I recently went to a forum on Science vs. Religion, the argument being that since DNA is a code, and all known codes have intelligent design behind it, is this proof enough that there is an intelligent design behind the creation of DNA...ie therefore a God? (which is a really vague question I know). I think it's interesting to ponder because evolution only explains the occurance of species, bu not really the beginning of life. At what instance did this planet go from having nothing to having something, whether it be as simple as a single celled cyanobacteria? Oh, and I'm defining a code as a something that can represent a functioning and larger meaning that is greater than the code itself. Also, a code is a constant thing that the actual code has a definite direction and meaning (ie the patterns on a persons face cannot be considered a code, because every human acts differently.)
Emilly Z.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
So are you saying that DNA is a code because beyond itself it can represent cells, and organs, and beyond even that, people? And also, why can't a code be naturally occuring? I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, just the idea that all known codes have a creator, thusly all codes have a creator seems like a bit of a stretch to me, because how many codes are known to humans that we didn't ourselves create?
Really I find this argument particularly interesting, cause no matter what side you take there's mounting evidence that it is false, and that 'it' being evolution. It was a nice theory, however it really only seems to justify the natural laws of adaptation, which have large amounts of evidence to support them. However the idea that one species would develop into another species is simply... unproven. Since humans have been observing bacteria there have been millions upon millions of generations, however nothing groundbreaking has happened, besides the usual new strain or adaptation. There have been no changes to their fundamental structure evolution or random mutation would suggest. So as time goes on it becomes harder and harder to argue the side of evolution. However there are also the usual problems with intelligent design, namely the fact that it is unprovable. I'll stop there on that end, cause I don't like arguing with religious people, they get all fired up, and I really don't care enough since their views can't change anyway I just give in.
Isn't there evidence of evolution on a cellular level though? This is kinda off topic, but I remember in freshman Bio talking about how certain diseases have been researched and proven to have evolved immunities to certain cures and to certain treatments. I don't know if this is the exact example, but I think that we discussed a distinct evolution of the HIV virus in the 70s or 80s that was well researched and proven.
that's an adaption; like I said before, even on a cellular level there's been no suggestion that a cell can evolve into a new species.
What is God and just what is intelligent design?
I could throw together a bunch of letters like so:
rgwfloalefibwvyrrgwkubjaewnlubnuaaubf
and ask you to decode it. Chances are, somewhere somehow would be able to find meaning from it, even if originally there was no message behind it.
Concluding that DNA, being a code, has an intelligent maker behind it is much like taking meaning from my "code" up there - there could be something there, and there might not. There's no connection besides speculation.
Codes can be created with an intelligent design, but that design could be simply a result of trial and error, the design with the most intelligence or potential to procreate, instead of the design made with the specific aim of reproduction in mind.
That said, all I'm putting forth is that the argument of "DNA being a code" isn't enough to prove anything. Still, discrediting it doesn't disprove anything either. I hold Christian views, but even though my view of the birth of the universe has a different bent to some, I don't cling to every piece of "evidence" thrown my way.
By the way, my random string of letters does have a message behind it. Figure it out, it's not too hard.
Hi Emilly - I'm glad you brought this up, because it is something that I use to justify my belief in God, though I use that term rather loosely. Although I am agnostic in the context of defining the shape, form, powers, humanity, consciousness, and overall nature of God, I have faith that there a guiding, driving force. DNA supports this vague concept of intelligence because it is evidence of a beautiful system which we as humans can only try to comprehend. The complexity and delicacy of the system is one of the reasons I am cautious about supporting genetic engineering. I realize that I am touched by confirmation bias, because I really want to know that I am connected to something cohesive, right, and bigger than our self-centered human existence. But the beauty of the natural world supports that. If you recall Thomasina's Arcadian musings, humans are capable of creating mundane human things and (graphing them) like buildings and straight lines. But just because we cannot graph the form of a leaf doesn't mean that the equation doesn't exist. I optimistically look to this as evidence of some prescribed and perfect plan. However, I also see how this can all be underwritten as serendipity. It comes down to a matter of faith.
Now, a little sage advice from a senior:
In response to drivebracket's first post (would you mind including a name, at least to begin with, because I feel a little silly calling you that) your argument has a flaw: your point is that there are no codes we didn't create! But we are discovering DNA and the genome, not writing it. Doesn't that imply some great cosmic organizer, based on your assumption that all known codes are human created? We've found a code we haven't created, ergo some other entity must have. This is not the only truth gleanable from the situation. However, it is the truth your logic leads to, but you deny it.
Also, James Rogers, be careful about antagonizing your opposition. By all means, you do not have to agree with "religious people." However, you are creating an us/them situation. Please do not tell "us" we get fired up, when you have have not been attacked in the first place. If you do have a problem with someone's logic, by all means, call them on it. In this case, you might question the validity of epiphany as a justification of truth. You can also address the confirmation bias associated with religion that accompanies any question aimed at ascertaining the presence of God. And most importantly of all, do not use apathy as an excuse to pull out of an argument, particularly on the pretext of winning. It implies that you have no other intelligent claims, and do not want to concede.
Including a brief comment on your perspective as a knower is invaluable. For example, if you are a staunch atheist, let as know a) because it is relevant to the topic and gives us insight to your interpretation and b) encourages you to acknowledge the knowledge issues that you as an individual are encountering with your own/other's takes on the matter.
Though I will throw it out there to start off with--yes, I believe in God. The point that James brought up though, however, was that evolution proves that this is false. I disagree, because it doesn't matter if a scientist believes in a higher power or not, evolution DOES exist--this has been proven.
I have to agree with 'pet piranha' also, because as they brought up, codes are merely interpreted, and one can derive a meaning from a code that may not have been there in the first place. Take Canterbury Tales and the 'new critical perspective' for example. Mr. Hlawaty tells us that we can take what we want from the book--as long as it makes sense to us. In terms of codes, doesn't it make it irrelevant what the author (or creator, in this case) had intended? I think that our DNA being a code is not sufficient evidence to prove that there is (or is not) a God, or intelligent creator.
But the thing about DNA is that it is interpreted - by our bodies. The "code" doesn't hold some obscure meaning that humans are trying to force in there. Every gene and its protein performs a certain function or fills a certain role, and is carefully logged away in our DNA. Amazingly, every living thing, as well as viruses, have DNA constructed of the same nucleotides. The only thing this really substantiates is that the inner workings of nature are complex and beautiful to the extreme - beyond human comprehension. I use this to support my belief in cosmic order (not necessarily as an intelligent being or a design).
This may be slightly off topic, but I really don't think that the debate between science and religion in today's world ought to exist at all because, first of all, there will never be direct proof, just clues, to state that one side is 100% true, and second, the conflicting viewpoints drive a schism between these two very important things in that could coexist just fine anyways. It doesn't matter if DNA implies intelligent design existing or if evolution denies God creating the world. The point of science is to help humans effectively analyze life as to improve life in the future and the point of religion is to help humans become better people in the fields of morality and ethics. We should look to the future instead of trying to criticize the past and just use our religion and our science to help other out... um, whoops, i guess this was a bit off topic...
Okay, well much more was read in to both my open and closing statements than I intended. The first's general purpose was to say neither side has any even remotely ground breaking evidence, or even theories that could be tested to lead to proof. My closing statement was more to express my general dislike for this subject because like Eric says, both views have their conflicting purposes. However the debate of the 2 will never get anyone anywhere, so I find this debate on a utilitarian standpoint flawed. It won't help science if they know whether or not a long time ago an intelligence created the code we know as DNA, and it won't help the religious communities if their religious scriptures are proven true or false, they believe which of the 2 they want to already. You wanted personal standpoint? I think it should be about the ideas, and that organized religion goes too far beyond the purpose, morals and ideologies. It won't affect society if you believe in Jesus, but it will if you take the morals he suggests and apply them to your everyday life. Last comment cause I don't like firm belief topics.
One of the things I believe is that the process of gaining knowledge is sometimes more important than the result. Because the unfortunate fact of the matter is that there are very few things to which everyone can reach the same and undeniable truth. But we still argue these unanswerable topics. For example, I know I will not know the answer to religion and god until I die, and there is a good chance that I probably won't even then. However, there still seem to be enough clues for us to muse over, but little enough that there are a variety of interpretations. I think conviction in the subjective is what makes discussions interesting - apathy or a definitive truth take the point out of discussions. For example, I was interested by the comment that it is better to turn our knowledge to the future (rather than the past or what we cannot know). Personally, I think it is more important to obsess about how things are and how they came to be than to make plans for a future when we don't have all the important information now. The thing is, a combination of priorities is the most productive. It also means that knowledge claims are disputed, keeping one train of thought from rocketing off in a crazy direction when there may be false or biased premises impairing it.
Well, this might be my agnostic side speaking, but it could easily be seen as confirmation bias. Simply because it is there, implying that there is a God? It seems unusually fishy, and there is no direct justification that is evidence for this
I don't know if anyone is still reading this or not, but I only just read it. Let me start by saying to Kaitlyn: macroevolution (one species changing to another species) has NOT been proven. That's why it's still a "theory".
In response to what Pet Piranha said, I believe that the metaphor you are using is fundamentally limiting the way you see the claims. Calling a random string of letters a "code" because somebody somewhere can make up a meaning for it is totally unrelated to DNA. I mean, DNA and your random string of letters are sooooooooooooo far removed from being similar to each other... DNA has what, like a few billion characters? Your string has 37. Another huge difference between the two is that if several people find a message in your random string, there are probably several different interpretations. DNA, however, is interpreted in an incredibly methodical and deliberate way. If your metaphor held true, we could all have the same DNA but totally different bodies. However, one of the important parts about a code is that it has a meaning behind it--not just that you can find one there, but there is actually something intended. In the case of my DNA, that something is a human being.
And to James: WOW! What gets me fired up is you sweeping generalizations! You said that religious communities wouldn't care if their creeds were proven true or false. It seems obvious that you've never once considered this statement. Do you honestly believe that people involved in organized religions wouldn't care if their doctrines were proven false? I'm going out on a limb to say that you care whether or not what you believe is true, yes? Are those "religious people" that different from you?
Also, it seems to me like you've adopted the presupposition that all religion is false. If this were true, I would agree with you on several points. Religion would just be a "feel-good" institution; it would just be something that would help stimulate better morals and stuff like that. Also, people in religion would recognize that, and they wouldn't care if their doctrines were disproved, because that would not invalidate their practice. However, it seems to me that you haven’t actually considered that Christianity might be true. If Jesus Christ really was the Son of God, then we're talking in terms of eternal life or eternal damnation. Morals and ideologies are only the beginning implications. In fact, since Jesus Christ's identity is the premise of Christianity, I think that you are entirely wrong about the "purpose of religion" as you say; Christianity at least, was never meant to only affect morals and ideologies. I say the same thing to Eric regarding his proposed "point to religion." What it boils down to is that morality and ethics are both implications of religion, but not the purpose or the point.
Of course, it's pretty bold of me to tell you about your presuppositions. Do correct me.
Look, let’s get something straight. DNA, while being billions of characters long, is made up of only 4 chemicals. As such, the complexity is more in the length of the code than the way the code is presented. It’s like doing an hour long math problem that is just addition and subtraction of whole numbers: simple yet time consuming. In addition, nothing particular is intended in the DNA's code. It is simply a code that can lead to human forms if given enough time to replicate and mutate. We as humans seem to like to place a meaning and purpose to everything, regardless of if there is warrant. And just as a side note, we have only been unable to perceive macro-evolution because we live to 100 if lucky. This is a process that should take thousands if not millions of years. All evidence as of now points to evolution as fact and creation as fairy tale. As for religious people not caring; all evidence right now points to the idea of the big bang, evolution, natural selection. In other words, no "God", nothing divine except the wonderful ability of nature to change over time. Yet, people who claim a religion do not care about this mounting evidence contrary to their beliefs.
A belief is an interesting mindset because it is not predicated on facts or logic. It is a belief: held true largely due to want for it to be true. It is ultimately unchanged by facts or logic or reason. Because of this, religious beliefs appear to me to be illogical. Therefore, I have no choice but to say that NO, most religious peoples do not care about what is ultimately true; they care that their beliefs go unaltered throughout time, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
Ryan: I find your bias interesting. Why just Christianity as truth? Why not Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Animism, etc. What about those religions is inferior in “truth” to yours? Furthermore, it appears you do not critically think about evidence that would potentially disprove your Christian ideals. Why? Because you hold true a belief, not a theory. So I guess my long winded question is simply this: will your beliefs change if contrary evidence is presented?
In addition, since when is Christianity a moral code? Read Leviticus 20:13. Not too many ways to interpret that passage. If homosexuality is immoral, why are there examples of it throughout nature that in the end produce GOOD results for a community? (E. O. Wilson on altruism)
In addition, DNA, while being a code, is more simply a pattern. As such, we see patterns throughout the entire world that occur naturally, with no intelligence behind them. Take for instance ripples in sand dunes. What intelligent being created these ripples?
No one, the ripples were caused by the way sand particles interact with small air currents.
As we can see from this example, there is no legitimate reason to think that DNA has to have had an intelligent designer at all.
Regarding the complexity of DNA, what you're implying is that my computer isn't complex because it just uses ones and zeros. In essence, we're looking at the same evidence and coming up with exact opposite conclusions: you think DNA is simple, I think DNA is one of the most complex things ever. Furthermore, DNA does have meaning to it, just the way that the words I'm typing do. You can say they only have meaning because you assign them meaning, but that's not the case; they are meant to present what I'm intending them to. In the same way, the DNA in me is meant to create me. It's not like it just randomly worked out that way. After all, DNA is always read in the same way, is it not, in every organism? So if there's exactly one way to read it, doesn't that imply that it has meaning, just as the words I'm typing have a specific meaning?
Regarding macroevolution, I do happen to believe that it exists, for the record. However, the knowledge issue you identified (our short lifespans) is exactly why it is still only a "theory". When I said it hasn't been proven, I only meant that it hasn't been proven, which is a fact. More on this later.
Regarding beliefs, all knowledge is also a belief (pjt*B*). If by "belief" you mean the TOK definition of the word, your statement implies that facts have no bearing on anyone's knowledge whatsoever, which is clearly false. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that by "belief" you meant "religious belief" specifically. (If this is not what you meant, do correct me.) Then, I would say that you're just plain wrong. I can tell you from my own experience that I've seen plenty of evidence to point to the invalidity of Christianity. I know more about evolution (in a Neodarwinistic sense, which holds that evolution proves God to not exist) than anyone else I've met, or at least anyone my age. However, I've also seen plenty of evidence to prove Christianity right, and I've judged this evidence to be superior. I'll share some with you in a moment.
Regarding my bias, I don't know what I would do if I was confronted with evidence to PROVE Christianity false. I haven't seen any yet. I can tell you however, that if you show me a lot of evidence that only points to Christianity being false--evidence which I can't dispute--I will continue to believe in Christianity because I've hedged my bets. If I'm wrong, then I'll die having lived a life of meaningless worship, but I won't remember any of it afterwards. If I adopt the belief that Christianity is wrong, and then I'm wrong, then an eternity of conscious burning in hell awaits me. That just sucks. So I guess my long winded answer is this: you'd have to provide a whole lot of contrary evidence, but if you could PROVE it, I would probably abandon my belief in God. You mentioned that there is a whole lot of this evidence, would you care to share any of it?
Now, about Christianity as a moral code. You said it wasn't a moral code, did you mean it wasn't a code about morals, or did you mean that it was an immoral code? I don't understand what your are saying.
Also, I've researched this E O Wilson fellow, and what I found was one quote several times about how the homosexuality trait had something to do with the altruism trait. I also found that E O Wilson studies ants, and then applies their social behavior to that of humans (KI ALERT!). However, ignoring the obvious knowledge issue, I don't understand the justification for his claim. I read an essay of his entitled, "Kin selection as the key to altruism: its rise and fall," but this essay seemed to point to the same conclusion as his quote in the NY Times: "Groups with men of quality — brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic — would tend to prevail, as Darwin said, over those groups that do not have those qualities so well developed." (July 15, 2008) The main idea of his essay was that after all that research on kin selection, there was mostly inconclusive evidence to show that the rise of altruism began on an individual level. What he says is that Darwin's initial theory--that natural selection of ant colonies occurs on a social level--is mostly true. The implication of this is in his NY times quote; altruism affects natural selection on a social, not individual level. Now, I don't understand how the homosexuality trait fits into that (side note: I haven't seen conclusive evidence to show that homosexuality is indeed genetic, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume it is). So then, would you explain to me how it fits together?
OK, now that I've written a small essay, I'll get to my presentation of evidence, which you apparently missed in your summation of "all evidence as of now." Let me start by saying this evidence points to intelligent design: that evolution happened, but not randomly. The basic inference is that the more parts there are in something, the more likely it is to not be a coincidence. There's not a lot of parts in a rock. There's lots of parts in a watch; hence, the watch was probably designed, but there's a LOT more parts in my body, so it is even more likely to be designed. In fact, even Richard Dawkins, an avid Neodarwinist, admits that a cell shows an "overwhelming impression of design." The book was titled "Cell" and it is on page 92.
.
But that's just logic; the real fun is the science. Darwin states in his "Origin of Species" that his theory would be false if it could be found that a part of an organism could not have formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications." Thus comes the theory of irreducible complexity. Something like this is a mouse trap. Every single part is required for the mouse trap to function. If it were an organism, it couldn't have began with a wooden block that mice might trip and die on, and later evolved metal fixtures to catch mice more often. Either every part is there or the whole thing is useless. Of course, a mouse trap isn't biological. However, a bacterial flagellum is. A flagellum has several parts (it's been a long time since I saw this presentation, so forgive me for being slightly vague). One part is the sticky-outy part that actually propels the bacterium. Another part is the ball-bearing-like protein that anchors the sticky-outy part into the cell wall. Another part was the bacterial "motor" that makes the flagellum spin. Long story short, like the mouse trap, a bacterial flagellum could not have evolved through random mutation and natural selection; it was designed.
Also, the theory of evolution insists as a basic principle that random mutation has the potential to create. Regarding this, there is an interesting evidence regarding malaria. So: malaria kills. Thus, any random mutation which could cause immunity to malaria would be perpetuated in the gene pool, right? Right. For example, Sickle Cell disease is one genetic "reaction" to malaria. Someone who has one copy of the sickle cell gene has special blood cells which are normal normally but turn into a sickle-shape when infected by malaria (malaria attacks red blood cells). These funny shaped cells are then filtered out by the liver. However, anyone who receives two copies of this gene dies. In fact, there are several other genetic mutations which can protect against malaria in the same way, and with the same effect if one recieves two copies of said mutation. These changes are slight differences in hemoglobin, either having no HbS, no alpha thalassemia, or no beta thelasesemia. What those are, I don't know. However, I do know that all of these examples are deletion mutations, where an ATGC base thingy is subtracted, not added. This is an example of the power of random mutation to benefit the fitness of an organism, but in each case there was only deletion, no creation. Implication: it takes a designer to create, not just random mutation.
Well Ryan, let me elaborate, point by point. And for the record, I am sorry if anyone takes offence from what I will say. However, I believe a limitation on speech with regards to religion is an affront on reason and rational thought, as you will see.
Macroevolution:
A theory in science must always be called a theory, regardless of how well substantiated the theory is. Because we must always (speaking as scientists) leave the possibility of conflicting evidence open, we can only ever use the word “theory” to describe a scientific occurrence. The reasoning: there is no way to prove a theory right, merely prove it wrong. As such, we would be doing science as a whole a disservice by ever going with our gut and saying: “Yes, evolution makes rational and scientific sense. There is NO way a misogynistic, infanticidal, regicidal, homophobic, xenophobic sky fairy created us”. For scientists, they must forgo the word”fact” to foster the explorative mindset of science and ensure science is never pushed aside by the lies of religion.
Knowledge = Belief:
I should have been clearer on this. There is a significant difference between theories, fact and logic and the unfaltering, archaic beliefs religion requires. People of the former believe, though I would prefer to use “know”, what they do because of deductive logic, reason and scientific evidence. Religion requires you give up those illustrious qualities. As I have found from personal discourse with believers, the majority of them are offended by the mere fact I would disagree with their beliefs and that I am vocalizing my perceived inequities of their faith. Why do they react this way? Because since they were indoctrinated into the bowels of the church, they were told of god’s infallibility, his never-ending perfection and his wrath for those who cared to think before they succumbed. Now: does this not sound like an excellent mindset to train people to think in when you DON’T want them to challenge an authority and ask questions and think for themselves? Religion does not encourage discourse, because the heads of the various establishments know, perhaps subconsciously, that if one used reason and applied it to religion, the questioner would come up woefully short. This is a far cry from science, which is based on questioning and TRYING to disprove theories. This illustrates a fundamental strength of science and weakness of religion.
As for your evidence for Christianity (specifically) being right, I would love to hear it.
Why God does not exist (or at least PROBABLY doesn’t):
I will break this up into WHY (atheist) he doesn’t and why it would be terrible if he DID exist (anti-theist). It is important to note that by disproving something attributed to god, we make the likelihood of his existence that much more impossible:
Atheist:
1) Who created God? If everything is created, who created God? If god created himself, that is a circular argument and hence a logical fallacy.
2) Evolution, not god’s creation myth, is how we came to be.
3) The whole rest of science. As we learn more and more about ourselves and the universe, the less likely and necessary god becomes. God was, as no one can argue, used to explain everything in one way or another. Now that we learn the true causes behind our world, what place or need do we have for god?
4) The obvious man-made qualities of religion: Religion allows a dogma and agenda to be pushed without allowing discussion. In addition, the religions of various regions reflect the hatred for enemy groups in which the religion originated. What about the “life-after-death” idea used to placate the people afraid of the inevitable? And the repetitive traits in all religious dogmas, from virgin birth, to destruction, to afterlife? The political and social advantages religion offers to those who employed it?
5) The biblical contradictions: If god is perfect, why contradictions in many passages? For instance, Lev. 20:13 and Matt 22:39, 2 Chron. 7:12, 16 and Acts 7:48, James 1:13 and Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13. I could go on, but it would take up too much space… And the argument of human’s inability to correctly transcribe god’s word makes no sense, because why on earth would they not faithfully copy down something that important?
6) The Impossibility of Omniscience and Omnipotence. “Can God create a rock that he can’t lift?” If god is omnipotent, then he could lift any rock ever made. If he is omniscient, then he could create a rock he can’t lift. See the conflict?
7) Once again, I could go on, but I’d like to see someone else pursue their own research. After all, don’t take MY word for it. I haven’t even gotten to “Goldilocks” zones and the start of the universe yet. Maybe later. If your interested, just Google those terms. I’m sure a particle physicist could be much more eloquent and clear with describing them than I could. In summary however, why create an improbable being to explain the easily explained?
Anti-Theist:
1) The role of god as thought police: Once again, we see religion trying to crush our free thought. What detriment to society would it be if we didn’t think, mainly because we were afraid of reparations for a split second mental “mistake”?
2) The homophobia/xenophobia god requires: Throughout many religious texts, we see hate speech so blatant that it would be punishable today. For instance:
“He that sacrifices unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” Exodus 22:20
"You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert.” Zephaniah 2:12-15 NLT
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
(Think, who were the Jews, and later the Christians, greatest enemy? That’s right, anyone not subscribing to their beliefs and infringing on “their” land! Like the Muslims and Babylonians and everyone else! Now, why might someone have wanted to make sure the bible said something about killing non-Christians? To justify “beneficial” conflicts of course!! Sounds man-made, eh?)
"The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:13)
What is this but racist, sexist hate speech? Imagine if a god actually existed that ordered all this done? HOLY SH*T! And I haven’t even mentioned the Qu’ran yet…
3) The torment any child or parent would face if they truly believed, wondering if their loved one was in heaven, or burning forever in hell.
4) Space is as short as our attention spans. I would suggest reading “god is NOT Great” by Christopher Hitchens for a full run down. Below is a quote I pulled from his book because of its honesty and beautiful summation of the anti-theist argument:
“How much vanity must be concealed-not too effectively at that-in order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine plan? How much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one may squirm continually in an awareness of one's own sin? How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to "fit" with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities? How many saints and miracles and councils and conclaves are required in order first to be able to establish a dogma and then-after infinite pain and loss and absurdity and cruelty-to be forced to rescind one of those dogmas? God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.”
Moral Code?
Christianity is an immoral code masquerading as a moral one, as demonstrated by the above quotes and a thorough reading of the bible. It breeds religious hate for all other races, creeds, religions and thoughts. How does killing a gay couple make it a moral code? How does killing people who work on the Sabbath a moral code? Do not say “Well, it must be interpreted”. I say: it is the infallible word of god! It is not open to interpretation! If you are looking for moral teachings, struggles, interpretation and TRUTH, look no further than Shakespeare, Rand, Orwell, Chaucer, etc. There is nothing attainable in the bible that is not attainable in these writers above, except eloquence.
Reference to E. O. Wilson:
This was more to prove the above point that the Bible does not reflect morality because homosexuality, as an example, is not immoral, but in fact beneficial to a group. Ill just jump right in: altruism at the face of it seems to hold no evolutionary advantage. However, what if altruism allowed ones kin to have a better chance of survival? This is where homosexuality can come in: if an individual has no strong desire to reproduce, such as if they were not attracted to the opposite sex, then they seem to not serve a reproductive evolutionary purpose. However, if they increase their kin’s offspring’s chance of survival, by acting as a surrogate parent when their real parents are unavailable, they DO fit into the evolution/kin selection model. Even from this one example, we see homosexuality not as a detriment to society, but actually a beneficial attribute for some people to have. (Sociobiology, pp 58-59), On Human Nature, pp 142-143). The title of this second book brings up a good point. He made his life out of studying ants, but he is in fact the founder of a much more broad idea: sociobiology. By saying that basic biologic behaviors observed in animals can’t be applied to humans is 1) arrogant, 2) hopeless and 3) false. Not only does Wilson make a good argument simply in his book, but outside evidence has corroborated his ideas and scientific findings. As for homosexuality being genetic, homosexuality is a basic chemical function in the brain. What controls basic chemical functions? Genes. Not proof, but it makes sense, especially if you have taken psych. In addition, if homosexuality is caused by a person’s environment, what is the environmental constant in our world that makes some of all species of animals homosexual?
“All evidence as of now”:
No one said evolution happened at random, quite the opposite. Evolution does not randomly select for a trait, though those traits are random mutations. I see how you could have gotten confused. And I quote “I know more about evolution . . . than anyone else I’ve met”. Fascinating…
Your wonderfully non-complex Flagellum:
First off, as will be pointed out by the mouse trap analogy, the flagellum can operate with fewer parts. Just as the spring and board of a mouse trap could be a tie clip, primitive clamp or credit card holder, without all the extra bits, so can the flagella motor. An interesting biologic syringe used by many cells, known as the Type III secretory system (TTSS) is simpler than the motor, fully functions, serves a purpose and uses fewer cells. Interestingly enough, it is physically structured EXACTLY like the flagellum motor. Similar to that credit card holder made out of mouse trap parts. I’m actually QUITE surprised you didn’t include this tidbit of info, since it is very easy to find when “flagellum motor, irreducible complexity” is searched. Of course, that would have ruined your entire argument.
Sickle Cell:
Why can’t there be both types, construction and deletion mutations? In fact, there are! So why is it necessary to say that, due to sickle cells being mutated by a deletion, all life is mutated and formed by ONLY deletion, thus a creator created? Because it would once again put gaping holes in your Hindenburg-esque arguments. As a side note, why attribute what we can’t explain to God? Not only is the argument from ignorance a logical fallacy, there are real cases in history where we did find the answer in science, when before it was attributed to divinity. For instance, the cause of left/right asymmetry of faces was unknown up until the 1990’s. But guess what we eventually found out? It was genetics not god that caused these imperfections. Given enough time, science will out. God will not.
In addition, heres a little video that explains (more than I did) how a flagellum motor was easily evolved out of simpler "machines".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
OK, I struggled a lot with how to format this, and this is what I came up with. For those responses of mine which were to specific comments, I included the comment in question in bold. For those of my responses which were to whole sections of your argument, I only included the heading or first sentence or so of your comment in bold. In these cases, it will make more sense if you re-read your sections before you read my response.
We would be doing science as a whole a disservice by ever going with our gut and saying: “Yes, evolution makes rational and scientific sense. There is NO way a misogynistic, infanticidal, regicidal, homophobic, xenophobic sky fairy created us”.
First of all, God is not misogynistic, infanticidal, regicidal, homophobic, xenophobic, or a sky fairy. He does not hate women: “Husbands: love your wives, just as Christ loved the church…” (Ephesians 4:21). Christ died a horrible death for the Church, even though we didn’t deserve it. Who hates women and expects husbands to treat them like that? He is not infanticidal, or Christians would all be in support of abortion. And from what do you determine that he is regicidal? As for homophobic, homosexual intercourse is sinful, not being homosexual. Is that any different than a compulsive criminal? They break the law by stealing, not by wanting to steal. And God shows no xenophobia; old testament nations which sinned greatly against him were punished, none more often than Israel herself. And he’s not a sky fairy. First of all, he exists outside of time, so he can’t really be in the sky, because the sky exists in time. And a fairy is a small, human-like creature with magical powers, which is a far cry from God.
1) Who created God?
God exists outside of time; he wasn’t created. “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day.” 2 Peter 3:8
2) Evolution, not god’s creation myth, is how we came to be.
I agree that evolution is how we came to be. We just disagree on what causes macroevolution.
3) The whole rest of science. As we learn more and more about ourselves and the universe, the less likely and necessary god becomes.
You’re assuming as you say that that we have God only to explain the unexplainable. If that were true, then we wouldn’t need Him. Since the premise of your argument is false, your conclusion is not valid.
4) The obvious man-made qualities of religion: Religion allows a dogma and agenda to be pushed without allowing discussion.
Anything can be misused, science included. Hitler used evolution to justify the killing of many physically inferior people. That doesn’t mean that science is evil, and neither does it mean religion is evil when it is misused.
5) The biblical contradictions
I couldn’t agree more! The word of God was incredibly carefully copied; I’m glad we’ve established that. Your reference to Leviticus defines a punishment for a crime, committed within the state of Israel. Jesus’ teachings that you should love your fellow man doesn’t mean that the state should ignore criminal acts. Endless forgiveness is a good thing for an individual, but there is nothing in the Bible that teaches that endless forgiveness is the way to run a state.
Acts 7:48: “The Most High does not live in houses made by men.” 2 Chronicles 7:12: “I have… chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices.” 2 Chronicles 7:16: “I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.” I don’t think you know the significance of God consecrating the temple. It was a sin to sacrifice anything except on the tabernacle described in Exodus 36. Previous to the consecration of Solomon’s temple in 2 Chronicles 7, this tabernacle resided in a tent. So the significance of the consecration of the temple is that sacrifices were suddenly only legitimate in the temple, not the tent. Furthermore, since God has no human form (save for Jesus), his heart and eyes being in the temple can not be literal. Rather, it is simply saying that this temple will be a temple of God; it is not saying that He will live there.
James 1:13: “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor can he tempt anyone.” Genesis 22 describes when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son. Then, just before he did it, an angel tells Abraham that he does not need to sacrifice his son and God blesses Abraham with the promise of descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky. He wasn’t being tempted to sacrifice his son, he was being told to. And there’s no sin in doing what God tells you to do, which leads us to your next example. 2 Samuel 24:1 says, “Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.’” A parallel account, 1 Chronicles 21:1 says, “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.” Both accounts show a different side of the same truth, just like the account of the military victory over the Canaanites in Joshua 11:23 says that the Israelites “took the entire land,” (insomuch as they laid claim to the whole territory and any straggling defenses couldn’t challenge them), but the parallel account in Judges 1:19 points out several specific areas that the Israelites failed to take. Each account shows a different side of the truth; one shows the victorious side, the other the side of failure. Just so, in this account you’ve brought up, God did not prevent Satan from inciting David to trust in the number of his men rather than in God. The Chronicles account shows the side that simply says what literally happened. The Samuel account shows the other side of truth, which God also wanted in his Word; that God deliberately did not stop Satan because he was angry at Israel. Jeremiah 20:7 is the first verse under the heading, “Jeremiah’s Complaint,” where he says: “O LORD, you deceived me and I was deceived…” What’s important to understand is that the Bible is a record of what happened, and it does not “endorse” everything within it. For example, Jeremiah is complaining and calls God a liar. That doesn’t mean that God actually is a liar, that just means that Jeremiah was upset and called God a liar. And Matthew 6:13, as Jesus is teaching the Lord’s Prayer, the last line is “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.” God can lead you away from temptation, right? So why not ask for His help? I see no contradiction.
6) The Impossibility of Omniscience and Omnipotence.
Neither can God make a triangle with no corners, or a tree that is both ten feet tall and thirty feet tall at the same time. A rock that God can’t lift is just like that; it is applying two mutually exclusive qualities to the same thing. It can’t be both a rock (something that God could lift) and unliftable at the same time, just like a tree can’t be both ten feet tall and thirty feet tall at the same time.
7) Once again, I could go on, but I’d like to see someone else pursue their own research.
Don’t sell yourself short! I’m willing to listen to all your evidence, especially what you have to say about the big bang.
And I haven’t even mentioned the Qu’ran yet…
We’re not arguing the Qu’ran here. We both agree that that is not the inspired word of God.
Anti-Theist:
Your whole anti-theist argument is irrelevant. You can argue how you think it would be awful if God did exist all you want, and I can argue how awful it would be if he didn’t, but what you or I think is better is completely irrelevant to reality. When was the last time you thought it would be nice if you’d done a little better on that recent essay or test? Did that make any difference in your actual grade? It didn’t for me.
And specifically regarding your point that religion validates whatever “holy wars” we wage with ulterior motives, but that’s not true. The only justified holy war is one waged at the command of God, and he hasn’t commanded that since long before Jesus came. Furthermore, God’s reason for destroying nations (whether they were Israelites or otherwise) was for their detestable practices (Deuteronomy 18:12), one of which was child sacrifice.
Moral Code?
Again, it IS the infallible word of God! I’m so happy we agree. But saying it isn’t open to interpretation is just stupid. That’s what people say when they’re trying to crush individual thoughts and rights. However, considering my church just changed their official statement of creed this summer, I’d say that my church agrees with me that the Bible IS open to interpretation. Regarding the death penalty for homosexual acts or working on the Sabbath, remember that those are laws for a nation that didn’t just “believe” in God, but regularly communicated with him in the form of prophets and like a thousand miracles. For example, they were in slavery in Egypt. God called down ten miraculous plagues on the Egyptians to convince the pharaoh to release them. He did, then changed his mind, and then God split the Red Sea so the Hebrews could escape. Then they wandered in the desert of the Sinai Peninsula for a forty years, and lived off of the bread that God provided them, following a pillar of smoke in the day and a pillar of fire in the night which showed where God wanted them to go. After their wandering was up, God led them into the land of Canaan, under the command of Joshua. They won victory after victory after victory against ridiculous odds, and even laid siege to the city of Jerusalem for only seven days when God caused the walls of the city fall down. So an Israelite working on the Sabbath would be the equivalent outright refuting God to his face, since it was commanded that none work on that day. And again, because of all the miracles that He preformed for the Israelites, they had no excuse to doubt. Homosexual intercourse is the same story.
Reference to E. O. Wilson:
This is a paragraph straight from the O E Wilson essay I talked about, entitled “Kin selection as the key to altruism: its rise and fall”:
The research on collateral kin selection was a thriving industry for three decades. Thanks to the detour given it by Trivers' correction of Hamilton's arithmetical error, kin selection theory opened a new realm of research on conflict in societies, fruitful not only in the study of social insects (Wilson, 1971; 1975) but also in parent-offspring studies (Trivers, 2002), genomic imprinting in developmental biology (Haig, 2002), and in evolutionary psychology, the human-oriented discipline spinoff from sociobiology (Betzig, 1997). The collapse of the haplodiploid hypothesis, reducing collateral kin selection to a weak dissolutive role, gives reason to place more emphasis on the ecological forces of colony-level selection, and hence the complex ergonomic devices of caste and communication that adapt colonies to those forces.
The works you referenced were from ’75 and ’78, this is his essay from 2005 pointing out the failure of the kin selection model. Instead, it talks about colony-level selection, which means that colonies should actually be treated like individuals, so the altruism within a colony would be simply the colony looking out for itself. Long story short, your argument is based off of completely outdated information, which invalidates your claim.
“All evidence as of now”:
If you want to know what I meant by “random,” I was treating evolution like a state function (forgive me for the chemistry jargon). Regardless of what happened from beginning to end, I say the end was pre-destined to be us and you say that the fact that we’re here is just fortune. Do you understand what I mean? And regarding my claim of evolution, I was simply pointing out that you don’t need to tell me that creationism is untrue, because I already know all about it.
Your wonderfully non-complex Flagellum:
Touché.
Sickle Cell:
Sure enough, sickle cell isn’t caused by a deletion mutation, and I said that it takes God to create. That was my error, I was trying to use the language to emphasize my point and I invalidated myself. I apologize. However, there is still a point to be made. While darwinistic evolution would dictate that sickle cell would spread through the population because it provides immunity to malaria. In evolution, this should happen essentially all the time, right? This is an example of the process that ends up creating new life forms, right? But not. A whole string of such mutations would lead to a race of sickly, diseased organisms. This is an example of how strictly random evolution would never work.
So here’s another way of looking at it. If you see the genetic sequence as being information, then to have a more complex organism, you need more information, right? But there is no example of a point mutation increasing the information of the genome. Someone who is a carrier of sickle cell doesn’t have more information, they have less, for the same reason that the sequence (abcdef) has more information than (abcaef); the second has less order, or a greater entropy, than the first.
From this approach, darwinistic evolution makes little sense. Suppose you start with a dog/wolf ancestor. Man takes the smaller offspring and breeds them together, and eventually ends up with a smaller dog. The larger offspring are bred into a larger dog. However, the smaller dogs now only have the small genes and the large dogs have only the large genes. Thus, the total information in either dog’s genes is less than the information in the ancestor’s genes. So if this sort of selection only reduces the information, how did we (humans) end up with so much? Certainly the first life form didn’t have more than us, or the problem of the origin would be impossible.
As for your evidence for Christianity (specifically) being right, I would love to hear it.
And now, you asked for evidence for Christianity. I’ll give you my one favorite piece of evidence, a prophecy of Jesus, from the book of Isaiah: “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed” (53:4-5). That sounds EXACTLY like Jesus. Not a lot like Him, exactly like Him. And that was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. You could say it was a clever forgery, but the book of Isaiah is in Jewish scriptures as well. Also, when Jesus died, every single one of his followers abandon him. After seeing him after the resurrection, all but one of his disciples (I think that’s how many) ended up dying as martyrs. Also, Saul was a Jesus-hating Pharisee for most of his life, until Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), whereupon he converted. He changed his name to Paul and ended up writing much of the New Testament, spent much time in prison, and was also killed for his beliefs. Now, I can’t say I’ve actually seen Jesus, but all these men did and were martyred for refusing to deny it. If you were them, would you die for something you knew was a lie?
Correction: I said that Joshua's army laid siege to Jerusalem, but I meant Jericho.
Apologies.
To begin this rebuttal, I must first admit that kin selection does not appear to work as well as I once thought. Regardless, I see an inherent need for you to explain with science what proof there is for god. As science can explain the seen AND unseen, the capacity for it to prove something like god seems highly likely. However, to date, NO ONE has found any proof for god’s existence. Your mention of the book of Isaiah is interesting because it is so flawed in premise. Simply because one “prophet” was able to imagine a leader who would be killed by imperialist Romans in the most common form of execution at that time proves nothing. Furthermore, as large portions of both the Bible and Torah are known to have been altered after their original publishing, the idea that this story is divine prophecy is ridiculous with out precise dates, historic facts and archeological evidence. In addition, as there is no mention of the name “Jesus” actually in the chapter and the description is SO vague, I have no choice but to laugh at this argument. Hah.
Your claims made without proof, however, don’t stop there. Your claim god wasn’t created, that he is outside of time. This is all well and good if you have facts to back it up with. Similarly, your view of evolution as a state function is ridiculous in the extreme. That claim could only be seriously made by someone ignorant to the basic facts of evolution.
These indiscretions in your thought, however, are nothing when compared to your claims on genetics and sickle cell disease. Firstly, the size of similar organisms is completely irrelevant to the amount of genetic information the organisms contain. Similarly, your entropy argument is groundless and rather stupid. You even claim point mutations as the only form of mutations. All utterly ridiculous. Moving on, you claim that we should see sickle cell disease all over. This is false because sickle cell can only be acquired when there is a selective pressure from the environment. This pressure is a malarias environment, most notably Africa, in which those with sickle cell trait (heterozygote) are helped and those with sickle cell disease (homozygous) are killed around age 5. This results in a population that predominately doesn’t have sickle cell disease. The entire phenomenon fits into the sound evolutionary and genetic facts. Of course, I suppose you would prefer the only other alternative hypothesis, that god hates Africans and made the disease so they would die. This is shockingly in character with how god is portrayed in the Bible, as a misogynistic, infanticidal, regicidal, homophobic, xenophobic sky fairy.
Misogynistic: this will be explained a bit later on
Infanticidal: “Happy shall He be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.” Psalms 137:9
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have,
and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” 1 Samuel 15:3
Regicidal: It’s a long quote; here are the chapter and verses: (Judges 4:17-24 NLT)
Homophobic: Have we forgotten Leviticus already?
Xenophobic: "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
Sky Fairy: god is a sky fairy because most people tend to think of heaven as being in the sky and a fairy because he is as make-believe as any other supernatural creature.
Finally, coming to god’s role in science, we see that throughout history, ALL religions have created gods to explain what was then unexplainable. While it is true we do not fully understand events such as the big bang, rest assured that science will yield the answers that religion dreads. A thousand years ago, Thor explained thunder, Apollo the sun, Pandora disease, Aphrodite love, Shiva death, and the Judeo-Christian god everything. Similar to the previous gods that no longer are needed to explain the obvious facts of the universe, god has failed to adequately explain anything and everything and as such must be relegated to the dustbin of history for what he is: a lazy attempt at truth, a sky fairy.
Science, however, as I have experienced, holds little sway with people of faith. Scripture has less potential for scientific critique, though the same cannot be said morally. Here’s a run down, top to bottom of scripture and stupidity.
“He does not hate women”- while perhaps not as blatant as the Muslim faith, in which the veil, mutilations and rape are commonplace acts of terror against women in the name of god, the Christian faith is certainly no less vitriolic. The creation myth in which Eve, not only being the downfall of man, was made from one of Adam’s ribs creates an image of women actually physically making men weaker. Saint Paul expresses fear and contempt for women. Heaven does not even make an offer of sex, showing how feared and hated everything female is.
The issue of sin is a terrific act of psychological warfare, as it forces children to believe that they are inherently sinners and that any of their loved ones who don’t belong to their specific sect of religion is going to burn in hell forever. A wonderful mindset for them to be raised thinking.
I was joking when I stated the bible was the word of god. That is of course ridiculous. As for the Leviticus reference, in no place does it state that the “law” is specific to Israel. So, the question is why aren’t you out killing homosexuals? Furthermore, WHY is homosexuality a sin?
The issue of a temple vs. a tent is an excellent example of religions man made origins. The consecration of the temple suddenly made sacrifice only legitimate in the temple, not the tent. Therefore anyone caught sacrificing in a tent (which is a much more common and affordable dwelling) would be killed. This allowed only people who were in high standing and wealthy a chance to sacrifice legitimately. This therefore allowed a “superior elite” class of “holy” men control over all sacrifices made in the name of god. Interesting how it really does serve a selfish, godless purpose.
The heart and eyes of god are strange. Why couldn’t they actually be there, invisible? It doesn’t have to be figurative.
The multitude of verse you quote are very interesting. Most notable is the mistake where the words “LORD” and “Satan” are interchanged in 2 Samuels 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. This seems to lend credence to the idea that not only is the majority of the bible made up, but that details can be changed to fit the writers own needs.
These quotes and more are truly disgusting. It appears that once an authority is deemed divine or at least above any other authority, all manner of atrocities can be freely committed. Indeed, questioning these edicts make the accuser a heretic and therefore a candidate for execution. Sounds a bit too much like Hitler for my tastes. Is the antitheist argument making a little more sense now?
The semantics of the triangle without any corners argument does nothing to disprove the rock parable. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the parable other than the fact it shows god being both omnipotent and omniscient impossible. There is no logical fallacy in that.
A holy war in gods name is pointless because as long as you claim to be divinely guided, that is all that matters. There is no proof that can be given for this, it must be taken on faith.
I am sure the billions of Muslims out there would disagree with you on which is inspired and which isn’t. How conceited can you BOTH be?
When it comes to child sacrifice, it is very like you to forget to put in the most famous account: Abraham and Isaac. What is so moral about that? Nothing.
Infallibility excludes interpretation. If something is unquestionable (infallible) then questioning its meaning (interpretation) is heresy. Remember what Martin Luther said? “Reason is the devil’s harlot”. As such, it is not okay for me to question the claims of Moses, the 10 plagues, the land of Canaan, etc. However, we all must. What historic / archeological / non-scripture based proof do you have for any of the biblical stories actually occurring.
The question still remains unanswered: WHAT PROOF IS THERE FOR GOD?
I was reading over some of the earlier posts and noticed a comment on no proof for evolution. Actually, there are numerous instances where speciation, which is strong evidence FOR evolution has been seen and measured.
These include
the Mayr bird
the mosquito Culex pipiens
the Larus gulls
the Ensatina salamanders
etc.
Needless to say, there is a bounty of information FOR evolution and ZERO for the alternate, creation view point.
Actually, as you said, all those are just examples of evidence, not proof. Proof is indisputable. But one way or another, I'm not going to do your research for you. If you have a point to make regarding these animals, do it yourself.
Your mention of the book of Isaiah is interesting because it is so flawed in premise. Simply because one “prophet” was able to imagine a leader who would be killed by imperialist Romans in the most common form of execution at that time proves nothing. Furthermore, as large portions of both the Bible and Torah are known to have been altered after their original publishing, the idea that this story is divine prophecy is ridiculous with out precise dates, historic facts and archeological evidence. In addition, as there is no mention of the name “Jesus” actually in the chapter and the description is SO vague, I have no choice but to laugh at this argument. Hah.
OK, let’s start with what my premise actually was: if a man is able to specifically prophesize the future, it must be an act of God. There’s nothing flawed with that premise. If it were a general “prophecy”, then it might just be chance that it came true, but this is a very specific prophecy. It says that the Messiah would be a lowly sort of man, which would not attract us to Him (a carpenter). It says that He would be despised and rejected by men (He was crucified, and all of His followers initially abandoned Him). It says He would be considered “stricken by God,” and sure enough, he was tried before the Jewish high courts as a blasphemer. He was, as predicted a servant (“He made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death,” Philippians 2:7-8) It also said that “by his wounds we are healed.” That is the central idea in all of Christianity (“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him might not perish but have eternal life,” John 3:16). That sounds pretty specific to me. But since you disagree, please show me one other person in history who fits this description. And regarding your mention of the altering of the Bible and the Torah, you already told me, “the argument of human’s inability to correctly transcribe god’s word makes no sense, because why on earth would they not faithfully copy down something that important?” Don’t go changing your story.
Similarly, your view of evolution as a state function is ridiculous in the extreme. That claim could only be seriously made by someone ignorant to the basic facts of evolution.
It certainly is not. I said that there is nothing in your theory of evolution which would dictate that the first life forms were destined to turn into humans. Therefore, we are here as a result of chance, at least according to you. If you think I’m wrong, how about telling me why instead of insulting me?
These indiscretions in your thought, however, are nothing when compared to your claims on genetics and sickle cell disease. Firstly, the size of similar organisms is completely irrelevant to the amount of genetic information the organisms contain.
But what I said was that it would take a whole lot of creating intelligible genetic information to turn a bacterium into a human. Regardless of size, humans have WAYYY more genetic information.
You even claim point mutations as the only form of mutations.
Actually, I never did such a thing, although I didn’t mention anything else. But any given mutation has at best a .1% chance of being beneficial (that’s a really conservative estimate). Any non-point mutations would be a series of at least 2 mutations. For 2 to be beneficial, your chances are one in a million. For three, one in a billion. So any non-point mutation would be exponentially less likely to be beneficial than a point mutation. That can’t possibly have the ability to create the sort of complexity that you or I are made of.
The entire phenomenon fits into the sound evolutionary and genetic facts.
Hardly. The only reason that a population with sickle cell has any benefit in natural selection is because sickle cell kills the population slower than malaria does (once 18% of the population are carriers that ceases to be the case). Evolution is supposed to produce animals which are stronger, but as sickle cell mitigates through a population, the population would become weaker. You said, “This is false because sickle cell can only be acquired when there is a selective pressure from the environment,” but that’s wrong. Sickle cell spreads just like any other STD, whether there is environmental pressure or not.
Infanticidal: “Happy shall He be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.” Psalms 137:9
And the previous verse is, “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us—he who seizes your infants and dashes them against rocks.” (NIV) This is a psalmist speaking who is obviously pissed at Babylon for exiling the Jews. The book of Psalms contains expressions of almost every emotion, including intense hatred. This phrase just goes to show how pissed off this psalmist is; it is not an example of God being infanticidal.
Homophobic:
The law in Leviticus was calling for justice. You said, “Why is homosexuality a sin?” and I tell you… AGAIN… it’s not. It’s only a sin to be having homosexual intercourse. Why is that a sin? Because God said so.
All the other –cidal’s:
Every example you cite fits into the category of God’s Justice: “because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you,” (Deuteronomy, 9:12). God used the Israelites to bring judgment onto sinful people. As a God of justice, that’s within his power.
Sky Fairy:
You’re assuming as you call God a “sky fairy” that He doesn’t exist. Since that’s the topic in question, you can’t be making that assumption in this context, because that’s assuming that you’ve already won.
The creation myth in which Eve, not only being the downfall of man, was made from one of Adam’s ribs creates an image of women actually physically making men weaker.
Actually, contrary to what Mr. Hlawaty says, the original sin is traditionally blamed on Adam. “…[S]in entered the world through one man…” (Romans 5:12) Shortly after this passage, Adam is mentioned several times, but Eve isn’t mentioned at all. And God said that “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). Eve’s image is that of a helper, who makes Adam stronger, not weaker.
Saint Paul expresses fear and contempt for women.
Oh really?
Heaven does not even make an offer of sex, showing how feared and hated everything female is.
Actually, Heaven is a place where people will “neither marry nor be given in marriage” (Luke 20:35). That implies that there is absolute equality between men and women.
The issue of sin is a terrific act of psychological warfare, as it forces children to believe that they are inherently sinners and that any of their loved ones who don’t belong to their specific sect of religion is going to burn in hell forever. A wonderful mindset for them to be raised thinking.
Find me one kid who feels the way you describe. I know dozens of children at my church, and I’ve never met one like that.
As for the Leviticus reference, in no place does it state that the “law” is specific to Israel. So, the question is why aren’t you out killing homosexuals?
First of all, Leviticus starts off with God telling Moses, “Speak to the Isrealites…” (Leviticus 1:2). So while it doesn’t explicitly say that it is the law specific to Israel, it is heavily implied. Furthermore, the law “was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come we are no longer under the supervision of the law,” (Galatians 3:24-25). That is to say, the law could only bring death, but Christ brought life. We were shown the law so we would recognize sin and the need to be saved, but not to gain righteousness. Now, since we are no longer under supervision of the law, we are no longer called to try to gain merit by the law.
The issue of a temple vs. a tent is an excellent example of religions man made origins. The consecration of the temple suddenly made sacrifice only legitimate in the temple, not the tent. Therefore anyone caught sacrificing in a tent (which is a much more common and affordable dwelling) would be killed. This allowed only people who were in high standing and wealthy a chance to sacrifice legitimately. This therefore allowed a “superior elite” class of “holy” men control over all sacrifices made in the name of god. Interesting how it really does serve a selfish, godless purpose.
A while ago you implied that you had completed a “thorough reading of the Bible.” How much truth is there in that statement? You answer that, and then I’ll respond to this comment.
These quotes and more are truly disgusting.
If you have so many more quotes, please share them.
A holy war in gods name is pointless because as long as you claim to be divinely guided, that is all that matters. There is no proof that can be given for this, it must be taken on faith.
On the contrary, leading a “holy” war which really isn’t divinely guided is the equivalent of mass murder. I shudder to imagine God’s punishment for that.
When it comes to child sacrifice, it is very like you to forget to put in the most famous account: Abraham and Isaac. What is so moral about that?
Remind me again when Isaac was sacrificed?
What historic / archeological / non-scripture based proof do you have for any of the biblical stories actually occurring?
Lots. We’ll start with the discovery of over fifteen thousand tablets from the city of Ebla (third millennium BC). There are several biblical towns referenced which were previously unconfirmed. The land of Canaan also appears in these. The tribute received by Solomon was previously considered to be a wild exaggeration, but now is not. Furthermore, many of the religious practices of neighboring countries described in the Old Testament were also validated. Specific Hebrew words used in the Torah, which were thought to have been created after the Torah was written, have been found in these tablets. Also, flood myths occur independently by Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Agonquins, and Hawaiians. There is even a list of Sumerian kings which treats the flood as a historical reference point. Regarding the Tower of Babel, there is Sumerian literature which alludes several times to the fact that the entire world spoke only one language. Archaeologists found a tablet which explained how Ur-Nammu, a king of Ur from roughly 2000 BC built a really big tower, but the gods were angry and struck it down, scattering people across the earth and scrambling their languages. That sounds almost identical to the biblical story.
The question still remains unanswered: WHAT PROOF IS THERE FOR GOD?
The better question is “what evidence,” because God will make sure there is never indisputable proof until Jesus returns. God values faith highly, and there is no faith where there is indisputable proof. But here’s some evidence:
What about the Green Woodpecker? Its tongue is so long that it starts in its throat, wraps around its skull (in a muscular sheath under the skin), and then out a hole between its eye sockets, in one nostril, and then into its mouth. Tell me, how does that evolve?
What about DNA? It was recently estimated that 562,000 base pairs are the minimal amount of base pairs necessary to sustain life, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7729508). How do 562,000 base pairs simultaneously form DNA in the correct order to begin life? And furthermore, the DNA replication process requires, among many other things, ribosomes, which each require about 50 proteins. The average protein requires 500 amino acids, which each require 3 base pairs. That means ribosomes require about 75000 base pairs of DNA, but they’re used to create the DNA. It’s like the chicken or the egg. How can evolution explain that?
Rereading our arguments, it was interesting how both of use relied heavily on bible verses throughout. The inherent problem with this is that the verses are only relevant to this discussion if god exists. As such, using biblical passages presupposes god’s existence, which is certainly NOT, in any way, categorically proven. I therefore move that we get this conversation back on course and use science, reason and logic, not fairytales, to argue our individual cases. So, moving on…
Firstly, let’s clear up the passages issue. The name “Christus” was found in a Roman government document dating from around the time Jesus was supposed to exist. Other than that, there is merely anecdotal evidence for Christ’s actual existence. As for the biblical “evidence” to support this claim, unless the existence of god is PROVEN, that really is not evidence in any way. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that the gospels were written long after Jesus’ supposed death, including the fact that the earliest gospel, that of Mark, was written in Greek, not the local Aramaic language. But lets forego fairy tales for know, it’s up to science to prove the existence of a god. And speaking of a god, why not believe in any other number of gods? Why not belief in Zeus, Thor, Shiva, etc..? All the followers of those gods, past and present, had surely as much conviction as you that they were right. And yet you claim that they aren’t. Why?
Why can we not be here as a product of chance? Why is that so hard to believe? Simple life forms had to evolve eventually and, given enough time, become more intelligent. It only seems miraculous to us because we actually exist. Let that sink in.
Yes, humans have more genetic information. That is not what you were talking about.
Yes, a beneficial mutation is fairly rare. However, despite the odds against an individual mutation being beneficial, natural selection means that when one does appear, it will quickly dominate a population.
Okay, sickle cell disease….. I suppose the first thing I noted was the arrogance, hate to say it. What makes you think hundreds of other scientists haven’t dissected the sickle cell phenomena to figure out if it fits the rules by which it should be governed? Is it some conspiracy to keep down the sky fairy? Do scientists just want to kill god because their “mean”? Or is it just possible there is no conspiracy theory, no cover up and one kid from Colorado, with no graduate level biology schooling, hasn’t discovered a flaw in the genetic theory? Which is more likely?
Now, sickle cell will only occur (I know I said acquire, whoops) if selective pressure allows it to occur. This is true. Otherwise, why is it we only find sickle cell (ignoring existing personal cases that emigrated elsewhere) in malarial areas? That is because sickle cell will only spring up if there is malaria in the area. As long as it increases life expectancy in the majority of the population (which it does) that is all the matters biologically and genetically. Sickle cell does NOT disprove ANY genetic or evolutionary theory and, by the way, is not an STD. That’s the end of it.
Well, the next few points were verse related, and I’m not getting into those again. We’re debating god’s existence, not morality, though I would be more than happy to get back to that at a later date.
I have said, and will continue to say, sky fairy, because the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim FOR existence. The null hypothesis, that god doesn’t exist, must be assumed if there is not incontrovertible proof to the contrary. So sky fairy it is, at least for me.
Uh, the whole Adam / Eve thing really boils down to this. A man was created and then mutilated, weakened to produce a companion. That companion then expresses fallibility and weakness that the man does not and consequently get the both of them thrown out of paradise. Further proof for the hate of women need is found in the purification rituals they must go through whenever they “succumb” to biology.
Merely that YOU don’t know any people who have suffered this psychological terror does not invalidate the point. Indeed, several of my friends from our Catholic preschool have had this idea beaten into them. And man, the great mental things that does…
“The issue of a temple vs. a tent is an excellent example of religions man made origins. The consecration of the temple suddenly made sacrifice only legitimate in the temple, not the tent. Therefore anyone caught sacrificing in a tent (which is a much more common and affordable dwelling) would be killed. This allowed only people who were in high standing and wealthy a chance to sacrifice legitimately. This therefore allowed a “superior elite” class of “holy” men control over all sacrifices made in the name of god. Interesting how it really does serve a selfish, godless purpose.
A while ago you implied that you had completed a “thorough reading of the Bible.” How much truth is there in that statement? You answer that, and then I’ll respond to this comment.”
Well, where did I go wrong? It all seems fairly truthful to me. And that implication is your fault, not mine. I never claimed such a thing.
How do you know if a war is divinely guided or not? Would that proof not rest with the leader, whoever that may be?
Of course Isaac wasn’t sacrificed. But the idea that anyone would attempt such a thing to please as sky fairy is truly terrifying and as good a case for the immorality of religion as I can think of.
So some of the biblical events actually occurred, so what? It is interesting they are all only the most mundane of events, such as certain religious practices. Where is the wreckage of the Tower of Babel? Where is the geologic evidence for the flood? Where is any other corroborating evidence for any of these claims? One truly interesting thing was your mention of a Sumerian tablet “alluding” to the “whole world” speaking one language. Tell me, how big was the “whole world” in to Sumerians at that time? Was it really the whole world or simply as far as anyone from Sumeria had traveled?
The green woodpeckers elongated and contorted tongue would allow for better cushioning and protection for the birds brain and skull, thus allowing it an evolutionary advantage. It is highly possible that the tongue evolved into its current shape for that reason.
As for the genetics problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc&feature=channel_page
The problem with a god existing is that so far, we do not see any need for a god to exist in order to explain the world around us.
If you have any scientific proof which is not faith related, that proves god exists, please let the world know. But the problem with proving sky fairies exist is that it is an exercise in futility. They don’t exist and won’t, no matter how hard facts are skewed and misinterpreted.
WHERE IS THE PROOF?
"We should be open minded, but not so open minded our brains fall out"
Words to live by.
Firstly, let’s clear up the passages issue. The name “Christus” was found in a Roman government document dating from around the time Jesus was supposed to exist. Other than that, there is merely anecdotal evidence for Christ’s actual existence.
Here are some Roman historians:
Cornelius Tacitcus (c.AD 55-120): “Christus, the founder of the name [that is, Christianity], was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea…”
Lucian of Samosta (second century): “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.” He goes on to mock Christianity but never assumes that Christ didn’t exist.
Thallus wrote a history book, dated at 52 AD, which no longer exists but has been quoted by other historians. Julius Africanus said (around 221), “Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died).” Not only does this show that Christ was killed, but it shows that Thallus did not doubt the fact that a darkness came over the land during the crucifixion (recorded in Matthew 27:24).
If you do not find those sufficient, I can show you more. The truth is though, there is at best a very small number of educated historians who will tell you that there is any doubt that Jesus existed.
As for the biblical “evidence” to support this claim, unless the existence of god is PROVEN, that really is not evidence in any way.
(I’m assuming when you say “this claim” you are referring to the claim that God exists) So are you telling me that a prophet describing in detail the life and message of Jesus seven hundred years before Jesus’ birth doesn’t validate God? Why not?
In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that the gospels were written long after Jesus’ supposed death
How long? And why is that significant?
The earliest gospel, that of Mark, was written in Greek, not the local Aramaic language.
It only makes sense that the Gospel of Mark would not have been written in Aramaic. The only Gospel that was written for Jews was the Gospel of Matthew, which is why he uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” instead of “kingdom of God”—to respect the Jewish tradition of never writing down the name of God. So if Mark wasn’t writing to locals, why would he use the local language?
Why not belief in Zeus, Thor, Shiva, etc..? All the followers of those gods, past and present, had surely as much conviction as you that they were right. And yet you claim that they aren’t. Why?
Praise God that correctness doesn’t follow conviction, or Jews would be evil because Hitler believed it, blacks would be evil because the KKK believed it, and Australian Aborigines would be considered sub-human, since evolutionists used to believe it. The point is, it doesn’t matter how much conviction anyone has, the truth is exclusive. That is to say, two conflicting things can’t be true. Since I believe I’m right, it follows logically that all those other religions can’t be, even if their followers disagree with me. The reason I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior is because of specific prophecies in the Old Testament, and otherwise unexplainable phenomena in the New Testament. For example, if none of Jesus’ disciples saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, why did they almost all die as martyrs for claiming so? If Saul, an ardent Christian-hater from before they were even called Christians didn’t have a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, why did he become one of Christianity’s strongest spokesmen (after he changed his name to Paul)? And then there’s the scientific evidence. More on that later.
Why can we not be here as a product of chance? Why is that so hard to believe?
Well apparently it is, because there are over six hundred professional scientists (with PhD’s) who have signed a form of official dissent from Darwinism which says: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Simple life forms had to evolve eventually and, given enough time, become more intelligent.
Actually, they didn’t have to. Point mutations are too destructive to be the driving force in evolution. We agreed that only one in a thousand point mutations are beneficial. That means that there are about 999 negative mutations for every positive mutation. This means that negative mutations accumulate far too quickly for evolution to continuously create healthy creatures. Everybody knows that inbreeding within a small population causes the rise of numerous genetic problems. They are so harmful that the Florida Panther population was almost extinct until related panthers from Texas were introduced into the population to curb the inbreeding. How can point mutations possibly be the driving force behind evolution?
Yes, humans have more genetic information. That is not what you were talking about.
Yes, actually it was what I was talking about. Here, I don’t think we’re talking with the same terms. When I say information, I’m referring to the word in the mathematical sense, which is “what is conveyed or represented by a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, etc.” Information is regardless of medium; that is to say the phrase “In God We Trust” contains the same amount of information whether it is conveyed with a bunch of raised metal on a coin or if it were converted into 1’s and 0’s. The genome contains information because it is interpreted to create proteins. So when I say humans contain more information than bacteria, I don’t just mean that we have a longer genome, I mean that we have more information on our genome. However, there is no recorded instance of a mutation increasing the information on a genome. Ever. Yet somehow evolution claims that the difference in information between the human genome and the simplest bacterium (which is several orders of magnitude) arose out of random mutations. So if this sort of thing happens all the time, why don’t we have any record of it?
Yes, a beneficial mutation is fairly rare. However, despite the odds against an individual mutation being beneficial, natural selection means that when one does appear, it will quickly dominate a population.
So what about the 999 negative mutations for every beneficial mutation which are attached to the same genome? Do those spread around too?
Or is it just possible there is no conspiracy theory, no cover up and one kid from Colorado, with no graduate level biology schooling, hasn’t discovered a flaw in the genetic theory? Which is more likely?
Thanks for the credit, but I’m just presenting other people’s ideas.
Sickle cell does NOT disprove ANY genetic or evolutionary theory and, by the way, is not an STD. That’s the end of it.
OK, first of all, I don’t know what I was thinking when I said it was an STD, mibad. But I’m not saying that it disproves any genetic theory. Microevolution dictates that it would spread throughout a population in the presence of malaria. However, this is an example of a mutation which is a decrease in genetic information (in the mathematical sense of the word). It is an example of how microevolution exploits a shortsighted evolutionary advantage, which is actually negative to the species in the long run. The force that drives microevolution in this case is actually driving against macroevolution, which depends on constantly increasing information.
If you still don’t understand what I mean by information, speak now, because it’s pretty important that we know what each other mean.
I have said, and will continue to say, sky fairy, because the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim FOR existence. The null hypothesis, that god doesn’t exist, must be assumed if there is not incontrovertible proof to the contrary. So sky fairy it is, at least for me.
Now if that were true, then I would be calling evolution a fairy tale (since I would be inclined to assume the null hypothesis until you present incontrovertible proof to the contrary). You don’t see me doing that because the purpose of a debate is to be a little more open-minded than that.
Uh, the whole Adam / Eve thing really boils down to this.
Uh, it really doesn’t. Just because you can misinterpret it that way doesn’t mean that you’re correct. This isn’t some sort of new critical perspective where anything that can be supported is valid. But if you still feel you are correct, then show me somewhere else in the Bible that indicates it, as I already have used a separate passage to support my stance.
Further proof for the hate of women need is found in the purification rituals they must go through whenever they “succumb” to biology.
I’m glad you brought that up. There were lots of qualifications for something or someone to become ceremonially unclean, including the emission of any of several bodily fluids, whether that be a woman’s period or a man’s semen. The rules of uncleanliness for this subject made it very clear that such discharges should not be touched, and anybody who did had to wash themselves. Now, we have our own rules for uncleanliness. It is commonly known that you shouldn’t touch any such discharges because they can spread some nasty diseases. It only validates the Bible’s claim to divine inspiration that there is a record of such an advanced code of hygiene (this part recorded in Leviticus 15) long before any humans understood it.
Merely that YOU don’t know any people who have suffered this psychological terror does not invalidate the point. Indeed, several of my friends from our Catholic preschool have had this idea beaten into them. And man, the great mental things that does…
Well I’m sorry you went to such a preschool, but that reflects poorly on the school, not on God.
Well, where did I go wrong? It all seems fairly truthful to me. And that implication is your fault, not mine. I never claimed such a thing.
Then I suppose it’s a good thing I asked, because all this time I’ve been thinking you had read the Bible. The truth is that changing the place of sacrifice from the tent to the temple formed in no way a socioeconomic barrier because prior to the temple, sacrifice wasn’t allowed ‘a’ tent, it was allowed in ‘the’ tent. There was only one tent before, and only one temple after, and everyone was allowed—no, required—to sacrifice in either case.
How do you know if a war is divinely guided or not? Would that proof not rest with the leader, whoever that may be?
Simple logic would provide proof. For a war to be divinely guided, it could only be led by a theocratic nation. God would never use America to lead a holy war (or at least I would highly highly doubt it) because we are not his people. We’re a melting pot of those who are and those who aren’t. Also, it probably would be led by somebody who is correct in their theology, or at least close, because if God can talk to them then it seems likely that he would correct anything they had wrong. Were you wondering about any specific war?
Of course Isaac wasn’t sacrificed. But the idea that anyone would attempt such a thing to please as sky fairy is truly terrifying and as good a case for the immorality of religion as I can think of.
Then I guess you missed the symbolism in the deed. Since Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was barren until God opened her womb to give Abraham a son, Isaac was a living representation of God’s gift to Abraham. By asking Abraham to give this gift back, God was testing Abraham’s alliance: was it with God? Or with the world? Abraham passed the test simply by being willing to give his most prized possession back to God, and God sent an angel at the last minute to tell Abraham to not sacrifice his son, so Isaac was never in danger to begin with.
So some of the biblical events actually occurred, so what? It is interesting they are all only the most mundane of events, such as certain religious practices.
These things may seem mundane to you, but the verification of the Bible’s descriptions of religious practices shows that it is actually a valuable anthropological artifact, with accurate descriptions of the cultures of the day. And besides, if it is found to be accurate in these “mundane” things, does that not validate it’s claims of divine things?
Where is the wreckage of the Tower of Babel? Where is the geologic evidence for the flood?
You know as well as I do that the lack of remnants of the Tower of Babel prove nothing one way or another. However, there is plenty of geological evidence for a flood. Take fossils for instance, fossils are supposedly formed over long periods of time under typical conditions, but why aren’t there any fossils being created today? Ok, there are, but not on the same scale that you see buried all over the earth. Flood conditions, unlike everyday conditions we see everywhere else are ideal for forming masses of fossils. They are also known to create the layered-stone effect that you can see in the grand canyon. In fact, the flood caused by Mt. St. Helens’ 1982 eruption resulted in a complex system of canyons about 1/40th the scale of the Grand Canyon, complete with like 30 feet of rock layers which had been laid down in a matter of days. Furthermore, if the Grand Canyon had been laid down over millions of years and cut by the Colorado river, then you would expect faults in layers formed during one time period to not continue into the next layer, since the next layer was formed much later. However, in the Grand Canyon, there are almost no examples of such “buried faults.” That suggests that the layers of the Grand Canyon were formed with no long periods of time between them.
Where is any other corroborating evidence for any of these claims?
I like that. You ask for evidence, I show you evidence, and then you ask, “Well, is there any other evidence?”
Tell me, how big was the “whole world” in to Sumerians at that time? Was it really the whole world or simply as far as anyone from Sumeria had traveled?
Frankly, neither you nor I can KNOW that. But can you think of one literate society which isn’t or wasn’t aware of another language in a bordering nation? And Sumeria certainly had bordering nations. We’re talking about the most civilized nation of its time, it is only logical that they would have known about other languages, had there been any.
The green woodpeckers elongated and contorted tongue would allow for better cushioning and protection for the birds brain and skull, thus allowing it an evolutionary advantage. It is highly possible that the tongue evolved into its current shape for that reason.
Actually the evolutionary advantage is that it can have a really long tongue for catching insects, but I wasn’t asking you if there was an evolutionary advantage. I asked you HOW it evolved. From what animal did it come? There isn’t another animal with a tongue like that, and I can’t conceive of any series of transitional forms as that tongue evolved. Can you?
As for the genetics problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc&feature=channel_page
So this is basically an extension of abiogenesis. However, there are a couple of huge flaws with this theory. First of all, as cdk007’s abiogenesis video states, early genomes would have contained zero information. Then somehow they mutated into having information. While he presents this as the only logical course of action, there is as of yet NOT ONE example of any mutation creating information. How could that have occurred so often then but yet we have no examples of it, whatsoever?
Secondly, amino acids come in both right-handed and left-handed forms, as well as short and long forms. This theory offers no explanation as to why life only uses short, left-handed forms.
The problem with a god existing is that so far, we do not see any need for a god to exist in order to explain the world around us.
How many times do I need to tell you? God isn’t something we create to explain the unexplainable. God exists because he exists, not because we don’t understand the world. But your also wrong about the fact that we can already explain the world around us. From an evolutionary standpoint, there is not an ounce of evidence as to where birds came from.
If you have any scientific proof which is not faith related, that proves god exists, please let the world know. But the problem with proving sky fairies exist is that it is an exercise in futility. They don’t exist and won’t, no matter how hard facts are skewed and misinterpreted.
WHERE IS THE PROOF?
How has my scientific evidence been “faith-related”? Are you implying that any scientific evidence that supports my claim is inherently invalid?
Here’s a quote to think about. While it is largely believed that fossil evidence hugely supports evolution, that is completely false. Animals all the way back to Precambrian times are consistently fully developed in whatever form of animal they are. That is, ancient squid are a whole lot like current squid. Furthermore, there is not a single example of a transitional form in the fossil record, however there should be thousands! Well, here’s the quote; take notice of who spoke it.
"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'" Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History)
Isaiah's Prophecy of Jesus
The first issue we must examine with regards to Isaiah's and his prophecy of the Messiah being born of a virgin, born in Bethlehem, etc, etc, ridiculous Stone Age babbling, is this:
When were these passages ACTUALLY written? What if they were written after Jesus existed? Then how crazy would it be that those "prophecies" came true? Second, even if these passages were written around 750 B.C.E., the prophecy's are still NOT proven. True, Jesus could have been one of the many other babbling "holy" men in Jerusalem at that time. However, recent archeological evidence supports the idea that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem but Galilee. In addition to the discrepancies of where he was born, the idea that Mary was a virgin at the time is summed up in one word: ridiculous. There is no evidence for that ever happening, just as there is no evidence that parthenogenesis is ever possible in humans.
Aramaic vs. Greek
The story that Mark WAS a local and WAS writing for the area around where he lived makes it likely that he would have used the local language of Aramaic. However, the gospel of Mark was written in Greek? Why? If it truly had been written by him, why in that non-native language? Possibly, because it wasn't written by Mark, as is suggested not only be the language choice but also because the original document dates to around 100 C.E
"Prophecies and Miracles"
The same "if Jesus didn't rise again" question could be equally rephrased this way: If the Islamic Paradise doesn't actually exist, why did 19 people fly planes into three buildings?
Could "crazy / deluded" provide a good explanation? Speaking of roads, how could a Good Samaritan exist before Christianity, if Christianity is necessary for morality?
Dissent From Reason
In researching this very, at least at first glance, damning list, in came to several revelations (ha-ha). First this list was put out in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, as a way to discredit Darwinism and advance Intelligent Design into mainstream science. Fortunately for scientist and people everywhere, it is clear ID is NOT science and thus cannot be taught in schools ( Kitzmiller v. Dover Pa BOE). Interestingly, "the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". Furthermore, the "scientists" do not have a comprehensive (with examples, peer reviewed journals, etc.) reason for dissenting and refuse to give any ulterior theory to Darwinism.
Mutations
Actually, we don't agree. There are about 3 deleterious mutations for every 175 mutations, the majority of which are null mutations (Nachman and Crowell, 2000). A good amount of the mutations are harmful but a significant portion are also beneficial. hardly a 1:999 ratio. In addition, harmful mutations are rarely passed along, while beneficial mutation (like certain β-hemoglobin mutations, i.e. like sickle cell trait) are passed along. In addition, keep in mind that a mutation will be beneficial depending on the environment in which it occurs. Sickle cell would be terrible for people living in Sweden but great for people living in Uganda.
Dawkins Pause: Can a mutation cause an increase in information in a genome?
Well, lets forgo your incoherent definition of "information" for the time being. Has there been a recorded instance in which a mutation has increased the information in a genome? Yes. Besides the idea and examples being covered in four books, The Blind Watchmaker, River out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, A Devil's Chaplain, numerous experiments have demonstrated an increase in information in a genome due to mutations. Instances include increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; C.J. Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Freidman, 2003; Ohta 2003), novel genetically regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995) and increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991). In addition to observed larger scale signs for increased genetic material through mutations, there are numerous recorded genetic instances, such as a gene known as RNASE1 mutating into a new gene with more information, known as RNASE1B, which actually functions better than its predecessor.
Sickle cell mutation again
Look, lets first recognize we are not dealing with math but with biology, so lets top referring to information in genes as a mathematical idea. The evolutionary advantage is in no way shortsighted and does not drive against macroevolution. If this idea were true, then the fact we still have vestigial organs would also indicate no macroevolution (only one problem: it doesn't)
Sky fairy
Sky fairy
Leviticus and cleanliness
How many other animals eat their own waste? Do they all have their own little bibles telling them that eating certain things is not good?
Isaac and Abraham
NO decent person would attempt to sacrifice their own child, no matter what was asked of them. Last I checked infanticide does not equal morality. Neither does stoning children for disrespecting their parents or killing someone for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
Tower of Incoherency, The Flood Delusion, etc...
Well, the lack of remnants does make it less likely, especially if you are looking in the place where it was said to exist. If your argument is true, then the lack of evidence for unicorns doesn't prove anything either way. Fossils are being formed today, they are under your feet at this very moment. The same scale? How can you know until you come back in a few million years? The layered stone effect is nice, but all the different layers have been dated with any variety of methods and ALWAYS produce the same results: each layer is a few thousand, if not a few million, years older than the layer above it. The Grand Canyon doe snot lie over any major faults and so it would be shocking only if we DID find faults there. By the way, why do we only see one grand canyon? A world wide flood should have produced at least one other. It has also been suggested that a sub glacial lake (small sea really) was actually the cause for the Grand Canyon, which is backed up by archeological and geologic data and would have cut the Grand Canyon in a few days. This explanation for the canyon also explains where the water came from and went, which the flood myth does not. perhaps you have some insights?
The woodpecker
The tongue performs a twofold task, cushioning the brain and catching insects. Simply because you can't figure it out doesn't mean someone smarter hasn't. Which they have: Ryan, R. 2003. Anatomy and evolution of the woodpecker's tongue. From now on, could you please refrain from arguments from incredulity? Please?
Genetics
Firstly, did you not read the peer reviewed article form which he made the video? Secondly, if I may quote:
"DNA could have evolved gradually from a simple replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999, Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Bӧhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA - all without protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003)."
Amino Acids
Once again, I would love to quote:
"Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Cronin and Pizzarelo 1999). The weak nuclear force responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth. Some bacteria use right handed amino acids too (McCarthy et al. 1998)."
Transitional fossils
Your right, there are no transitional fossils.
Except for these:
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus andCalamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
Protacanthopterygians
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega andIcthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostegashould be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster,Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g.Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilianjaw joint.
Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon,Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g.Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a doublejaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
Transition from reptiles to birds:
Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
Protoavis -- this is a highly controversialfossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
"Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
"Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornisand Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
[note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
Homo habilis.
Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning).
[I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent
Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
[yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land.
Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (afterPakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
[note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis.
Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears.
Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
Meanwhile back at the ranch,
Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.)
Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above)
Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
[Perissodactyls are animals with an oddnumber of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth
Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to toTetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
[The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers]
Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
'Merychippus' primus -- a more typicalMerychippus, but still very like Parahippus.
Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth.
Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
Protapirus -- a probable descendent ofLophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout.
Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional betweenProtapirus and the modern Tapirus.
Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs.
Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx,Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finallyCamelus, the modern camels.
Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx,Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus(with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much sincePalaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus cameGiraffa, with elongated legs & neck, andSivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.
So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils.
(http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm)
That quote
When asked to name things that are true, no scientists should say anything. Science can never truly prove much of anything, it can only assemble mountains of evidence pointing strongly towards one conclusion. Semantics, yes, but none the less important. The idea that it should not be taught in school however is ridiculous in the extreme.
So.... where is the proof for a god?
Post a Comment