carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...awaiting your reply.
Faith fails to protect idiot from snake bites.
- Thread starter Siro
- Start date
...awaiting your reply.
Like the larger question of the "existence of God", which evolution is actually incompetent to address. . . . your question is actually incompetent or irrelevant to the point you seem concerned about.
that Man has never understood "God" does not mean God doesn't exist on His/Whatever's own terms.
that "evolutionists" have incorrectly or incompletely specified the means and manner of "evolution" does not mean evolution doesn't happen.
The Japanese scientists who did the research on homologous proteins existing in disparate species simply concluded we need to expand our concept of evolutionary processes to include stuff like DNA exchanges happening between species, particularly those who live intimately together, like man and yeast.
An intelligent design theorist could perhaps include such exchanges in the inventory of tools and methods "God" might use.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."
From Charles Darwins autobiography, and this is before they knew about how complex DNA was with over a meter long genetic information in each human cell (with rare exceptions like RBC's). The complexity of DNA was what brought one of the top 5 most famous atheists of the 20th century Anthony Flew into belief in some sort of a God (although not a personal one).
Atheists have to believe the universe came either from chance or from necessity. I am too rational and skeptical to come to either of these conclusions.
From Charles Darwins autobiography, and this is before they knew about how complex DNA was with over a meter long genetic information in each human cell (with rare exceptions like RBC's). The complexity of DNA was what brought one of the top 5 most famous atheists of the 20th century Anthony Flew into belief in some sort of a God (although not a personal one).
Atheists have to believe the universe came either from chance or from necessity. I am too rational and skeptical to come to either of these conclusions.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
IT WAS not many years ago that God was very much a part of the lives of people of the Western world.
Today, however, the tables are turned. To have any strong religious conviction is considered by many to be narrow-minded, dogmatic, even fanatic. In many lands, we see a prevailing indifference toward, or lack of interest in, God and religion. Most people no longer search for God because they either do not believe he exists or are unsure about it.
Science, philosophy, secularism, and materialism played their roles in raising doubts and fostering skepticism about God and religion.
The expansion of scientific knowledge called into question many of the church’s teachings that were based on erroneous interpretation of Bible passages. For example, astronomical discoveries by men like Copernicus and Galileo posed a direct challenge to the church’s geocentric doctrine, that the earth is the center of the universe. Furthermore, understanding of the natural laws that govern the operations of the physical world made it no longer necessary to attribute hitherto mysterious phenomena, such as thunder and lightning or even the appearance of certain stars and comets, to the hand of God or Providence. “Miracles” and “divine intervention” in human affairs also came under suspicion. All of a sudden, God and religion seemed outdated to many, and some of those who considered themselves up-to-date quickly turned their back on God and flocked to the worship of the sacred cow of science.
The severest blow to religion, no doubt, was the theory of evolution. In 1859 the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-82) published his Origin of Species and presented a direct challenge to the Bible’s teaching of creation by God. What was the response of the churches? At first the clergy in England and elsewhere denounced the theory. But opposition soon faded. It seemed that Darwin’s speculations were just the excuse sought by many clergymen who were entertaining doubts in secret. Thus, within Darwin’s lifetime, “most thoughtful and articulate clergy had worked their way to the conclusion that evolution was wholly compatible with an enlightened understanding of scripture,” says The Encyclopedia of Religion. Rather than come to the defense of the Bible, Christendom yielded to the pressure of scientific opinion and played along with what was popular. In so doing, it undermined faith in God.—2*Timothy 4:3,*4.
However, if the universe is governed by laws, then there must be an intelligent lawmaker who formulated or established the laws. Furthermore, since the laws governing the operation of the universe appear to be made in anticipation of life and conditions favorable to its sustenance, purpose is clearly involved. Design and purpose—these are not characteristics of blind chance; they are precisely what an intelligent Creator would manifest. And that is just what the Bible indicates when it declares: “What may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.”—Romans 1:19, 20.
Some argue, however, that increased knowledge of science has provided explanations for many of these feats. True, science has explained, to a certain extent, many things that were once a mystery. But a child’s discovery of how a watch works does not prove that the watch was not designed and made by someone. Likewise, our understanding the marvelous ways in which many of the things in the physical world function does not prove that there is no intelligent designer behind them. On the contrary, the more we know about the world around us, the more evidence we have for the existence of an intelligent Creator, God.
So CarolinaJazz works in the math department at the U? Interesting... I always thought he was an old crusty coot back east posting in his wife beater shirt with coffee stains.
Actually, a combination of change and necessity, which allows for infinitely more complexity over an infinite causal chain, more than sufficient to explain the complexity of life.
He does that at the U. Wife beater wuth coffee stains and all.
carolinajazz,
1) Many sorts of animals change little over millions of years, and the changes are even less notable when the species are not closely related.
2) You used the precise word "suddenly" yesterday evening (Jun 5, 7:08pm).
3) Snakes that currently need venom to survive (if there are any) may not have needed venom initially. New dependancies can follow new capabilities.
4) I'm not sure what your question was supoosed to mean, but some toads catch prey with both tongue and venom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Toad
5) One aspect of natural selection is the "survival of the fittest", but fitness is only one of many possible reasons traits are passed down.
6) The "selection" of "natural selection" is a metaphor.
7) "Why do we have BOTH venomous and non-venomous snakes living side by side," -- For the same reason we have people who speak French and people who speak Italian living in neighboring countries.
8) If by "trial and error", you mean "snakes who wasted venom were less likely to survive", that's one possible reason.
1) Many sorts of animals change little over millions of years, and the changes are even less notable when the species are not closely related.
2) You used the precise word "suddenly" yesterday evening (Jun 5, 7:08pm).
3) Snakes that currently need venom to survive (if there are any) may not have needed venom initially. New dependancies can follow new capabilities.
4) I'm not sure what your question was supoosed to mean, but some toads catch prey with both tongue and venom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Toad
5) One aspect of natural selection is the "survival of the fittest", but fitness is only one of many possible reasons traits are passed down.
6) The "selection" of "natural selection" is a metaphor.
7) "Why do we have BOTH venomous and non-venomous snakes living side by side," -- For the same reason we have people who speak French and people who speak Italian living in neighboring countries.
8) If by "trial and error", you mean "snakes who wasted venom were less likely to survive", that's one possible reason.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
I love it when you atheists make this argument, many have stopped using it because it is so easily countered. This is the argument that if a Monkey blindly smashes a keyboard, eventually after perhaps trillions of trillions of years (or several magnitudes greater), eventually that monkey will write out a complete work of Shakespeare.
However, there is no necessity for that monkey to exist to type that paper out. All you atheists do is bring that it back a step. The goldilocks enigma, how is this universe fine tuned which it clearly is according to atheist noble prize winning scientist Weinberg? Atheists say its the multiverse.
Watch this video for the stupidity of atheist blind faith. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE
Chance, but no necessity.
1) There is no evidence for fine-tuning.
2) There is no non-circular argument for fine-tuning.
That leaves it to the realm of beliefs. You believe the universe is fine-tuned. I don't.
Obviously that's not true. There is no conceivable paradigm for existence that would not be based on "laws". Those laws are just formal description of what we see. Very often it turns out to be a false description. Take Newton's laws of gravity for an example. The formulation works. You can indeed describe the force of gravity using an inverse square law and get pretty accurate results. But the "law" turned out not to be a law at all. Einstein turned the whole idea on its head and showed that gravity was not a force at all, but an inevitable manifestation of motion in curved space. General Relativity gives more accurate results, but even that may eventually be overturned. But that's neither here nor there.
What's relevant is that no universe can exist without mechanisms that permit that existence. Life, for example, requires chemical reactions to be possible. That requires the existence of electromagnetic forces, which are the result of atomic charges, and so on and so forth. If mechanisms did not exist, and the universe just consisted of random events, then nothing recognizable can exist. The question of "why should a universe with consistent laws exist" is half simplistic and half nonsensical. What we know for sure that it DOES indeed exist. There are many possible reasons why it should exist. They all are far more logical and plausible than "a magic being that just exists made everything up".
And I understand the impulse to look at whatever you believe in and try to pretend it fits with the reality suggested by science. Of course YOUR interpretation is the correct one (it fits with what others discovered). What a coincidence that the countless millions who believed a completely wrong version of your religion failed to see the interpretation you so clearly see. It's amazing how THEIR version of the bible fit so perfectly with THEIR observation on reality. Most religious people who believe in evolution nowadays also claim it perfectly fits with their religion, by the way. You just decided to set the limit there. Were you to study evolution, you would become convinced without any reasonable doubt that it did happen, and you would fit it into your understanding of Christianity or whatever. You can really fit whatever you want into your faith, since faith itself is irrational and pretty random. Hell, I once met a Mormon geneticist who told me that he believed we had our current form in the pre-life. Yep. God took all the dark skinned spirits and threw them in Africa. Then he started matching spirits that look alike as family members. and so on.
You guys are funny.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edsDrqfDVKY
I suggest you watch the video with Richard Dawkins and noble prize winning physician who is an atheist named Steven Weinberg in which he says "the universe is obviously fine tuned." Stephen Hawkins who is also an atheist states that the universe is fine tuned 1 in a hundred thousand million million. That is a greater number of atoms in the entire universe.
I can point you into many non atheist physicians if you want who say the same thing (Gerald Schroeder, Paul Davies).
Don't worry bro, you can close your ears with your hands and shout "the universe isn't fine tuned, the universe isn't fine tuned" over and over again loudly and ignore the facts. The only cosmologist that says the Universe isn't fine tuned that I know of is Victor J Stenger (who isn't even famous for his physics but famous for being an atheist, the same thing with Richard Dawkins about biology) while even most atheist cosmologists agree the universe is fine tuned but say we just don't know why.
I suggest you watch the video with Richard Dawkins and noble prize winning physician who is an atheist named Steven Weinberg in which he says "the universe is obviously fine tuned." Stephen Hawkins who is also an atheist states that the universe is fine tuned 1 in a hundred thousand million million. That is a greater number of atoms in the entire universe.
I can point you into many non atheist physicians if you want who say the same thing (Gerald Schroeder, Paul Davies).
Don't worry bro, you can close your ears with your hands and shout "the universe isn't fine tuned, the universe isn't fine tuned" over and over again loudly and ignore the facts. The only cosmologist that says the Universe isn't fine tuned that I know of is Victor J Stenger (who isn't even famous for his physics but famous for being an atheist, the same thing with Richard Dawkins about biology) while even most atheist cosmologists agree the universe is fine tuned but say we just don't know why.
Look at that! Our village idiot now believes that we must take the opinion of that scientist because HE IS A SCIENTIST. That does not apply to widely accepted scientific theories the village idiot fails to understand. Only things that make him happy! How adorable.
"Obvious" is a belief. It is not evidence nor a formal proof.
Since they are merely stating opinions, why would it matter?
You are quite effective at making people want to become non believers. It must do your God proud to know you are driving others from Him.
This.
Black - where are you from? This may be more of a cultural divide than ... drawing a blank as to how to say the rest nicely. So, where you from?
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
I thought it said right under my name where I am from...
I list 4 notable scientists supporting the idea that the universe is fine tuned including their reasons why and a video and everybody is now snapping out on me. The same response happens when you play piano in a room full of monkey's. Unfortunately most sport fans are hillbilly rednecks and that's who many of you guys are.
I list 4 notable scientists supporting the idea that the universe is fine tuned including their reasons why and a video and everybody is now snapping out on me. The same response happens when you play piano in a room full of monkey's. Unfortunately most sport fans are hillbilly rednecks and that's who many of you guys are.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
If we only evolved things that were necessary then why do humans still have tailbones?
Animals and humans alike, have characteristics that aren't always useful. Evolution isn't this perfect instant process that CJ is suggesting.
Animals and humans alike, have characteristics that aren't always useful. Evolution isn't this perfect instant process that CJ is suggesting.
Last edited:
Peoples reaction to you has nothing to do with you listing names. It has to do with the way you present your arguement and your overall ****ty attitude.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Floriduh is on the list of sophisticated Americans?