AD in, according to the authors, Nazareth. Nazareth has been dated by some of the best (and worst!) archaeologists in the world to be from around the 2nd Century onwards, so how can he have been born there?"

I'm confused as to what you mean here as by "authors" I think you mean Matthew and Luke yet they state "Bethlehem" was his birthplace.

If you desire a short but detailed treatment of historical evidences for Jesus outside of the NT then Google for The Open Bible Trust who provide a downloadable booklet by Michael Penny.

regards,
GBG

16. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53920 by gimlibengloin on July 4, 2007 at 7:51 am

Billy Sands (cont..)

"From what I recall, you quote mined and presented no evidence, so what's your point?"

The allegation of "quote mining" is simply a fundamentalist atheist's way of conveniently ignoring the facts. The facts are that 99.9% of the fossil evidence for evolution doesn't exist and the best examples that we do have eg Archaeopteryx are debated (and even denied) by evolutionists.

"Call me pedantic, but I would expect the inspired word of the so called creator of the universe to actually make sense and be in harmony with the facts. The rarity of fossilisation makes it all the more remarkable we have so many intermediates.
Were are all the vertabrates in the oldest rocks?"

Well it does harmonise with the facts but you use a few examples to undermine the massive amounts of evidence testifying to its essential trustworthiness. The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution and yet complain about Luke 2 demonstrates you're blinkered view

"Out of interest, what would it mean to you if you discovered evolution was true"

Well if evolution was true the Bible would be false.

Kind regards GBG

17. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53919 by gimlibengloin on July 4, 2007 at 7:45 am

Billy Sands (30)

"Evidence? Not only do you invent a designer, but you give him particular qualities that prevents you questioning further. Suppose there was a designer, and he was designed. It seems you are being selective in your arguements and are trying to prove your point (and failing). Who designed the designer is a valid question, but there is no point in addressing that since there is no evidence of a designer"

Well, clearly you're talking nonsense a fact thats confirmed by all the books Prof dawkins has written trying to escape from the reality of Design in nature. Both the physicists and biologists like dawkins acknowledge the evidence for design and, indeed, in the early part of The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins criticises an atheist philosepher for being so naive in dismissing the need for an answer to this evidence. Dawkins, of course, dismisses the evidence in two ways: firstly by asserting the 'Who designed the designer" argument which is, as shown, irrelevant; and secondly by appealing to the power of NS and random mutation. Of course, this is also irrelevant because there exists no evidence that NS and RM can produce new characteristics or information.

So, the fact remains that a designer is required by the evidence and it is logically possible that that Designer is not contingent or caused but is, in fact, Necessary.

"Evolutionists make predictions based on the evidence, that gets confirmed : chimps have one more chromosome than us, therefore 2 of ours fused after splitting from chimps. Further predictions include the existence os inta chromosomal telomeric sequences and an extra centromere in the fusion product - guess what, its chromosome 2 and all these exist."

No, they make no such "predictions". What they do is observe the data and then mould their theory to fit it which is what you're doing here.
The fusing of two of our chromosomes is not a prediction of evolution it is irrelevant. You believe in evolution and you observe that chimps have "one more chromosome". You then offer the totally unsupported ad hoc explanation above.

18. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53795 by gimlibengloin on July 3, 2007 at 7:55 am

Billy Sands

"Oh really? I'm not the one who is indulging in wishful thinking. I have provided evidence in the past. You have provided none to support your claim it was a bird. If you want to convince me otherwise, you better come up with some pretty damn good"

sorry Billy but note this from the site you cite:


"Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact."

When we previously discussed this I cited one of the world's leading authorities on birds and an evolutionist. He acknowledges that Archaeopteryx is merely a bird and not an intermediate.

Its funny the way you keep harping on about Archaeopteryx. This stands as proof of the pitiful absence of evidence for Darwinian theory. 99.9% of the fossil evidence isn't there remember?? And you complain about problems in the Bible???

regards, GBG

19. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53794 by gimlibengloin on July 3, 2007 at 7:48 am

Billy Sands (27)

"So, you are back tracking. God is no longer necessary, but possible. That's a step in the right direction. Your statement was however that he was necessary, and thats wwhat I asked you to back up."

Totally incorrect as you know. I am not asserting that "God is no longer necessary" but rather that the mere POSSIBILITY of the existence of a Necessary Being doesn't mean that such a being exists.
Prof dawkins argument is that the argument to design is invalid because it would then demand that the Designer was designed. This however is not the case because it is possible that the designer exists 'Necessarily' not contingently. Since, living organisms and the universe show evidence of design as admitted by Dawkins, Hoyle, Davies we have good reason to believe that it is especially as the 'Who designed the Designer' argument is seen to be irrelevant.

"You are, because he goes to great length to explain the illusion of design. I find this fundie misrepresentiation very distasteful."

Again you're response is wrongheaded. The word 'illusion' is an INTERPRETATION of the data and not the most reasonable one but is, instead, an attempt to escape the obvious. Richard acknowledges that organisms are extremely complex and appear to be intelligently designed and his attempt to undermine the argument to design is unsuccessful.

regards GBG

20. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53604 by gimlibengloin on July 2, 2007 at 8:02 am

Billy Sands & vinelectric (19 & 20)

"How does it follow that god is necessary?"
I'm saying that logically their are only three possible catagories of existence: Impossible (ie can't exist eg square circles); possible (may or may not exist or can come to be or cease to be eg humans and unicorns); and Necessary (ie must exist). The fact that it is logically possible for a Necessary Being to exist doesn't mean it does but it is, at least possible.
Now, scientists like Prof Dawkins and Sir Fred Hoyle neither of whom have any theistic or ID axe to grind acknowledge that living organisms and the universe give evidence of having been designed (see above article by Davies). Prof dawkins argument against this is that this leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. However, since the universe looks designed and its chamce origin is highly improbable we are warrented in believing that it was designed especially when it is logically consistent to propose a Necessary Being as the designer.
Therefore, Dawkins who designed the designer is not a valid objection neither scripturally nor logically.

I'm not quoting Dawkins out of context but simply asserting that his famous argument against a Designer doesn't stand up

kind regards, GBG

As for Archaeopteryx you really need to stop the wishful thinking. There is zero, zilch, nada evidence that it is more reptile than bird or that it is a transitional form between the same.

21. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53196 by gimlibengloin on June 30, 2007 at 3:43 am

steve99

"This is no argument for a God, but it means that Stenger has not explained anything."

It would be interesting to know why it is "no argument for a God"
Fred Hoyle said it was as if a super-intellect had monkeyed with the laws of physics.

Paul Davies writes, "it merely begs the question of who designed the designer".

This would appear to be the usual Dawkins-esgue escapism. Logically there are three 'states' of existence: impossible (eg square circles), possible (eg humans), and necessary (eg God). Since it is logically possible to have a necessary being then it is futile to ask where it came from or who designed it. By definition a necessary existence has no designer, cause, or beginning.

Richard Dawkins asserts that living organisms are immensely complex and seem to have been intelligently designed. Similarly physicists like Hoyle, Davies, Hawking acknowledge that this is also the case with the physical constants of the universe. Therefore, we propose, quite reasonably that the universe and the organisms within it were designed.
The question as to the Designer's origin is resolved by saying that it is uncaused or Necessary which is in line I might add with the Bible.

Regards, GBG

22. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48798 by gimlibengloin on June 9, 2007 at 4:43 am

What total GARBAGE!!

Atheism means 'No - God'

The 'A' indicates the NEGATIVE and 'theist' refers to GOD THEREFORE an ATHEIST is one who says there is NO GOD.

In regard to AGNOSTICISM: A is the NEGATIVE and GNOSTIC refers to KNOWLEDGE. The agnostic is one who DOESN'T KNOW.

Notce the hilarious contradiction at the end of the above article:

"Atheism is not only a viable alternative to faith, it is, I believe, the most probable, most promising, and most positive view of life."

The writer asserts atheism is a "POSITIVE" VIEW OF LIFE despite spending the article trying to convince us that it affirms nothing.

DOH!!!

Kind regards, GBG

23. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #48524 by gimlibengloin on June 8, 2007 at 9:13 am

A brave attempt by Mr Harris to avoid the inevitable amorality of atheism but of course he fails.

He starts by stating (quite correctly) "Raping and killing children can only really be wrong, the thinking goes, if there is a God who says it is."
This is, of course, true. However, its a truth that doesn't sit comfortably with his atheism so with his first two responses he moves the goalposts:

Firstly, he points to instances of scriptural exhortations which he finds repugnant. This of course fails because it doesn't address the more specific philosophical issue of whether God or an Absolute authority is required for morality. It also fails because he gives no objective basis for his rejection of scripture. (How could he???)

Secondly,he accuses the atheistic regimes of Pol Pot and Stalin etc of being 'irrational'. Maybe so, Mr Harris, but nevertheless they were atheistic. Mr Harris has really shot himself and atheism in the foot here.

Thirdly, he writes "Whether we will ever be in a position to discover these truths and agree about them cannot be known in advance (and this is the case for all questions of scientific fact). But if there are psychophysical laws that underwrite human well-being—and why wouldn't there be?"

Well if this is the best he has to offer atheism is in trouble: "cannot be known in advance"? "Why wouldn't there be"?
Clearly these arn't advances neither are they expositions of objective morality under atheism. Atheism is inherently amoral and as a biochemist and former Christian leader but now a militant atheist Billy Sands said a few months ago on this site:

"I don't believe in an absolute morality"

Regards, GBG

24. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural

Comment #46374 by gimlibengloin on May 31, 2007 at 4:07 am

I think this thread is missing the main issue. Even if one could find a genetic basis for morality or altruism this wouldn't provide a reason for why we should adhere to it. Do we assert that the psychopath or the paedophile should act on his urges because we can find a genetic reason for his tendencies?
The point is that the existence of God or the Absolute provides the only firm basis for morality. If our sense of morality is the product of random processes over millions of years or the result of chemical processes in the brain then it is hard to attach any real significance to them. The atheist may 'choose' to be altruistic but he has as much reason not to be.

As another atheist on this site Mr Billy Sands has stated, "I don't believe in an absolute morality"
Regards,
GBG

25. The Only One in Step

Comment #29526 by gimlibengloin on April 3, 2007 at 9:19 am

BaronOchs (248)

Just to say, thanks for the replies and this will be my last post for a while. My previous full response was on the Peter Atkins vs Alister McGrath thread.

kind regards,
GBG

26. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28853 by gimlibengloin on March 31, 2007 at 8:51 am

Brian (115)

"I note you fail to explain any of the scriptures I raised earlier, although you make a half hearted attempt at the bear one, incredibly enough to try and justify the logistics rather than the morals. Wierd. Mind you, I do sympathise, but not enough to let you off the hook, especially as you inadvertently and deliciously illustrate the translation problems that plague the bible so dreadfully. Thanks for that:-)But, lets hear it now, what was God's motivation? Why kill even one kid, why maul 42? If the passage is simply metaphorical, what is it telling us?"

In regard to my 'failure' to answer the earlier scriptures you mentioned you're right. I did ignore them. But that's because you raise so many objections all at once. Nevertheless, I thought it best to reply to your most recent contribution rather than choose any one of the earlier ones.

In regard to the 'morals' of the account it seems to me that you wish to have you're cake and eat it. By condemning such scriptural events as 'immoral' you are in fact assuming an objective standard by which to judge. Yet you're belief in atheistic evolution makes such objective standards impossible because there exists no Absolute to judge anything by:

"I don't think there is a moral absolute"
"So I think pure morality is a myth"
-Billy Sands

This is, of course, the problem dealt with by the Cambridge philosopher Simon Blackburn in his Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. At the end of his section entitled The Death of God he admits,

"If all this is right, then the death of God is far from being a threat to ethics. It is a necessary clearing of the ground, on the way to revealing ethics for what it really is. Perhaps there cannot be laws without a lawgiver. But Plato tells us that the ethical laws cannot be the arbitrary whims of personalized gods [either]" p19

Of course Prof Blackburn has to knock down a 'straw man' ie ethical laws being the arbitrary choice of God/the gods in order to argue that although we can't have ethical laws apart from the divine nevertheless that wasn't a real option anyway.

In regard to the alleged "translation problems" obviously any attempt to translate from one language to another involves difficulties and you're just using this as an excuse for your own laziness amongst other things.

"What was God's motivation? Why kill even one kid, why maul 42?"

Firstly, it's not necessary to state that they were "kids". The Hebrew used here is na'ar and is used in Genesis of Isaac who was 28; Joseph who was 39; and Rehoboam who was 40.
Secondly, we know that Bethel was one of the areas of Israel's idolatry (see 1 Kings 12:26-30) and that Elisha, in contrast, was the prophet of the true God of Israel whom these individuals were blaspheming especially if their cries of "Go up..go up" (2:23) was a reference to God's lifting up of Elijah in 2:11)
Personally speaking it doesn't cause any problems for me in the way it does for you though I acknowledge that it is not suitable for today (see Luke 9:52-56).
The reason why you have a problem with it is that you have no comprehension of the righteousness of God in contrast to your own sinfulness. This is the real issue at heart. To quote Prof Blackburn again,

"A more adequate conception of God should certainly stop him from being a vindictive old man in the sky"

Of course what Blackburn, Dawkins, yourself and others object to, is the God who will hold you to account for your own sin and will judge you accordingly. God has provided the means by which you can be forgiven and saved but you want none of it:

"and this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil"
John 3:19

"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word……
.but because I tell the truth you do not believe me"
John8:43,45


Barnacle (112)

"No - this is the way YOU want it defined (not necessarily you personaly). The whole point is that theists argue the complexity of life/the unvierse etc calls for a creator. Considering the creator is, by definition just as, if not more, complex as the thing you are trying to explain, it cannot stand as an explanation. It will itself require an explanation - not because I ask for it - but because you do. It is because of your need for an explanation for the complex that a complex creator cannot be the explanation."

Firstly, if an object or a number of objects shows evidence of design then it is surely reasonable to conclude that they were designed. One cannot avoid the reality of design by appealing to any ignorance, genuine or not, about the designer. Richard Dawkins is just using this argument as an excuse to avoid the obvious truth that living organisms are far too complex to be the result of 'blind' natural processes. One knows of many ancient artefacts the designers of which and their purpose is completely unknown. But nobody argues for random processes as an alternative.

Secondly, according to logic existence can be either possible, impossible, or necessary. Since it is logically possible for a being to exist who is necessary and not contingent and since the scriptures assert the reality of such a Being you're argument collapses.

Please also note that many philosophers including atheists are EMBARRASED by Richard Dawkins and his arguments. Plenty have been quoted on this website. For example, Michael Ruse a prominent Darwinist, atheist, and philosopher of science and one who has argued against creationism in the courts has asserted that Dawkins is an embarrassment to atheism. Prof Dawkins may have an impact on those who are easily persuaded but his more philosophically astute fellows wish he would go away.

"Yes, aliens could explain the origins of life on Earth - assuming they exist - but then you are faced with the question of their origin as well. The point is not that this wouldn't explain life's origins but rather that this wouldn't stand as an 'ultimate' explanation. Just as Janus said, it's an 'intermediate' explanation at best. Similarly, if there is a god and she created life on Earth, you still have to ask how she came into existence. And, like you quote, we only have evidence for life on Earth. This presumably means the 'aliens did it' option is not something we can justifiably believe - the same would apply with the 'god did it' option."

Actually, I agree with you here and after I had posted my response to Janus I realised I had missed the point. I agree that ultimately there are only two explanations for life and the universe: creation or some form of naturalistic evolution. Sir Fred Hoyle and Francis Crick (for a while) were two who proposed some form of 'directed panspermia' or 'alien' origin for life on earth but as you and Janus quite correctly point out this leaves the question of the origin of life ultimately unanswered.

"As for the whole 'chance' thing. Having to appeal to a billion billion planets isn't really that big a deal when you consider how many there are. Sure, the emergence of self-replicating molecules MIGHT have been unlikely - but that really doesn't matter as long as the probability was not zero or close enough to that for life to not emerge, ever, on any one of the planets in the whole universe. Regardless of this whole chance issue, it may not in fact be as unlikely as you're suggesting. It's likely that self-replicating molecules need not emerge by 'chance' but rather as a passive result of the laws of physics and the chemistry of quite 'ordinary' molecules. Do keep in mind that life first emerged on Earth rather early on (I'm assuming you're not the type who goes for the 6000 year old Earth)."

Firstly, we have no evidence for a billion billion planets and I'll illustrate this with another Dawkins argument:

"Some people have calculated that there must be life elsewhere, on the following grounds (I won't point out the fallacy until afterwards). There are probably at least…100 billion billion roughly suitable planets in the universe. We know that life has arisen here, so it can't be all that improbable. Therefore, it is almost inescapable that at least some among all those billions of billions of other planets have life.
The flaw in the argument lies in the inference that, because life has arisen here, it can't be too terribly improbable. You will notice that this inference contains the built in assumption that whatever went on on earth is likely to have gone on elsewhere in the universe, and this begs the whole question"
-The Blind Watchmaker, chapter 6, pp142,143

What is going on here? Dawkins wants to argue that although the chance origin of life is fleetingly small out of all the billions of planets in the universe it was sure to happen somewhere. This argument rests on a flaw BUT it's not the one Dawkins points out. The fallacy is the existence of billions and billions of other "roughly suitable planets". Where are they all? Have they been observed? Of course not, but if the reader was to recognise that then it would scupper Dawkins argument so he constructs the argument with two fallacies and diverts the reader's attention to the lesser ie "because life has arisen here, it can't be too terribly improbable" in order to continue happily with his argument:

"How very conceited to assume that, out of all the billions of billions of planets in the universe [that's the first, here comes the second], our own little backwater of a world, in our own local backwater of a solar system, in our own local backwater of a galaxy, should have been singled out for life"

Then he repeats the tactic:

"I am genuinely sorry,….but I am afraid that the rhetoric about backwaters in the previous paragraph is just empty rhetoric".

On page 145 after he's waffled for a while he says:

"There is a concealed assumption in this argument. Well actually there are lots, but there's one in particular I want to talk about. This is that, once life ….originates at all, it always advances to the point where its creatures evolve enough intelligence to speculate about their origins".

Dawkins finishes with:

"But although we are entitled, in our theory of the origin of life, to spend a maximum ration of luck amounting, perhaps, to odds of 100 billion billion to one against, my hunch is that we aren't going to need more than a small fraction of that ration…………We can regard the statistical argument about numbers of planets as an argument of last resort."

There you have it. Prof Dawkins strings the reader along and then, having obtained the reader's consent, discards all those billions of billions of planets as if they were never important.
Now note this argument by Stephen Hawking:

"According to this theory, there are either many different universe [as with Dawkins billions of planets] or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: 'Why is the universe the way we see it?' The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here!"

ReMine Comments,

"He begins with a good discussion of the metaphysical anthropic principle, with its many alternative universes having properties unlike ours. Then, in the second half, he shifts the focus to out existence as observers and gives the classic tautological formulation – the universe is the way we see it because..etc. The tautology captivates the reader since they automatically accept it as true and it sounds explanatory. In actuality it explains nothing and may be removed without loss. All the explanatory power is derived from the "other universes""

As with Dawkins all the explanatory power is derived from the billions of planets

"Yet Hawking gives his readers the erroneous impression that the tautological formulation is where the explanation resides. With this misperception in place, Hawking then goes back TO REMOVE THE "OTHER UNIVERSES" FROM HIS EXPLANTION, AS IF THEY HAD NO REAL IMPORTANCE"

As did Dawkins with the billions of planets

Hawking writes, "[I]n what sense can all these different universes be said to exist? If they are really separate from each other, what happens in another universe can have no observable consequences in our own universe. We should therefore use the principle of economy and cut them out of the theory"

ReMine concludes

"In this way Hawking gives the mistaken impression that the anthropic principle: (1) is an explanation of the universes design; (2) is true; (3) does not necessarily require other universes.


Secondly, you will have noticed that Dawkins when talking about the first replicator said it originated,

"without violating the laws of physics and chemistry".

In my opinion this is a tacit admission that the laws of physics/chemistry actually do present a problem for any naturalistic origin. A few lines before the quote that I gave Dawkins wrote,

"In those days the world was very different….[and] the details of the earth's chemistry were very different" p259

The fact that the doctor has to make such statements suggests that there are very significant problems.

"The quoting of Dawkins doesn't help your case. A lot is taken out of context and the rest shows simply that you do not understand how evolution by natural selection works. You worry about 'leaps' that are not there (it's gradual remember) and the need for several fish to all lay down on the same side (it only takes one) or evolution going backwards (it doesn´t go backwards in the sense that things are not completely undone as evolution has no forsight - it can however go back a tiny step, by chance, or if a few 'easy' backwards steps actually favour survival or are neutral under new circumstances - like, possibly, the dinosaur extinction example) etc. These issues are nonsense. Go read another book on evolution (or try reading the same one again - but slowly)."

I'm not sure why you say "out of context". Its hard to see how I could have given you any more context without quoting around four complete pages. As it was I gave you the title and the page numbers.

It's precisely because I do understand something of natural selection that the problems in Dawkins arguments become so evident. Each inheritable change has to be beneficial to the organism for it to be of any selective advantage. However, if the process of change is gradual as the theory demands then it is hard to see how it can be used to explain the 'evolution' of the plaice, sole and flounders. If the change in the structure of the fish and the position of the eye was gradual then the question arises as to what benefit the organism gained in the early stages of its change for the eye would still be essentially in the same position ie underneath the fish. Since evolution has no long-term goal or "foresight" but only short term selective advantage the problem remains.


"The bear thing is funny but you certainly don't need to go for that example to find contradictions in the Bible - as you must know very well if you've read it. Though I have to say, the interpretation counts as much as what is actually in it - how do you feel about the week-long creation story? What? It's metaphorical is it?"

No I don't think its metaphorical because the only legitimate way to understand it is that it refers to seven (7) days of twenty-four (24) hours each.
However, it has to be said that even in the middle ages the Jewish scholar Rashi made a case for Genesis 1:1 as "WHEN God BEGAN to create the heavens and the earth the earth WAS [ie already] without form and void" and others have argued similarly since. So it is possible that space and matter was in existence prior to the creation week. However, this still rules out the Big Bang and evolution.

Regards, GBG

PS This is going to be my last entry for some time because: (1) I'm becoming addicted to this site and that can't be healthy; and (2) I'm busy with work.

27. The Only One in Step

Comment #27987 by gimlibengloin on March 27, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Baron Ochs (246)

"So I maintain the-land-mammals-that-evolved-into-whales could have re-evolved gills, it just wasn't very likely. It was far easier for them to make do with the respiratory system they had and get used to holding their breath"

Hi Baron Ochs,

I have to say I appreciate your tone and the way in which you respond to posts you disagree with. It isn't always easy to maintain one's 'cool' on forums such as this but you're doing admirably.

The problem with your statement as far as i can see is that by you're own admission its very liberal. They could have re-evolved gills but it wasn't likely even though the stick insects wings are an example of flight evolving again. But not only with the stick insects. Birds, bats, insects are all examples of convergent evolution where the unlikely has happened several times. Or take the eye. Evolutionists believe that the eye has evolved independantly around FORTY TIMES!!
Therefore why couldn't the whales have re-evolved their gills especially with a head start?. Please note also that it was Dawkins who raised the question rather than me

"As for the fish laying down on one side the benefits of doing so must have outweighed the adverse effects enough for it to be workable in the first place. From that point on those slightly better adapted, i.e. withs eyes slightly (it only need be ever so slightly)to one side were more likely to survive, wind the clock on and you've got flounders etc as they are today. As for the eyes evolvoing to one side not the other it only needs a trend towards a particular side to emerge in the first place and one thing will lead to another."

I agree that the benefits must have outweighed the disadvantages IF evolution is true. But what the good Doctor fails to demonstrate is any rigid criteria. Evolution is just far too malleable. If the fishes that allegedly laid down on one side had some benefit in doing so, what was it? Why didn't they just act in the way that was most beneficial to their structure?

28. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27586 by gimlibengloin on March 25, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Janus (67)

"On the other hand, God, defined as the uncaused designer and creator of Everything That Exists except itself, doesn't explain anything. Explaining something means describing the behavior of an entity in terms of simpler entities. Explaining a complex entity (the universe) by saying it was made by another complex entity (God) is an intermediate explanation at best, not an ultimate one. Let's say, for example, that we want to explain the origin of the first proto-cells on Earth. What would you think of someone who explains them by saying they were created by alien bio-engineers who came to Earth in their space-ships billions of years ago? That person may be right, but he hasn't explained much. He may have explained the origin of life on Earth, but he obviously hasn't explained the origin of life, period."

Pure nonsense, dude. You've just defined an 'explanation' in the way you want it defined in order to suit your atheism. It is, of course, true that Occam's razor says we should go for the simplest explanation but that doesn't mean that we should go for a too simple explanation which is what you're doing.
As for your alien bio-engineers as you acknowledge yourself they do explain "the origin of life on earth" and, of course, this is the only life we know of: "we only have evidence that it happened on one planet" (R Dawkins, p260 Climbing Mt Improbable) . Life looks designed and, indeed, there was a designer (or more). Its now just a matter of determining identity

"And by the way, chance isn't the absence of an explanation. Chance is a perfectly good explanation for why I got a '6' three times in a row when throwing a six-sided dice. Chance can be a _bad_ explanation when the odds are astronomically bad against a certain outcome, certainly, like it is in the case of lifeforms more complex than relatively simple self-replicating molecules, hence why natural selection is necessary."

Ha! That's a laugh. Take this statement from your high priest Dr Dawkins

"Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying – a replicator.
This may seem like a big stroke of luck.

The point is that it had to happen only once. What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets"
Pp 259,260

Its so "relatively" easy that Dawkins has to appeal to a billion billion other planets. And as for Fred Hoyle who WAS a mathematician WELL we all know what he thought don't we?

While we are at this lets just settle once and for all just how incompetent Darwinism and Darwinist theoreticians really are.

On pp118-121 Prof Dawkins discusses the evolution of whales and sea-cows from land mammals. He writes,

"Fifty million years ago, the ancestors of whales and seacows (dugongs and manatees) were land dwelling mammals…..The ancestors of these and all other land dwelling mammals had been, much earlier still, sea dwelling fish. The return to the water by the whales and the dugongs was a homecoming".

Lets stop here for the moment to point out a few things. Note Dawkins claim "the ancestors……had been, much earlier still, sea dwelling fish". What the wily doctor is doing here is trying to convince you (the reader) that there was something inherently normal about land mammals returning to the sea and he does this by emphasising that according to the theory they had 'Once upon a time' had ancestors who were FISH. He also does it by claiming "the return to the water by the whales and the dugongs was a homecoming".
Of course, the whales and the dugongs never did "return" to the water. Even if evolution was true they never "returned" to the water. What he should more truthfully have said is "the return to the water by the land mammals was a home coming" because its land mammals that (supposedly) transformed into whales. But, of course, if he said that then it would undermine his attempt to fool the reader into believing the 'normality' of such a 'return' and it would emphasise just how idiotic is the theory that states that creatures as marvellously adapted to the oceans could have derived from four-legged land animals. So he terms it "the return to the water by the whales and the dugongs" but its all just 'smoke and mirrors'.

He continues,

"As always, we can be sure that it took place gradually. They took to the water, perhaps at first just to feed like a modern otter"

Again this is mere rhetoric designed to sooth away any lingering doubts in the reader. Modern otters are actually perfectly adapted for life in the water and on land. The land animals that whales allegedly descended from were not and in evolutionary texts they are depicted as akin to dogs.

"Nevertheless, they bear numerous reminders of their land dwelling ancestors"

Of the alleged "numerous reminders" Dawkins gives TWO:

"Whales breathe air, for their landlubber ancestors lost the use of their gills"

Talk about a circular argument.

Dawkins second evidence is that "all mammals, whales and seacows included, have traces of gills in the embryo: unmistakable vestiges of their remote past in the water"

This, of course, raises the uncomfortable question which Dawkins formulates as,
"When land animals return to the water…why don't whales and sea-cows regrow gills and lose their lungs?"

A very good question I'm sure you'll agree. What is the Professor's response?

"Perhaps they could have reformed them and come into line with the fishes, dusting off the embryonic vestiges of their ancient gills. BUT THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT A MASSIVE SHAKE UP OF THEIR BODILY INFRASTRUCTURE….it cannot be said too often that Darwinian theory DOES NOT ALLOW for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal".

If it wasn't for the fact that thousands of people are actually taking this nonsense seriously it would be funny. What is the evolution of fishes into amphibians if not a "massive shake up of bodily infrastructure?" What is the evolution of land mammals into whales if not a "massive shake up of bodily infrastructure?" Why does evolution allow for organisms to evolve gills, lungs, hearts, genitalia, legs, arms but it doesn't allow land mammals which according to Dawkins already have a head start by virtue of their 'gill remnants' to reform them?

Note that Dawkins says evolution "does not allow" for this. That's rather definite wouldn't you agree? On p123 he writes, "To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is NOT ALLOWED by natural selection". That's also rather definite isn't it? However, one paragraph later on the same page Dawkins says occasionally it does reverse course and on p124 he claims,

"Perhaps after the dinosaurs became extinct, the remaining mammals had such a field day of opportunity that some of their lineages 'relaxed their guard', went temporarily downhill, and thereby found higher peaks of Mount Improbable from which they would normally have been debarred."

That's a useful ability, isn't it? When trying to answer the obvious difficulty presented by the question, 'Why didn't the whales regrow their (alleged) gills' he asserts N.S doesn't allow for going downhill. But then when discussing another problem he changes tactics and asserts the exact opposite of his previous point.

This isn't science. It is untestable, unfalsifiable STORYTELLING. The reality is that evolution can do whatever the storyteller requires it do at any one time. Rather like SUPERMAN.

When discussing the plaice, sole, and flounders (pp122,123) he writes,

"No sane creator……..would have conceived on his drawing board the absurd distortion of the head needed to bring both eyes round to one side of the body"

Please note that Dawkins had to engage in some 'poisoning of the well' before he gives his explanation:

"Plaice and sole are all twisted around because of their history; because their ancestors lay down on one side"

Oh yeah, and pigs might fly. This is the evolutionists alternative to design – fish lay down on their side scraping their eyeball in the sea floor until Natural Selection said, "I've had enough of this silliness" and decided to shift their eye round to the other side. And we can presume that they all lay down on the same side??????? But note also that it wouldn't just require a moving of the eye but also the structure of the fish as a whole.

But never forget:

"EVOLUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR GETTING TEMPORARILY WORSE IN PURSUIT OF A LONG TERM GOAL"
-Richard Dawkins, PhD


Brian (71)
"Let me close with this particularly senseless piece of drivel.

2 Kings
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Wow!!! Mr. Grumpy, sensitive or what?

How can this possibly square with a loving God? Would 40 children really have hung about while the bears ate the first 2 kids? I mean really, would you?

Logistically how would this work? Lets assume the kids scatter in all directions, and it takes each bear 30 seconds to kill one child, and each running child can cover 100 metres in 30 seconds. Given the motivation, I consider this a modest understatement of their likely speed.

Then 90 seconds in we have 6 dead kids, and the bears in the middle (or perhaps off the centre) of a rapidly expanding circle of children at least 600 metres in diameter, and growing by 200 metres every 30 seconds. For goodness sake after 5 minutes, some of these kids will be 2 kilometres away from the damn bears, and surely the bears would stop and eat some of the kids whole? Which brings me on to my next question, how many 40 kilogram children can a bear actually eat?

Lets assume each bear weighs 500 kilos. Once again, 24 kids in, each bear has eaten their own body weight in kids ... likely?

Unless it was another of Gods miracles."

Brian, I love you. You must have spent so much time calculating all that but it was all a waste of time. Why? Because, as Jesus said to the Sadducees, "HAVE YOU NOT READ THE SCRIPTURES?"

Even in the quotation you give it says nothing about "killing" or "eating". My NKJV says "mauled" and your KJV says "tare" and my NASB says "tore up". Its not too difficult even for an evolutionist to imagine what two disgruntled female bears might do to a group of terror stricken lads but it doesn't require that they were all killed nevermind eaten.

Kind regards,
GBG

29. The Only One in Step

Comment #27372 by gimlibengloin on March 24, 2007 at 8:56 am

BaronOchs (243)

OK, you wanted me to substantiate what I said about Climbing Mt Improbable.

On pp118-121 Prof Dawkins discusses the evolution of whales and sea-cows from land mammals. He writes,

"Fifty million years ago, the ancestors of whales and seacows (dugongs and manatees) were land dwelling mammals…..The ancestors of these and all other land dwelling mammals had been, much earlier still, sea dwelling fish. The return to the water by the whales and the dugongs was a homecoming".

Lets stop here for the moment to point out a few things. Note Dawkins claim "the ancestors……had been, much earlier still, sea dwelling fish". What the wily doctor is doing here is trying to convince you (the reader) that there was something inherently normal about land mammals returning to the sea and he does this by emphasising that according to the theory they had 'Once upon a time' had ancestors who were FISH. He also does it by claiming "the RETURN to the water by the whales and the dugongs was a homecoming".
Of course, the whales and the dugongs never did "return" to the water. Even if evolution was true they never returned to the water. What he should more truthfully have said is "the return to the water by the LAND MAMMALS was a home coming". But, of course, if he said that then it would undermine his attempt to fool the reader into believing the 'normality' of such a 'return' and it would emphasise just how idiotic is the theory that states that creatures as marvellously adapted to the oceans could have derived from four-legged land animals.

He continues,

"As always, we can be sure that it took place gradually. They took to the water, perhaps at first just to feed like a modern otter"

Again this is mere rhetoric designed to sooth away and lingering doubts in the reader. Modern otters are actually perfectly adapted for life in the water and on land. The land animals that whales allegedly descended from were not and in evolutionary texts they are depicted as akin to dogs.

"Nevertheless, they bear numerous reminders of their land dwelling ancestors"

Of the alleged "numerous reminders" Dawkins gives TWO:

"Whales breathe air, for their landlubber ancestors lost the use of their gills"

Talk about a circular argument.
Dawkins second evidence is that "all mammals, whales and seacows included, have traces of gills in the embryo: unmistakable vestiges of their remote past in the water"

This, of course, raises the uncomfortable question which Dawkins formulates as,
"When land animals return to the water…why don't whales and sea-cows regrow gills and lose their lungs?"

A very good question I'm sure you'll agree, Baron Ochs. What is the Professor's response?

"Perhaps they could have reformed them and come into line with the fishes, dusting off the embryonic vestiges of their ancient gills. BUT THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT A MASSIVE SHAKE UP OF THEIR BODILY INFRASTRUCTURE….it cannot be said too often that Darwinian theory DOES NOT ALLOW for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal".

If it wasn't for the fact that thousands of people are actually taking this nonsense seriously it would be funny. What is the evolution of fishes into amphibians if not a "massive shake up of bodily infrastructure?" What is the evolution of land mammals into whales if not a "massive shake up of bodily infrastructure?" Why does evolution allow for organisms to evolve gills, lungs, hearts, genitalia, legs, arms but it doesn't allow land mammals which according to Dawkins already have a head start by virtue of their 'gill remnants' to reform them?

Note that Dawkins says evolution "does not allow" for this. That's rather definite wouldn't you agree? On p123 he writes, "To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is NOT ALLOWED by natural selection". That's also rather definite isn't it? However, one paragraph later on the same page Dawkins says occasionally it does reverse course.
THIS ISN'T SCIENCE. IT IS UNTESTABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE AND IS MERE STORYTELLING. THE REALITY IS THAT EVOLUTION CAN DO WHATEVER THE STORYTELLER REQUIRES IT TO DO AT ANY ONE TIME. A BIT LIKE SUPERMAN

When discussing the plaice, sole, and flounders (pp122,123) he writes,

"No sane creator……..would have conceived on his drawing board the absurd distortion of the head needed to bring both eyes round to one side of the body"

Please note that Dawkins has to engage in some 'poisoning of the well' before he gives his explanation:

"Plaice and sole are all twisted round because of their history; BECAUSE THEIR ANCESTORS LAY DOWN ON ONE SIDE"

Oh yeah, and pigs might fly. This is the evolutionists alternative to design – fish lay down on their side scraping their eyeballs in the sea floor until natural selection said, "I've had enough of this silliness" and decided to shift its eye round to the other side. And we can presume that they all lay down on the same side??????? But note also that it wouldn't just require a moving of the eye but also the structure of the fish.
BUT NEVER FORGET BARON OCHS

"EVOLUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR GETTING TEMPORARILY WORSE IN PURSUIT OF A LONG TERM GOAL"

regards, GBG

PS What I've given here is a motivation for others to read Dawkins critically and in doing so to find many more examples of fanciful story telling in his works.

30. The Only One in Step

Comment #27349 by gimlibengloin on March 24, 2007 at 7:32 am

Dimitar (239)

"I don't see a distinction. Science looks for material explanations of material phenomena. If you want to make non-materialist (ie supernatural) explanations it CEASES TO BE SCIENCE. That is the point Lewontin is making. There is no evidence for non-material explanations."

What Lewontin was saying and what I am pointing out is that that very definition "science looks for material explanations of material phenomena" is based upon what Lewontin terms "an a priori adherence to material causes" because he "cannot allow a Divine foot in the door".
This is the point.
Its no good you and your like-minded brethren complaining about creationists not publishing their theories in the scientific journals because as Lewontin has stated (and as you will see further on 2 of the 3 web addresses I gave in my previous post) the evolutionary priesthood won't ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.
Lewontin is admitting that this definition of science is not based on empirical fact nor on the requirements of the "methods and institutions of science" but rather upon a prior commitment to material explanations. What you have to understand is that its not so much the facts that are being questioned but the presuppositions. This was one of the points made on the website I previously gave on the geophysicist Dr Baumgardner and his computer program TERRA. The computer program can depict a mechanism for Noah's Flood or it can depict the standard evolutionary scenario. IT ALL DEPENDS UPON THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU START OFF WITH AND THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE THROUGH WHICH THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE EXPRESSED. Stephen hawking acknowledged, "We are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology"

BaronOchs (241-243)

Some good points there B.O. I'll get back to you hopefully before the end of the day as I've got to dig out my copy of Climbing Mt Improbable.

Regards GBG

31. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27269 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm

"Except the creator hypothesis breaks down completely and spirals into infinite regress with the question where did the creator come from. C'mon this is 101 stuff. If you are going to say God always existed, you might just as well say the universe always existed. An eternal simple universe, trumps an eternal complex God everytime and you loose."

Except that the laws of thermodynamics make an eternal universe impossible, Brian. The first law says matter and energy is neither being created nor destroyed. The second law says all states run from usefulness to uselessness. Stars are burning out, galaxcies are unwinding and the universe is as a whole heading towardsa state of greater and greater disorder.

"Evolution, barring a few critical "gaps" explains the development of life on earth perfectly. Not only that, it can be directly observed happening today"

The evolution that is observed today does not demonstrate macroevolution. the fact that one can get poodles, pekinese, labradors etc from a few wild dogs is not an explanation for the existence of dogs. Evolution today is variety as a result of the loss of info' eg you breed out the characteristics you don't want to get a pure breed.

Since its getting late I'll give a lengthy quote.
If you want an authority whose opinions are not derived from a religious base then how about the Australian geneticist and Senior Research scientist at Otago University in New Zealand Dr Michael Denton

"philosophers and historians of science will probably be debating the nature of the Darwinian revolution for years to come, but whatever their final verdict on this event, the facts themselves were not sufficient to compel belief in the continuity of living nature or to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the whole drama of life on earth was generated by the sorts of random processes responsible for microevolution on the Galapagos Islands.
As the years passed …and as evolution became more and more consolidated into dogma, the gestalt of continuity imposed itself on every facet of biology. The discontinuities of nature could no longer be perceived. Consequently debate slackened and there was less need to justify the idea of evolution by reference to the facts.
Increasingly, its highly theoretical and metaphysical nature was forgotten, and gradually Darwinian concepts came to permeate every aspect of biological thought so that today all biological phenomena are interpreted in Darwinian terms and every professional biologist is subject throughout his working life to continued affirmation of the truth of Darwinian theory.

It is not surprising that…many biologists are confused as to…its metaphysical basis……Richard Dawkins…is emphatic, for him,

'The theory is about as much in doubt as the earth goes around the sun'.

Now of course such claims are simply nonsense. For Darwin's model of evolution…….BEING BASICALLY A THEORY OF HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION..IS IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY BY EXPERIMENT OR DIRECT OBSERVATION AS IS NORMAL IN SCIENCE….MOREOVER, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEALS WITH A SERIES OF UNIQUE EVENTS, THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, THE ORIGIN OF INTELLIGENCE AND SO ON. UNIQUE EVENTS ARE UNREPEATABLE AND CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY SORT OF EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION….THEIR CAUSATION CAN, STRICTLY SPEAKING, NEVER BE SUBJECT TO SCIENTIFIC VALIDATION. Furthermore, not only is the theory incapable of proof by NORMAL SCIENTIFIC MEANS, the evidence is…far from compelling

It is ironic to reflect that while Darwin once considered it heretical to question the immutability of species, NOWADAYS IT IS HERETICAL TO QUESTION THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION."

- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis pp74-76 (my emphasis)

32. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27261 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Brian (60)

"Thats the critical point. You can't prove it and the onus is on you to do so. Not only that, but you are also saddled with 400 years of gradual retreat on every front that the religious have chosen to engage science, nothwithstanding an almost unassailable initial position. Not a terribly compelling track record is it? Keep it up, you're making the case:-)

I'm not sure the onus is on me since the Argument to Design is clearly the most reasonable explanation of the data. I'm not sure of the point you're making about 'religious retreat'. Firstly, the scientific method is an outgrowth of the biblical worldview - Bacon, Boyle, Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Pascal, Pasteur, maxwell ever heard of these guys? however, again I'm not sure of your point so I can't really respond to it.

"Why on earth should I embrace an endevour that has spent the last 6000 years encouraging humans to kill each other for invented crimes, enslave other humans and treat women and children like chattle?"

Now who's changing "the goalposts"? And since in your view humans are only animals or evolved pondslime I'm surprised that your so bothered. I do believe that mr dawkins has acknowledged that our best impulses have no objective value but I'm sure you ignore such matters when it comes to your own children, Brian. Maybe, thats because your still to Christian, eh?

"If the tyrannical christian God existed, we should kill him for attempting to enslave the human race."

Thankyou for proving the Bible with that attitude, Brian. Read Psalm 2:1-3. And then the rest.

33. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27247 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Brian (55)

"Oh Rubbish, and you must surely know it:-) We have only surveyed a tiny number of stars, and can only detect planets above a certain size. What we have is overwhelming statistical evidence that millions of planets exist."

Only "millions", old chap? You're still a long way short with those.
Still, I think we need to recall to mind the original point which was the objectivity of Occam's razor.
1) billions and billions of other planets (universes)is hardly a simple let alone empirical explanation for life and the universe
2) It isn't even an explanation (see 52)
3) .......oh, pooh! I had a 3rd point but its escaped me.

34. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27242 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Brian (53)

"No idea, why don't you look it up? I'll grant you it's a wild speculation, little better than an "I don't know", but man, it's a millions times better than the weak, mealy mouted cop out that "Magic man done it" represents. Not to mention the utter dishonesty of claiming that you "know" that "God did it"."

Positing the existence of a Designer/Creator for the universe and life isn't a 'cop-out' though, is it? Why does prof dawkins acknowledge that organisms look designed? BECAUSE THEY DO, BRIAN. And why do they look designed? BECAUSE THEY WERE, BRIAN. Can I prove it? Of course not. But its a better explanation than time, chance, and natural selection.
The reality is that you have a bias against such an explanation because you have an emotional attachment to the idea that somehow someday we'll be able to work it all out on our own. Still you're in good company with Lewontin, Dawkins et al.

35. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27238 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:56 pm

"Gotta love the theists that ask specific questions, because eventually, they actually get answered:-)"

Well, Brian, you know me I like to be specific:-)

Still 100/215 extrasolar planets is a long way short of the billions of billions of "roughly suitable planets" required for life nevermind the myriad of other universes.

36. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27234 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Janus (45)

"the multiverse hypothesis has the advantage of actually solving the problem of the universe's initial complexity. It has "explanatory power", as Atkins says. God has none whatsoever."

Its not clear as to how the multiverse theory solves the problem becuase they're exists no causal relation between myriads of other universes and our own universe. Ultimately the multiverse theory says that the universe is the result of chance but considering the number of trial runs it could conceivably happen. But chance is still the absense of an explanation.

On the other hand God does explain because as acknowledged by Dawkins living organisms give every appearance of having been designed by an intelligence. Therefore the creator hypothesis is a perfect fit with the facts.

37. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27231 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm

BaronOchs (44)

"Universes are things we know a little about, thanks to centuries of enquiry. We know they can exist and we know more than a little about how they do so. On the other hand we have no clue as to how an omnipotent-omniscient-eternal-being might exist, and as I have remarked in another post, we cannot in principle understand."

What we know is that this universe exists. We have no evidence that any other universe exists and, I might add Carl Sagan said "The cosmos is all that there is and ever was"
In regard to the existence of God there are three possible states of existence: possible, impossible, and neccessary.
So, at least according to logic such a being might exist.

"The bottom line is when cosmologists talk about a multiverse or other universe than our own, these are not just speculations but parts of theories than can ultimately offer testable predictions, even if we can't do so at this stage in science. That is more than can be said for any belief in a designer"

How would we test the existence of another universe outside of our own 3-dimensional space,time,matter continuum even "in principle"?

38. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27226 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Janus (45)

By "fact" do you mean they've been 'observed'? Or do you mean they must exist otherwise the origin of life by chance would be nonsense?
Prof Dawkins referred to billions and billions of "roughly suitable planets" ie "roughly suitable" for life. Do you claim they've been observed and are scientific fact? If so, where have these discoveries been reported?

39. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27217 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Ricky Ramirez

"I love Occam's Razor; it really allows one to "slice" through the nonsensical arguments for the existence of supernatural gods."

The other problem being that William of Occam was a Franciscan Friar[!!!!]

40. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27215 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Rickt Ramirez (35)

"I love Occam's Razor; it really allows one to "slice" through the nonsensical arguments for the existence of supernatural gods."

Hmmm! The problem is that Occam's razor isn't the objective test that many people like to think that it is. Both the theist and the atheist can use it with equal facility and conviction.
For example, in The Blind Watchmaker Richard dawkins argues that although the origin of life by chance is extremely improbable it is made much more probable if we allow for the existence of billions of other planets (or universes) - the argument being that out of all the billions and billions of planets it was bound to happen somewhere. Of course, the theist would have a 'field day' with this since a theory that requires the exuistence of billions and billions of unobservable planets (and universes?) to explain life is clearly at loggerheads with Occam's razor.

41. The Only One in Step

Comment #26948 by gimlibengloin on March 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm

BaronOchs (and Dimitar)
(238 & 239)
"its distinct metaphysics should stand up for itself in a peer reviewed journal."

True, but who are the editors of these peer reviewed journals and what is their attitude towards non-materialistic explanations? As I've already pointed out just previously it is even admitted by Darwinists like Michael Ruse that there is a bias against creationists and Iders a bias that prevents them from receiving their just rewards. In fact only a few weeks ago on this site there was a thread discussing the controversy over an American geology student who has obtained a PhD despite being a creationist (he managed to hide his beliefs). An American astrophysicist Dr Jason Lisle who graduated summa cum laude in physics and astronomy still had to write technical articles espousing creationism under a pseudonym 'Robert Newton' because of this prejudice.
For proof see

www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationof ScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf

www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1784/

However, the fact remains that there are world-class scientists out there who are creationists and who are making significant contributions to science AND who are making such contributions as an outcome of their creationism. For example the Los Alamos geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner who created a computer system TERRA to model plate techtonics a system that is now being used by NASA. In fact NASA regard his work so highly they are allowing him to spend 50% of his time on creationist research.
See

http://globalflood.org/papers/geophysicsofgod.html


Don Cupitt's assertions are not really helpful. He claims,

"Because Darwin's principles of explanation are immanent, functional and "historical" they really illuminate the mutual adaptation of insect and orchid, the stag's antlers and the peacock's courtship."

But at least on the evidence of this quote he doesn't explain how Darwinism "illuminates" nor as to how its illumination contrasts with the Design Argument.
One doesn't need Darwinism to do such illuminating and on the evidence of Richard dawkins attempts in Climbing Mt Improbable it singularly fails.

He questions whether creationism enables us to

"specify what the purpose of cosmic history is and predict the next few turns in the plot? ….[or] say for sure that nothing very nasty is going to happen to us?"

However, all too many evolutionists will admit that there is no such purpose within a Darwinian framework - we are simply here and we have to make the best of it. Neither does Darwinism enable us to "predict the next few turns in the plot" because no one ultimately has a clue what random mutation and natural selection are going to do.

Dimitar (239)

"I never said that evolution was the same as rocket science (or physics). I just said that that they are BOTH science"

What, in the sense that astrology and astronomy are both science you mean?

However, if you want an authority whose opinions are not derived from a religious base then how about the Australian geneticist and Senior Research scientist at Otago University in New Zealand Dr Michael Denton

"philosophers and historians of science will probably be debating the nature of the Darwinian revolution for years to come, but whatever their final verdict on this event, the facts themselves were not sufficient to compel belief in the continuity of living nature or to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the whole drama of life on earth was generated by the sorts of random processes responsible for microevolution on the Galapagos Islands.
As the years passed …and as evolution became more and more consolidated into dogma, the gestalt of continuity imposed itself on every facet of biology. The discontinuities of nature could no longer be perceived. Consequently debate slackened and there was less need to justify the idea of evolution by reference to the facts.
Increasingly, its highly theoretical and metaphysical nature was forgotten, and gradually Darwinian concepts came to permeate every aspect of biological thought so that today all biological phenomena are interpreted in Darwinian terms and every professional biologist is subject throughout his working life to continued affirmation of the truth of Darwinian theory.

It is not surprising that…many biologists are confused as to…its metaphysical basis……Richard Dawkins…is emphatic, for him,

'The theory is about as much in doubt as the earth goes around the sun'.

Now of course such claims are simply nonsense. For Darwin's model of evolution…….BEING BASICALLY A THEORY OF HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION..IS IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY BY EXPERIMENT OR DIRECT OBSERVATION AS IS NORMAL IN SCIENCE….MOREOVER, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEALS WITH A SERIES OF UNIQUE EVENTS, THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, THE ORIGIN OF INTELLIGENCE AND SO ON. UNIQUE EVENTS ARE UNREPEATABLE AND CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY SORT OF EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION….THEIR CAUSATION CAN, STRICTLY SPEAKING, NEVER BE SUBJECT TO SCIENTIFIC VALIDATION. Furthermore, not only is the theory incapable of proof by NORMAL SCIENTIFIC MEANS, the evidence is…far from compelling

It is ironic to reflect that while Darwin once considered it heretical to question the immutability of species, NOWADAYS IT IS HERETICAL TO QUESTION THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION."

- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis pp74-76 (my emphasis)

Regards, GBG

42. The Only One in Step

Comment #25356 by gimlibengloin on March 12, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Dimitar

"Fossils are real, rocks are real, and genes are real. They exist, and therefore fall under 'materialist' explanations."

However, Lewontin said, "It is not that the methods and the institutions of science somehow compel us to accept A MATERIAL EXPLANATION OF THE PHENOMENAL WORLD but on the contrary that we are forced by our a priori adherence to materialism...etc"

You should be a Buddhist, mate. Arguing that the material eg "fossils" are their own material "explanation" is akin to the buddhist scholar Dr Rahula's belief that 'the thought itself is what thinks'[?????].

in regard to Popper I'm going to have to get back to you on him because my I'net connection keeps breaking down. It could be a few days or a few weeks.

regards, GBG

43. The Only One in Step

Comment #25354 by gimlibengloin on March 12, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Dimitar

"You have not really answered this point."

Not so. I have answered but you're not listening. I asserted that evolution wasn't the same as the hard-headed science involved in sending rockets into space etc ie repeatable, verifiable, testable science. You implicitly acknowledged this when you stated that the wikipedia quote refers to chmistry and physics.


"You accuse science of being materialist and having materialist assumptions. This is not denied; it is because science has ALWAYS been about the material world. Living things are part of the material world and evolution is a brilliant 'materialist' description of the 'material' evidence. Fossils are real, rocks are real, and genes are real. They exist, and therefore fall under 'materialist' explanations. I should mention that the term 'materialist' is meaningless to me as I consider EVERYTHING to be 'material'. So I don't really see what your point about Lewontin is. What would science be if it did not have this 'a priori' assumption that you Creationists hate? It would be a religion."

Sorry you're wrong again and this is pure sophistry. Stating that science deals with the material is not the same as the materialist assumptions that lewontin admits he holds. he is admitting that he has an a priri bias against non-materialist explanations for the material world.
lewontin is talking about "materialist explanations" not material phenomena. PAY ATTENTION!!!

44. The Only One in Step

Comment #23888 by gimlibengloin on March 3, 2007 at 11:27 am

Dimitar (230)

"Where does he mention that he creates a method to "produce results he WANTS to find"? He actually says that an adherence to materialist method produces materialist results; much in the same way that a theological approach (e.g. ID) produces theological results.

Newton may have been religious, but he was a NATURAL philosopher, not a supernatural one. He got 'materialist' results too (although I prefer the term NATURAL). It amazes me that Creationists keep using the Lewontin quote as 'evidence' for something that even devout Christian scientists like Newton have always acknowledged: Science h