I'm Just Askin'...
1. Given the fact that hominids, in something approaching modern forms, have walked the Earth for between 100,000 and 200,000 years, why did god, who ostensibly is interested in human salvation, wait so many tens of thousands of years to reveal himself and explicate the means by which to be saved?
2. Why do atheists who otherwise make consistently good arguments, and seemingly have a firm grasp on the issues, choose to believe, and advocate on behalf of, the superstition of objective, prescriptive morality, when, clearly, scientific investigation of the natural order can only tell us what is, while telling us nothing of what ought to be?
3. Inasmuch as, according to the Christian religion, sinful man is redeemed--is granted salvation--by his saving faith in Jesus Christ, if there is an eight-year-old boy who lives in a remote, tribal part of Africa, or perhaps South America, and who dies at that young age with Jesus' message of salvation having never penetrated his village, what becomes of him?
4. Why do atheists who are intimately acquainted with Darwinian theory, and who comprehensively understand universal common descent, persist in the superstitious, speciocentric belief that humans, apart from the rest of our Tree of Life brethren, are special and, in some nebulous way, meaningfully different from everything else that has evolved?
5. Why do some Christians, when they hear that a prominent atheist, such as Christopher Hitchens, has gotten sick, fall all over themselves to declare (seemingly gleefully) that god has inflicted the disease as a "public humbling" when, in nearly every case, the same Christians would probably decline an offer to walk around a cancer ward and inform the patients that they are being humbled by the deity?
2. Why do atheists who otherwise make consistently good arguments, and seemingly have a firm grasp on the issues, choose to believe, and advocate on behalf of, the superstition of objective, prescriptive morality, when, clearly, scientific investigation of the natural order can only tell us what is, while telling us nothing of what ought to be?
3. Inasmuch as, according to the Christian religion, sinful man is redeemed--is granted salvation--by his saving faith in Jesus Christ, if there is an eight-year-old boy who lives in a remote, tribal part of Africa, or perhaps South America, and who dies at that young age with Jesus' message of salvation having never penetrated his village, what becomes of him?
4. Why do atheists who are intimately acquainted with Darwinian theory, and who comprehensively understand universal common descent, persist in the superstitious, speciocentric belief that humans, apart from the rest of our Tree of Life brethren, are special and, in some nebulous way, meaningfully different from everything else that has evolved?
5. Why do some Christians, when they hear that a prominent atheist, such as Christopher Hitchens, has gotten sick, fall all over themselves to declare (seemingly gleefully) that god has inflicted the disease as a "public humbling" when, in nearly every case, the same Christians would probably decline an offer to walk around a cancer ward and inform the patients that they are being humbled by the deity?
posted by The Jolly Nihilist at 9:20:00 PM
50 Comments:
1). It is written that Adam, the primordial man [symbolizing the earliest humans, the hunter-gatherer society], walked together with God in Paradise. That Abel and Cain [symbolizing the first shephards and land-tillers] sacrificed their first-fruits unto God. That Noah, during the Great Flood [at the end of the Last Ice Age] held converse with God. -- So the Bible paints a picture of a continuous relationship between God and makind throughout all ages.
3). Acts 14:16 and 17:30.
4). Because no other species are equipped with reason, feelings, conscience, self-consciousness and will in the same way humans are.
Lvka,
Thanks for the response.
With respect to point one, I give you credit for not adhering to the scientifically untenable Young Earth creationist position, but I think your explanation still leads to problems. Looking at this summary of hominid evolution, your position provokes several questions.
* Did god have a relationship with Australopithecine species, or did god's involvement not begin until the genus Homo developed?
* When you refer to walking together with god in paradise, are you referring to species like Homo erectus and Homo ergaster? Was Homo neanderthalensis part of this communion with the deity?
* If god waited until modern forms of Homo sapiens first appeared about 195,000 years ago, did he have little to no interaction with Earth for the billions of years preceding modern Homo sapiens' development?
* If modern forms of Homo sapiens are so important--so central--to god's purposes with respect to Earth, why have humanlike creatures been around less than one-hundredth of one percent of Earth's natural history?
With respect to point three, I want to home in on Acts 17:30, which reads, "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." Inasmuch as the phrasing "all people everywhere" seems comprehensively inclusive, I would have to think that the boy to whom I referred would not be forgiven for his ignorance, as this is no longer "the past" and god no longer "overlooks such ignorance." The tribal boy I posited was not historical, but contemporary (or, at least, post-biblical).
With respect to point four, why should reason, feelings, conscience, self-consciousness and will be judged "special" or "value-adding" as traits? I mean, why not deem number of legs the principal value-adding trait? Why not deem number of offspring the principal value-adding trait? What is the objective standard according to which reason, feelings, conscience, self-consciousness and will are important? Ultimately, to me, the standard, whatever it is, seems arbitrary.
As Eastern Orthodox, I have no problem with mystery, so my answer to many of your first questions from the list is "I don't know".
Another answer would be something like this: our parents also took care of us eversince we were in the womb, but we weren't aware of that until we've developed better self-conscience and memory at about three years of age.
I've seen you repeat this question in many of your posts, and I don't recall if I've actually posted the answer to it or not before, but here it is [again?]: the Bible also has mankind appearing at the very close of creation, on the eve of the sixth (and last) day.
(Why not sooner than that, you ask? Well, why do you first build the oven, kindle the fire, buy the rolling-pin, get the flour, water, and salt, AND ONLY THEN prepare the bread, bake it, and FINALLY eat it, if it was *bread* that was actually so important this whole time?)
"The boy" did not hear the Gospel. The "times past" refer to the period prior to hearing & becoming acquainted with the Gospel. (The Gospel never spread to China, most of India, and Sub-Saharic Africa, let alone Australia or the two Americas, until fairly reccently in human history).
Sentience is fundamental, and so is life. (That's even why God is a Trinity: because His Sentience and His Life are Persons, not something impersonal -- but I digress).
As Eastern Orthodox, I have no problem with mystery, so my answer to many of your first questions from the list is "I don't know".
Another answer would be something like this: our parents also took care of us eversince we were in the womb, but we weren't aware of that until we've developed better self-conscience and memory at about three years of age.
Of course, inasmuch as our knowledge is far from comprehensive, we must accept the existence of puzzles for which we do not yet have the answers. However, my purpose in introducing the hominid evolutionary timeline was twofold: I also wanted to show the basic, fundamental incompatibility between the bible and the actual evolutionary record. Nothing in the bible - nothing at all - alludes to ape-like hominids who slowly, over a few million years, become more like modern humans. I mean, the Adam and Eve tale was not written with Australopithecines in mind. Clearly, the bible authors knew nothing of human origins.
I've seen you repeat this question in many of your posts, and I don't recall if I've actually posted the answer to it or not before, but here it is [again?]: the Bible also has mankind appearing at the very close of creation, on the eve of the sixth (and last) day.
(Why not sooner than that, you ask? Well, why do you first build the oven, kindle the fire, buy the rolling-pin, get the flour, water, and salt, AND ONLY THEN prepare the bread, bake it, and FINALLY eat it, if it was *bread* that was actually so important this whole time?)
The respective histories of this planet and this planet’s biodiversity are not at all similar to a recipe for making bread, inasmuch as there is no reason to think that Earth’s formation, and subsequent Darwinian evolution thereon, was all building toward humanity’s existence. Something like 98% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. The Tree of Life is anything BUT a steady progression to humanity. Humans, instead, are one tiny branch, off a tiny branch, off a tiny branch, off a tiny branch. When Earth has been around for 4.54 billion years, and modern humans have been around for about 195,000 years, one should be careful about positing humanity’s centrality to anything - whether earthly or, especially, cosmic.
"The boy" did not hear the Gospel. The "times past" refer to the period prior to hearing & becoming acquainted with the Gospel. (The Gospel never spread to China, most of India, and Sub-Saharic Africa, let alone Australia or the two Americas, until fairly reccently in human history).
I think you are reading implications into the verses that are not actually there.
Acts 17:30-31 says this: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
If the bible meant to say what you did, why did it not just say that? Why did it not just say, "In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people who have heard the message to repent"?
Sentience is fundamental, and so is life. (That's even why God is a Trinity: because His Sentience and His Life are Persons, not something impersonal -- but I digress).
I do not see how this addresses the original question. Remember, the original question was posed to atheists, just as three of the questions were posed to Christians. On an atheistic worldview, what could possibly be the objective standard by which to judge "special" or "value-adding" traits?
Because as far as matter is concerned, the whole universe is made of it. But nothing in this vast universe, except for humans, possesses these things that we talked about.
The vast majority of matter is lifeless, senseless and unsentient (99% of it is hydrogen and helium burning at obscene temperatures).
- Only plants, animals, and humans have life.
- Of these, only animals and humans possess senses.
- of these, only humans possess sentience (self-awareness, consciousness, reason, will, and feelings).
As far as other characteristics are concerned, every thing has them. Every thing has color, or dimensions, or time of existence. But life and senses and sentience are different categories altogether; they are not degrees of other properties. -- Do you understand now? (i.e., they constitute "fundamental" or "independent" things... they're not combinations or intensities of other things). -- Am I making myself clearer?
No, the biblical authors were obviously not aware of evolution, but why do you think that such an obscenely-detailed narration of pre-human history would've helped their readers become holier and purer persons?
Another thing I wanted to say: you must see Genesis in the same light as Daniel or Revelations: namely as a prophetic book, only this time about a very distant past, not the future.
The reason I interpreted the passage in Acts that way is because of other things written in the Bible which go hand in hand with it. E.g., "those to whom much is given, much is asked of", or -another one, more to the point-: "if I hadn't have spoken to you, you would have no sin in you", etc.
Something which comes at the end is usually the "conclusion" or `epithome' of the things that have gone before. (technological and scientifical modernity vs. the knowledge and tools of times past; etc.) -- The same for human beings.
I'm sorry to hear Hitchens has cancer. (I've only now clicked the link). :-(
1. B/c He wanted to.
2. Good question. I'd suggest applying it to question 1.
3. God hasn't informed us of this fact. And you'll probably never know unless you repent of your own sin and trust Christ.
4. Great question. I'd suggest applying it to question 3.
5. B/c Hitchens is an arrogant, blasphemous mocker and a boor. It probably IS a humbling, an indicator to Hitchens that he needs to repent.
At the same time, many many people have called for prayer for him. I haven't seen one dancing on his grave until this link.
I'm sorry you don't know too many consistent Christians, but I would certainly include that as part of a presentation of the Gospel to a dying person. At the same time, most people in the cancer ward are not arrogant blasphemous boors like Hitchens, and so they're less outlandish in their arrogant rebellion against God.
However offensive Christopher Hitchens might have been to Christians - or to their deity, for that matter - I continue to believe that, whenever a disease or an affliction is portrayed as “righteous justice,” “a public humbling” or someone “getting his just deserts,” it is a slap in the face to every individual who is suffering from that disease, inasmuch as the clear implication, at least to me, is that each of them, too, must have done something considerably heinous to have been stricken with an affliction that, ostensibly, is a recognized form of celestial punishment for boorishness, arrogance, blasphemy and mockery.
it is a slap in the face to every individual who is suffering from that disease
The consistent nihilist wouldn't say that. He'd shrug.
At the very least, with respect to castigatory diseases, we are both consistently inconsistent.
How am I inconsistent? The Bible allows for both of these facts, so I affirm both.
Insofar as, unless you want to open yourself to the charge of an ad hoc assault against Christopher Hitchens, you must hold that esophageal cancer - as well as, presumably, other cancers - is a recognized form of celestial punishment for boorishness, arrogance, blasphemy and mockery, it would seem that any attempt to separate the punitively afflicted from those who, by sheer, unfortunate circumstance, came up ill would be inescapably arbitrary, a consequence of which, I feel, is to insult and demean everybody who suffers from god’s preferred castigatory diseases.
esophageal cancer - as well as, presumably, other cancers - is a recognized form of celestial punishment for boorishness, arrogance, blasphemy and mockery
It is a result of the Fall of Man, and man is vulnerable b/c of sin. We all ratify the Fall when we sin, and we sin abundantly.
The Bible speaks of diseases that are for the glory of God (John 9), b/c God just plain wanted to (Exodus 3), and also for punishment (Miriam, Gehazi). It could be any of these, could be a combination. I affirm that all 3 are possibilities, w/o specific knowledge of why Hitchens has cancer.
sheer, unfortunate circumstance
This might be your disconnect in understanding and in falsely accusing me of inconsistency. The Bible knows nothing of "misfortune" - God ordains all that comes to pass.
to insult and demean everybody
So what?
1) This doesn't demonstrate my inconsistency. I thought that's what you were trying to do.
2) The consistent nihilist would shrug.
(1.)The assumptions underlying this question are the truthfulness of evolutionary theory and that it would be wrong (granting your first assumption) for God to wait as long as he did. I reject evolutionary theory as 19th century philosophical quackery superimposed onto things like the fossil record. But granting the evolutionary worldview for the sake of argument I must ask: How would a "morally nihilistic" person have any basis upon which to question God's timing?
(2.) You are correct that it would be more consistent of an atheist to not affirm objective, but rather subjective morality. But again the underlying assumption in your question is the existence of an "ought" or "ought not". From where does this come in a nihilist's thinking? Why does it bother you? I would argue that the atheist (you included) is not able to be consistent in this area because he/she is created in the image of God and therefore has an awareness of objective morality whether it is wanted or not. The inconsistency is a result of the fight which the atheist has picked with his or her conscience.
(3.) Again what underlies your question is an errant assumption. In this case the assumption is the innocence of the eight year old. (You've also implied an objective morality again) The scripture (confirmed by experience) affirms the sinfulness of man from his conception. This eight year old may or may not be mature enough to have engaged in full on rebellion against his creator. If this is the case then he will spend eternity in Hell. I confess theological ignorance when it comes to the state of those too young to have a mature understanding of right and wrong as it pertains to their own rebellion against God.
(4.) Is it wrong to think this way? If so, why; and how would a nihilist come to that conclusion? To answer your question: Because we are created in God's image and the athesistic, darwinian, evolutionists know it. This is the same internal fight I spoke of in my response to question 2.
(5.) More implied "oughts and ought nots". Are you really a nihilist? Furthermore, I read the article and the author did not refer to Hitchen's cancer as a public humbling. He spoke hypothetically of Hitchen's repentance and how that would be a public humbling. You've completely misrepresented what was said. For now I will assume that it was an honest mistake on your part. Was it? Lastly, I watched part of an interview of Christopher Hitchens recently and he seems to think that while there are some christians taking a certain perverse pleasure in his illness, there are more who are praying for him to get well, saved, or both. So I think your broad generalization is unwarranted.
I hope these answers from a mostly unlettered layman are in some way edifying or useful.
1. I appreciate your refreshing honesty vis-à-vis your rejection of Darwinian evolution by natural selection as “19th century philosophical quackery.” In turn, I should make clear that I reject the bible as the mostly lunatic ravings of semi-stupefied, pitifully ignorant, mostly primitive Bronze Age desert tribesmen. I quibble with god’s timing because, as I wrote in the question, according to the aforereferenced lunatic ravings, god ostensibly is interested in human salvation, which would seem to provide some impetus to lay out that path.
2. My question is not meant to imply an “ought” or “ought not,” but merely to inquire as to why somebody would hold beliefs, including moral ones, that are devoid of supporting evidence (in this case, the non-existent evidence to support objective morality). Theists love to psychoanalyze atheists, pretending that, rather than calling out religion for its lack of evidence, we are rebelling against god: it is untrue and, to the extent that your worldview entails said rebellion, your worldview is wrong. Morality has evolved considerably over the millennia, from what I would deem the barbarity and tribalism of the Old Testament to the consensus view today, which, incidentally, mostly exists across faiths and geographic areas.
3. Aside from your curious choice to subscribe to the doctrine of hell, which, even in the sea of ludicrousness that is Christianity, seems especially rooted in primitivism and the ignorance of its time, you have mistaken my purpose in asking the question. If the Christian message, as I have often heard, is that sinful man is redeemed through saving faith in Jesus, it would seem to me practically obligatory for god—omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.—to ensure the message penetrated everywhere, so people...you know...would know of Jesus. However spiritual they might previously have been, isolated populations begin to worship Yahweh (and can have saving faith in his son) when believers in Yahweh arrive at their shores.
4. It is “wrong” to think this way because it is contrary to the established facts; perhaps, rather than “wrong,” it would be better to say “incorrect.” Similarly, your explanation for the phenomenon is also incorrect. I chalk it up to intrinsic human speciocentricity and self-importance. Much as we had to learn that Earth holds no special place in the cosmos, we also must accept that humans hold no special place in the evolutionary Tree of Life.
5. The only implied “ought” and “ought not” to be found in the question is a wink toward consistency, which some Christians rather flagrantly betray when they attribute Hitchens’ illness to “sinfulness” when, if their grandmother suffered the same fate, that would probably not be their first explanation for her malady. Your accusation of misrepresentation is false and questioning of my motives tiresome. The writer says, given Hitchens’ public rebellion against god, a public humbling might be required. He implies that esophageal cancer, through which the deity could force Hitchens to his knees, might be the perfect avenue to do that.
Keep making rejection of Darwinian theory and fidelity to young Earth nonsense integral parts of your faith. When you do so, taking down Christianity becomes immensely easier.
I quibble with god’s timing because, as I wrote in the question, according to the aforereferenced lunatic ravings, god ostensibly is interested in human salvation
Then it's a good thing I'm a Calvinist.
My question is not meant to imply an “ought” or “ought not,” but merely to inquire as to why somebody would hold beliefs, including moral ones, that are devoid of supporting evidenc
Why not? You do.
it would seem to me practically obligatory for god—omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.—to ensure the message penetrated everywhere, so people...you know...would know of Jesus.
Suppose God didn't want everyone to know of Jesus. (Ie, Calvinism.)
when they attribute Hitchens’ illness to “sinfulness” when, if their grandmother suffered the same fate, that would probably not be their first explanation for her malady.
It could be b/c of sin or it could be for that plus other reasons, in both cases.
Just b/c ppl who are ignorant of the Bible prognosticate, that's not a good reason to feel guilty myself.
Hi Luis,
If the most thoroughly scrutinised science in existence counts only as "philosophical quackery", you might like to fill us in on what should replace it
What God said happened. After all, He was there. You weren't, and neither was Dick Dawk.
Your "Bronze Age" comment commits the genetic fallacy and also the bias of modernity. Logical fallacies and prejudicial bias are no place to begin a rational conversation, but that's generally par for the course for Internet naturalists/selective skeptics.
And I'd like to know what makes you think evolution happened the way most modern Darwinians think.
How does their "support" for their hypothesis usually go down?
Let's see.
Assume uniformitarianism without argument? Check.
Failure to interact with Henry Gee's _In Search of Deep Time_ and mindlessly repeat old canards about the utility of the fossil record? Check.
Failure to interact with Cambrian explosion? Check.
Assume that, when you lack fossils to form even a feeble defense, it is definite that they were NEVER there and NEVER went extinct and that we just haven't yet found their fossils? Check.
Failure to recognise that any experiment performed by intelligent agents is actually evidence of intelligent design? Check.
As for the old age of the Earth, what about that?
Assume uniformitarianism without argument? Check.
-With respect to tectonics? Check.
-With respect to half-lives? Check.
Assume you have any useful info about the quantity of decay at the time of creation. Check.
Circular self-reference as argument (à la Jerry Coyne and appeal in between isotopes)? Check.
So, what was your argument, again?
Luis,
Call me crazy, but I am not that impressed with the scientific community's claim to self-scrutiny. The darwinists are just as dogmatic as any religious institution.
As to your point on point #2: I don't see how you position differs in substance with that of the consistent, materialistic atheist who says we are not special in any way.
Hi Luis,
Then you don't know the scientific community
Hahaha, I know it all too well.
Granted, some (many?) scientists cling onto their ideas with dogmatic zeal.
So you take with one hand and give back with the other.
Yeah, Luis, it's MANY.
However, most scientists would LOVE to be the harbingers of some radical new shakeup that overthrows the prevailing orthodoxy.
Blah blah blah. I don't blv stuff like that until I see evidence of it.
Since ID has defeated Darwinism and since since pretty much all your "evidence" is actually evidence for ID, I have every reason to disbelieve that faithful, pious statement from you.
As for Darwinism (or at least the fact of evolution): the basic tenets are not in error.
I've never heard anyone argue that, say, mosquitos don't in fact evolve into...mosquitos.
What I"m looking for is evidence that amœbæ evolved into giraffes or sthg. You know, evidence that your position actually takes place.
They've been confirmed to such an extent by masses of overlapping evidence from disparate fields
Prove it. Give me your best 5.
being dogmatic doesn't preclude one from being right.
Oh, can I quote that back to you the next time you whine about those evil creationists?
You don't like their tone
You must enjoy shadowboxing. Where did I say that?
So, bats are birds, right?
So, you're a novice at this, right?
spirits and other logically incoherent entities
Prove that spirits are logically incoherent entities. I'm chuckling at you now. You're emoting. You're a good acolyte. They've got you right where they want you, man - you're their tool.
...said your prescientific nomads
1) Please prove God didn't ALSO say that, THROUGH said prescientific nomads.
2) You have quite a butt-clenched definition of science. You think they never did any experiments at all? None? Never saw repeated events and drew conclusions from those observations? How could you possibly prove that?
Oh wait - you can't and don't care to. We've seen that many times here already.
And neither were you, meaning that you have no "objective basis"
That's just a stupid statement. GOD WAS THERE and He said how it went down. The text is objective and static. Doesn't depend on me at all.
Overlapping evidence from disparate fields that all fits the predictions derived from Darwinian theory
1) Question-begging doesn't count as evidence.
2) If a given datum is explicated under Darwinism AND under YEC (I'm YEC, FYI), it's not evidence for either side.
Uniformitarianism, in the sense of laws of nature that remain constant over an appreciable length of time, aren't an "assumption", they're a requirement of our existence. Why? Because if we lived in a universe that was precariously unstable, we wouldn't be here to talk about it since the requisite processes needed to bring us about wouldn't have been able to get under way
Doubt I could've said it better myself.
Now, you can take un-ism on blind faith, and that's OK - just admit you're doing it. It's pretty clear but y'all usually prefer to smokescreen and cover up that fact.
The question is: If naturalism is true, how can you acct for that assumption? Saying "We're here, so, you know, duh" isn't an answer - it's an expression of blind faith. The Muslim could just as easily say "Allah is real. How do I know? We're here, so, you know, duh."
but I suppose that for someone who doesn't actually care about physics and chemistry
Not a big fan of correctly characterising opponents, eh?
the way in which the physical universe actually behaves won't matter since the non-physical mind-stuff vapor cloud called God can always come along and tinker as Rhology sees fit.
1) Another strawman. Not as *I* see fit.
2) You're just begging the question wrt uniformitarianism, and also you fail to recognise the challenge that the problem of induction offers to your position. But that's OK - you have faith!
also, how when one DOES apply uniformitarianism, the Darwinian narrative fits the actual observations beautifully.
1) Then it's just as funny how, when one DOES apply the Bible, the Christian narrative fits the actual observations beautifully.
Huh - crazy how that works. Now justify your assumption. All you're saying so far is that if you make a so-far-unjustified assumption that y'all made up, it all works out.
2) And the facts DON'T fit.
when predictions are made from Darwinism, and the observations are then made
That sounds a lot more like ID than Darwinism.
because Tiktaalik roseae, a transitional form of the sort that evolutionary theory PREDICTS should exist
Prove that Tiktaalike had any children. Go ahead.
I'd encourage you to actually read Gee's book.
even though you don't see any need to justify your own (genuine) assumption that the unstable God universe is more plausible than the stable Godless one I'm purporting
Right, that's why I have a 5-year old blog doing just that all the time.
Don't these strawmen ever tire you a bit?
your cognitive faculties have been utterly decimated by years of religious indoctrination and self-reinforcing guff
Coming from someone who has no reason to think ANY human's cog faculties reliably produce true beliefs, that you think that doesn't bother me.
that the science used to construct the very computer you're using to spout your asinine propaganda
OOoh, Strawman #4! You must be under the mistaken assumption that the Xtian worldview does not support science. Or you're being dishonest b/c you're apparently a bit of a stuck-up jerk.
since this very SAME science tells us that Mr Darwin knew quite a bit more than the ancients.
Or maybe the ancients knew not to make the same unjustified assumptions Darwin did.
If humanity had been constrained to use your "logic", we'd frankly still be burning witches.
1) Prove you know anything about Xtianity beyond your skewed strawman, and prove it.
2) Prove there's sthg morally wrong with burning witches, on naturalism. Why is that a bad thing? After all, if they weren't strong enough to avoid such a fate, it's more like a helpful thing that they were removed from the gene pool.
If you can't prove either, let the reader note how ridiculous you sound - why should anyone listen to you?
The Cambrian Explosion? As in: the whole Burgess Shale shebang? Surely not.
Um, yes. The very one.
If so, you'd know that it bares NO RESEMBLANCE WHATSOEVER to Genesis...there was plenty of stuff happening BEFORE the CE
1) You're apparently having difficulty following the argument so far. Let me help - we're talking about NATURALISM, not YEC. So what's your explanation ON NATURALISM?
2) I'm YEC. God created Adam and the rest of the organisms, and Eve, and the Earth, as mature specimens. Not as fetuses.
representatives of many of the phyla present today don't even APPEAR until much later than the Cambrian, which kind of makes a mockery of your "God dunnit"
Why? Uh oh, not more self-referential question-begging about the age of fossils that you can't prove had children. You're not doing that, right? You'd look like a fool if you were, so hopefully you'll think a bit deeply and give a good reason.
don't try using science to bolster your Bronze Age mythologies
Man, thank God you're here to tell me not to do what I'm not doing!
I'll "interact with" the Cambrian explosion any day of the week.
Please do. Start now. I'll give you a mulligan on your first 4 tries just now.
"Your "Bronze Age" comment commits the genetic fallacy and also the bias of modernity."
Translation: using reason is beyond the pale, and we must revert back to modes of thinking from a time when people believe
So, no answer. Noted.
I mean, you don't even care that you re-committed the genetic fallacy! What conclusion should a truth-seeker draw about you when you don't care that you engage in fallacious reasoning?
"Logical fallacies and prejudicial bias are no place to begin a rational conversation,"
While rejecting the whole field of evolutionary theory is?
1) You know, maybe I have good reason to do so.
2) Go ahead, prove that evolutionary theory is as well-attested and foundational as is logic itself. Have fun.
"but that's generally par for the course for Internet naturalists/selective skeptics."
And the world's most proficient scientists, apparently
1) Yes, it's quite obvious that many, especially the most loud-mouthed, scientists are complete novices when it comes to logic and philosophy.
2) And you couldn't have thrown them under the bus any better than you just did! Luis gives good backhanded compliments - "the world's most proficient scientists" care little for their logical fallacies and prejudicial biases. Hahahahahaa. That's pretty funny stuff.
Rho,
In answer to "you might like to fill us in on what should replace it", you said, what God said happened." How do you know that God said that the earth was created with all species in place about 6000 years ago? What if you're wrong? How would you know?
"Then you don't know the scientific community........ However, most scientists would LOVE to be the harbingers of some radical new shakeup that overthrows the prevailing orthodoxy."
Oh, you mean like I.D.? Yeah, you're right. There has been no dogmatically motivated backlash against that idea. Oh, before you say it, I.D. proponents are not all young earth creationists with a religious agenda. So save that little canard for an argument with someone else.
"Finally, being dogmatic doesn't preclude one from being right."
Thank you.
"can you marshal any arguments against Darwinism?"
Yes. The information stored in DNA is unmistakable evidence for creation. In fact, I go so far as to say it is proof and not mere evidence; as evolution from one thing to another (even a simple jump like scales to feathers) requires new information. Information doesn't just happen. It must be given. In other words evolution is not even possible.
I should clarify that when I say "evolution isn't even possible" I refer to the idea of gradual, upwardly mobile permutation of the natural order from simple to complex.
(1)
hi Luis,
it makes no difference at all to whether the actual arguments on offer are true or not.
True, so I won't belabor it, since even producing the requested evidence wouldn't change your mind.
Having worked in the life sciences (unlike you)
Haha, I love how you assume you know anythg about me.
The cover of Nature and Science always have some new, exciting discovery that’s touted as importantly changing some aspect of our understanding of the world.
And? Are you under the mistaken impression that the Xtian worldview looks down on science as a good way to discover truth?
As a matter of fact, all science under a naturalistic worldview commits a logical fallacy, so I'm not too impressed by your fallacious discoveries.
I must have missed the memo about the collapse of Darwinism.
Yep. But since it's fallacious reasoning and b/c the very premise of evolution argues against naturalism, and b/c there's no evidence for Darwinism, you really have nothing going for you. Sorry. :-(
Too bad that the ravings of a creotard blogger
Hmm, didn't you just finish telling me: "even GIVEN this, it makes no difference at all to whether the actual arguments on offer are true or not"?
not the macroevolution clearly visible in the fossil record
Please prove that ANY organism found in the fossil record had children. Don't assume it. Prove it.
comparative genetics,
All that comparative genetics proves is that two or more organisms share similar genetic structure. Prove (w/o assuming) that this is relevant to Darwinism.
morphology
Proves that two or more different organisms share similar...morphology. So what?
biogeographical distribution of animals and plants (which utterly destroys the expectations of the Genesis dispersal model).
How so?
Nowhere does evolutionary theory say that an amoeba “evolved into” a giraffe in the caricatured sense you’re clearly trying to invoke.
Either you're dodging very obviously or you're very ignorant of what creotards like me are asking when they say that.
Where is your evidence that organisms turn into other organisms over time? Don't assume it exists. Prove it.
(3)
why all the platyrrhine, and not a single cararrhine, in South America?
Why? All YOU can tell me is that they happened to end up there. My explanation is at minimum the same. How is yours any better?
There were once platypuses in what is now Argentina, before what is now South America broke away from Gondwana and became separated from what would become Australia.
1) Ah, b/c you found what you think is a fossil there?
2) What precisely about species going extinct or 2 diff populations ending up in diff places militates against YEC?
2) ...molecular markers...can therefore act as neutral markers for degree of relatedness
I'm looking for an argument to the effect that this proves Darwinism and is inexplicable on YEC. See, molecular markers prove...that these molecular markers exist. W/o your assumptions in place, they tell you nothing in particular. You assume the conclusion before you arrive at your conclusion.
So do I, but only I recognise it.
There is no reason for the trees constructed from one marker to resemble another
Hahhaa, even on the weak sister of Xtianity - ID - this is easily explainable! Please.
Ready? God used the same code for multiple species. Not that hard, Luis.
A creation model would predict a chaotic mismatch of phylogenies, because such phylogenies wouldn’t reflect common ancestry since it wouldn’t be there.
1) An assertion in search of an argument.
2) Who among YEC-ers thinks DNA doesn't degrade over time?
3) If you think it's weird that DNA would degrade in the same way, that's just another argument from ignorance. Tiresome.
what evidence would we expect to find if creationism is wrong?
That's a great question. Why not bring some fwd and let us know? That's YOUR job, not mine.
3) Observable evolution and its mechanisms...
I'd love for you to show me Darwinian mechanisms in action, doing what you claim it can do. Show me a beetle that evolved into something that's not a beetle. YOu know, sthg that's actually in question. So far, this is a big fail on your part.
Thus a beetle can qualify as a kind, even though the beetles constitute an entire Order of some 350,000 species. That’s a LOT of allowable evolution for one “kind”
Now give me an argument why I should accept the oft-changing Darwinian taxonomy you're assuming here.
That’s a LOT of allowable evolution for one “kind”, especially in only 6,000 years
Like I said, why would anyone be concerned that a beetle evolved into...a beetle? Help me out.
but they do this at the cost of ignoring the evidence from geology.
1) Um, that's your 6th. Cheater.
2) Please prove that rocks tell time.
3) If you appeal to radioactive dating, please prove that you can know with certainty how much decay was present at the starting point.
4) The underlying structures found in animals shared with other animals, again in a hierarchical pattern similar to that found in genes. One doesn’t find mammals with bird-like wings
Again... hahhaa, even on the weak sister of Xtianity - ID - this is easily explainable! Please.
Ready? God used the same structures for multiple species. Not that hard, Luis.
(4)
God wouldn’t have been constrained by this; he could have made bats to have bird-like limbs rather than limbs that closely resemble the arrangements found in non-flying mammals. Or he could have made a mammal with its photosensitive cells the right way around, like what we see in the cephalopods.
1) OK, now I am going to throw out a Hovind-ism. Cephalopods like octopuses live in the water. Did you know that?
2) Why would He do so? Go ahead and make the argument. Of course He COULD have. How is this an argument for your position?
Finding a dog with a different genetic code, or a bat with feathers, would put the theory of evolution in grave jeopardy.
Um, a bat with feathers wouldn't be a bat. It'd be a diff kind of organism. That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in quite a while, I'm sorry to say.
These small exchanges are rampant in microorganisms, which routinely swap genetic material.
1) Again, you ASSUME they did. You can't observe it.
2) If you can observe it within a human lifetime, please prove that your human intervention and observation did not affect the outcome. That's going to be hard, since you have to observe it, thus introducing intelligent intervention...which makes ID more plausible than your own fantasy. Sorry.
God could just start off with a clean sheet of paper for each organism, and could have produced something that would clearly falsify a key tenet of evolution: genealogical affinity
Yawn. You haven't given us any reason to accept your position yet; to give more would be a bit of overkill, I should think.
What we see in animals is emphatically unlike what we see in cars, or houses or computers.
Hahahahahaa! Yep, and those are designed. LOL @ fideist Darwinist.
if we suppose that God made animals, then God made everything to look as though it evolved by designing things to conform powerfully to a prediction derived from evolutionary theory and which, if counter-examples were produced, would have fatally wounded the theory.
This assumes your own conclusion, that the evidence actually does point to Darwinism's truth. You have to prove that first before you can move on to figuring out why fundies think like they do. I'm getting more and more pessimistic.
5) The fossil record.
Again, prove any fossilised organism had children. Prove it, don't assume it.
Let's see - below you sort of address it -
Prove that Tiktaalike had any children. Go ahead.
You really are one disgusting charlatan. Here’s the prediction, moron: things like Tiktaalik should exist.
Haha, fail. No argument given, just mockery. Now, why would that not be "invoking Mammy Nature and Papa Darwin" on your part?
OK, your "best 5 evidences" are over. Wow, that was refreshing - nothing new, and nothing good.
Moving on...
That’s because you’re irrational enough to think that minds can exist outside of physical media like brains
Prove it's irrational.
You know what else exists immaterially? Thoughts, colors, numbers, logical laws, desires, dreams, ideas, value, meaning, morals, and many other things. This is a novice move; try again with more sophistication.
(5)
clearly define what you even mean by a spirit, rather than vacillating between different definitions having nothing to do with each other.
1) Which I of course haven't done (vacillate, that is).
2) You know, since you're on teh 1nterwebz, you could go to dictionary.com just as easily as I. A spirit is a conscious, incorporeal (and I'd add immaterial) being, as opposed to matter.
How do you imagine that this non-physical mind interacts with the physical universe?
1) Thru spiritual power. He's the Creator - He can do what He wants.
2) The God I posit is far, far bigger than I or anyone can fully understand. How would pointing out that there's sthg I don't understand about Him be an argument against His existence?
1) Please prove God didn't ALSO say that, THROUGH said prescientific nomads.
I don’t have to prove a thing. You’re the one making the claim that the Bible is God’s word.
Um, you made the positive claim. So, you refuse to back it up, eh?
As for me, my position is that nothing is comprehensible w/o God's existence and His revelation. I don't conclude it, I presuppose it. You'd have to show an alternative worldview that accts for rationality to compete.
They of course had SOME conception of what we would call the scientific method (nothing like the brilliant insights of the Greeks, though), but it didn’t suffice to move them past the ravings of liars
So the presence of liars and the fact that some, or even many, ppl fall for them is a reason not to think that a population conducted science?
I give you the massive amt of ppl who hold to astrology in the modern West! Science is now disproven!
Prove that the things in the Bible could not have been invented by people at the time or been misinterpretations of natural events
Fulfilled prophecies couldn't've been.
Further, until you can bring fwd an alternative to explaining rationality, I'm not concerned with your long-range mudslinging. Your worldview is irrational, so I yawn at such uppity talk.
You’re the one who has to demonstrate them to be more rational and likely than the naturalistic, mundane alternative.
You're a philosophical naïf. Again you beg the question that the naturalistic explanation is "mundane", that "mundanity" is the key to truth, and that your position is even possible, let alone probable. Probable compared to what, exactly?
That's just a stupid statement. GOD WAS THERE and He said how it went down.
Something you can’t show (what I said), because you weren’t there.
I'm sorry you're having trouble following here, but do try at least. IF my position is correct, God's telling me how it went down is a perfect explanation.
What I'm pointing out to you is that you claim a superior level of knowledge but you weren't even there; you have zero access to how it went down. Your explanation is an argument from ignorance, a Darwinism of the gaps.
“Objective”, on the basis that its adherents say it is, which “therefore” makes it so.
...And a category error. The fallacies just keep on coming.
It's objective in the sense that text is objective. The Bible is not changing. It's not ad hoc. Anyone can read it. Just like your (and my) comments.
Each piece of evidence is taken against a backdrop of other evidence, and it’s the mutual agreement of these data that together corroborate evolution
And since inductive reasoning is always fallacious, you prefer a huge heap of fallacious reasonings rather than just one. Hahaha, OK.
Darwinism also says what would count against evolution; YEC doesn’t stick its neck out in this way
I'd settle for ANYTHING. 'Twould be a great start for you.
Besides, since YEC is true, I would indeed expect it to acct for everythg. Up to you to bring sthg fwd to get us started.
(6)
instead retreats to safety when the storm gets too rough by simply invoking “God did it”.
Really? Quote a YEC-er doing that. Just one.
(Since you can't, will you be intellectually honest to admit that you were pulling stuff out of the air and out of atheistic prejudices you've picked up from other bigots?)
Uniformitarianism is a) more simple and less question-begging than the ridiculous alternative
Now all you need is an argument!
South American and Africa are imagined to have parted ways in 40 days
Another argument from ignorance.
1) I don't know and neither do you know whether they were like that before the Flood.
2) You don't know what a worldwide Flood, 1000s of feet deep, could do. You just ASSUME it couldn't do what you think I'm claiming it did. Yawn.
2) there’s no a priori reason to suppose that the alternative is more likely
There's no a priori reason to suppose that uniformitarianism is more likely.
In fact, on naturalism, there's no reason to suppose that ANYTHING is likely. You have no reason to trust that the future will be like the past. So this is just about you assuming stuff, for reasons one can only guess at.
we exist, so the universe must necessarily have been amenable, in some capacity, to foster that existence
Boy, aren't we lucky?!
Please indicate how you get past the gross improbability of that occurring.
then decide which one more parsimoniously allows for the explication of newly discovered facts
Please prove the principle of parsimony is the best way to discover truth, or even a good way. Or are you just assuming again?
(No need to answer - it's clear already.)
makes the creator look like a bit of a schizophrenic goose who should be an embarrassment to theists.
1) Yeah? Please point out sthg that would embarrass me.
2) That He'd be embarrassing to other so-called theists is in fact predicted by the Bible - it's called sin.
Not a big fan of correctly characterising opponents, eh?
A huge fan, hence my claim that you care nothing for chemistry or physics. Or biology, for that matter. Or astronomy. Or geology
1) Now you're just resorting to playground trash talking. Have fun with that mind-reading.
2) So, do I need to accept fallacious reasoning to be taken seriously by you? That's sorta ironic.
1) Another strawman. Not as *I* see fit.
Right, just the God that YOU need to invoke whenever you have no real answer, and need to crawl your way out of having to provide one.
Please quote me doing so.
The YEC one certainly doesn’t, hence its constant disagreement with nigh-on everything discovered by science.
Please make an argument that disagreement among YEC-ers gives any credence to your position, or hurts my position.
2) Prove there's sthg morally wrong with burning witches, on naturalism.
Not the claim being made. I said that this stupid and cruel practise would still be performed if your worldview was in charge of the world, as it was for so long.
1) Oh, OK. So you didn't make a moral claim about burning witches. So, why do you seem upset about it? Why'd you single it out, as opposed to, say, eating McDonald's food?
2) Sigh. Please prove that "cruelty" objectively exists.
3) Do you have any idea how many witches were burned in Salem?
(7)
2) I'm YEC. God created Adam and the rest of the organisms, and Eve, and the Earth, as mature specimens. Not as fetuses.
* Sniggers at stupid caricature * Ummmm….fetuses. Yeah, because that’s what evolutionists think the CE was all about.
Um, that was an explanation of MY position, given the question you asked me. Do try to keep up.
don't try using science to bolster your Bronze Age mythologies
Man, thank God you're here to tell me not to do what I'm not doing!
So you ADMIT that the Cambrian Explosion doesn’t bolster your case?
You got lost somewhere along the way, Luis.
Information doesn't just happen.
Apparently it does, since you think that God doesn’t require an explanation.
1) Strawman - God didn't "happen". He is the fundamental, the necessary being.
2) Speaking of dodges... want to answer the question?
It must be given.
Except, of course, when we consider God, which is just sort of...there.
1) Oh, is "information" like "God" to you? Has information always been? How did that work?
2) Does it matter that minds haven't always been around, for info to have always been?
3) Minds and info aren't material. Weren't you just telling us that such things weren't real?
I’d recommend that you actually read a book about evolution written by a scientist.
Read several, thanks. They all suffered from the same assumptions you've displayed here. You're a dogmatist.
Peace,
Rhology
Jolly, I'll leave it to you to deal with this superfluous moron from here on in.
Luis, I don't think you appreciate the efforts Rhology is making to try and save your soul from eternal damnation. If I had a less firm grip on reality, he might have had a chance with me.
But seriously, there's no reason to get bent out of shape over Rhology. He does what he does because that's what he's passionate about. That some of us get upset with him or become reduced to spittle-flecked rage says more about us than it does about him. I learned that lesson myself.
You gave it your best shot Luis. And who knows, maybe some of it will seep in and gradually erode that edifice of belief he has like tiny streams of water going through seams in a rock. But regardless of whether it does, we have our lives to live. Speaking of water and erosion, while you two were having your tete-a-tete, my family and I were experiencing the power and majesty of Niagara Falls.
Although, having interacted with Rhology on (seemingly) hundreds of occasions over the past few years, I am acutely aware of how frustrating it can be to debate the issues with somebody who, seemingly, is impervious to evidence-based reasoning when said reasoning is in conflict with his pre-existing suppositions derived from his First Principle (that being, the god of the bible exists and the bible is his inspired, inerrant word), I also, apparently like Tommy, am a bit uncomfortable with the personal, vitriolic anger into which this discussion has descended, in spite of the fact that, between the harsh words, Luis has been an admirably clear expositor of irrefragable scientific truth.
Speaking solely for myself, I do not think Rhology is stupid or moronic at all; indeed, interacting with him can be a rather depressing experience for me because, in my judgment, he is not insignificantly more intelligent than I am, but his considerable brainpower has been hijacked, corrupted and tortured into submission by his unyielding (and willful) adherence to a book of Bronze Age desert mythology as the sole and inerrant source of ultimate truth, effectively blinding him to actual information about the natural order (or necessitating frantic harmonization schemes that are equal parts unparsimonious, unconvincing and transparent).
I recall a passage written by Douglas Wilson in his debate with Christopher Hitchens in which Wilson wrote, “I am quite prepared to cheerfully grant (and not for the sake of the argument) that you are my intellectual superior. But our discussion is not about who has more horsepower under his intellectual hood--the point of discussion is whether your superior car is on the right road. A fast car can be a real detriment on a dark night when the bridge is out.” To the extent that Rhology, unlike, for example, William Lane Craig, doggedly clings to a Young Earth interpretation of the bible--an interpretation that, unfortunately for him, cannot withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, indeed, has been comprehensively disproved--he dooms all his arguments to be, at best, elaborate houses of cards that, although a seductive siren song to some, will collapse in a tired, dusty heap should an unfortunate wind arise.
It's true that Luis hovers near the category of "most unpleasant people I've dealt with on teh Interw3bz", but if he's the same as "Lui" here, then it's not at all surprising.
If he's not, well, let's say that I have experience therewith.
Back next week.
Wow, even back then I told him to chill out.
Hi Luis,
Wow, that's a lot to respond to. In the interests of time, I'll do my best to cut out repetitions of the same subject matter. I'll also overlook the numerous insulting and rude comments, which will alone shorten my comments by about half.
You served up an avalanche of crimes against logic on a scale that truly beggars belief.
OK, big boast noted. Now let's see if you can back it up.
You should really desist from equivocating "the" Christian worldview with a fundamentalist take. A lot of Christians would take exception to it, you know.
1) As if atheism, naturalism, or Darwinism are monolithic.
2) You have my permission to take my meaning as "my position", and let's leave arguing about what the biblical position is up to those who are actually qualified. You're not.
Right, the premise of natural processes goes against the premise of natural processes.
Uh oh, you're ignorant of this, aren't you? But that didn't stop you from making a naked assertion. That should give everyone a clue about your position's credibility. Reflexive defense mechanism.
Here you go.
Please prove that ANY organism found in the fossil record had children.
A disingenuous request, because that’s not what anyone has to prove. The criterion is to prove whether or not what evolution PREDICTS can actually be found is found.
So you're saying that you don't care about proving what happenED in the past? Sorry, THAT'S disingenuous. Why talk about common ancestry all the time if what you're saying were true?
I thought the whole point was for me to show how it IS relevant to Darwinism, but now I’m not even allowed to do that?
?? You're allowed to do it, of course. In fact, I insist! With an argument, not an assumption.
You have to explain why it is that God should have required that these monkeys all bunch together geographically in a manner utterly indicative of the predictions of evolutionary theory.
1) He didn't REQUIRE it. You're playing fast and loose with language.
2) That's how it happened. The question is how to explain it. You say your position can explain it. Let's say I grant it, fine. But YEC can too. Just b/c you don't know why God might've "allowed" it (ie, why it happened) doesn't change that YEC accts for it just fine. You need to prove why it can't acct for it, not question how I know why, etc.
On evolution, this is easy to explain
It's easy to IMAGINE and tell us a just-so story. That's not the same.
I'm not saying that YEC has a better answer, but it's just as good - just-so. Point is, YEC can acct for it.
that more similar animals tend to be closer to one another geographically, because they have had less time to diverge and fan out.
And YEC's answer is yet simpler. Hello Occam's Razor.
YEC answer - that more similar animals tend to be closer to one another geographically, because they have had less time to fan out.
(What, did you think YEC has no concept of MICROevolution?)
You’ve not explained why God would require this pattern to be the case.
Wrong question.
What about monkeys being catarrhines should make you expect, in a creationist framework, for them to be confined outside of Latin America?
Good question, and if I were a scientist, I might be interested in it. But since I'm interested in TRUTH about what happenED, I'm looking for which framework can acct for a given datum.
How is yours any better?
Because it’s predictive, that’s why.
I guess it comes down to this - you're solely interested in predictive power, which is keenly subject to the problem of induction, for one thing (of which you show no recognition, which is a sign of intellectual arrogance), whereas I'm interested in truth. Very, very interesting.
The predictions of my hypothesis have been confirmed.
You mean, you THINK they have. Problem of induction. Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Start working.
We don’t find this. We find the opposite.
2) In a framework that you simply made up. I don't accept your just-so story. Prove your fossils are correctly in order.
2) See, NOW you're interested in what happenED. It's disingenuous to talk like "predictive power only" one moment, then change a little later.
3) You haven't made an argument why this would be inconsistent with YEC. You just ask a dumb question and then trumpet your victory.
Ah, b/c you found what you think is a fossil there?
I didn’t; palaeontologists did, and they presented their results in reputable scientific journal.
Argument from authority, as if that takes away the sting of my question. Answer the question.
I said that the pattern of biogeography we see even in the fossil record is one that exactly fits the expectations of evolution.
And it fits YEC too. What's your point, then?
Why bring up stuff that fits perfectly within YEC as if it helps you?
2) God made them that way to make them look as though there is such affinity (even though this serves absolutely no design criteria
Assumption; argument from ignorance. This is Darwinism of the gaps. You have no idea whether it serves no design criterion. You're not the Designer, and as a naturalist have no idea of an overriding telos. You deny it, in fact. Your bias is showing.
See, molecular markers prove...that these molecular markers exist.
Everything that exists does exist (awesome insight). Not much of an argument there, though.
Do try to keep up. The point is that the PRESENCE Of such markers means nothing unless you throw your Darwinist assumptions on top. But I can do the same with YEC and it makes perfect sense too. But you cited them as evidence for your position. I'm showing you it's not evidence for your position.
W/o your assumptions in place, they tell you nothing in particular.
Except I don’t bring assumptions into this
You're amazing blind. Your assumptions shine thru clearly.
Testing for genealogical affinity can provide a signal for relatedness if it’s actually there
Fine, and relatedness proves nothing for you! That's the point! You keep agreeing with me and then expecting that to go somewhere!
Be sure never to trust the technology if you’re ever in doubt about the paternity of a love child.
Relevance?
God used the same code for multiple species.
even though there was no REASON for him to do so, since these codes – the ones I’m talking about, which are redundant, not codons that make a difference to phenotypic expression – don’t have fitness consequences.
Assumption; argument from ignorance. This is Darwinism of the gaps. You have no idea whether it serves no design criterion. You're not the Designer, and as a naturalist have no idea of an overriding telos. You deny it, in fact. Your bias is showing.
You’ve simply and mindlessly assumed that God would do something in such a manner to exactly replicate a pattern predicted by evolution.
Simply, yes, b/c it IS simple. You choose mockery to try to overturn it. How about an argument instead of ignorant questions?
2) Who among YEC-ers thinks DNA doesn't degrade over time?
Secondly, I’m talking about the very particular pattern of change, not the FACT that change can take place.
God likes patterns. Once again, you assume YEC is wrong and go from there. How about an argument?
Exhibit C: failing to acknowledge the importance of falsification criteria:
That's not a great test for truth, you know. The principle of falsification is itself unfalsifiable. So's logic. Try a logical argument.
Most creationists are at least rational enough to say that such-and-such is what one should expect to find if the Genesis narrative is true.
Yawn. I'm more interested in which framework is consistent with its own presuppositions.
But bully for "most creationists". If you want to talk to them, go to AiG or sthg.
You, on the other hand, don't provide any criteria by which to test Genesis
Demonstrably false. How about you make a good argument against it, one that's logical, and then show why atheistic naturalism is more consistent and thus to be preferred? Start by solving the problems of induction and solipsism, then dealing with the EAAN.
the Invisible Overlord Unicorn
Old, tired joke. Try again.
Is that really your best shot?
I'd love for you to show me Darwinian mechanisms in action
You mean like natural selection, sexual selection, and drift?
Specifically, I'd like you to show me where those work to the extent that Darwinists say they DID IN THE PAST. Prove it.
Again, you can verify that by picking up any reputable scientific biology journal
I already asked this, but let me ask you again to provide your favorites. LEt's go 2 this time. Show me where these processes produce what Darwinians say they can, in an observable manner. Don't appeal to fossils, either, since you've conceded that the question of whether fossils had children is unimportant.
By the way, what would count as “not a beetle”, anyway? What’s the delineation criteria?
How about you produce your best example and we'll examine it?
Platonic essentialist way
Um, covering up your philosophical ignorance by throwing out misused big words doesn't help you.
2) Please prove that rocks tell time.
Geology textbook.
Hahahahahahahahhahhaa! Thanks.
3) If you appeal to radioactive dating, please prove that you can know with certainty how much decay was present at the starting point.
Interlocking parsimony of geology with astronomy and stellar formation, the facts of biology, thermodynamics, plate tectonics, continental drift, and so and on. Makes a lot more sense than assuming that the whole shebang was put together in the space of six days.
Hahahahahahahahhahhaa! Thanks.
Riiiiiiighhht, all that is WAY more parsimonious than God's creating it. Hhahahaha, whooof, I haven't laughed that hard in quite some time.
Absent any evidence that the laws of physics have changed in a massive way throughout time...less question-begging framewor
Assumption. Darwinism of the gaps. It all rests on this unprovable axiom of yours. On the contrary, it's VERY question-begging.
Chixculub crater off the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, even though it released as much energy – in order to have produced a crater that large – as 100 million Hiroshima bombs.
Prove it. See, this is precisely what I mean by begging the question. Neither you nor anyone else were there.
only if you assume that God did things in order to make them look EXACLTY as predicted by evolution.
ID does a very capable job of showing that this assertion is garbage.
Besides, man is very adept at taking God's creation and twisting it to his own purposes. This too is predicted in the Bible. Yawn.
Especially since the challenge wasn’t for me to prove creation wrong, it was for me to show evidence for evolution.
Yes, and it's quite ironic how you keep not doing so, but instead introducing data that are just as easily accted for under YEC. When are you going to start?
He’s presumably not retarded, so he’s not expected, on the creation model, to design things as though he’s on an acid trip.
Uh oh! A BEAR!
How do we compare observed and non-observed evolution if the former can’t be observed in the first place?
GREAT question. Yet such is the strength of your assumptions that you don't allow it to faze you! You tell me you can provide evidence for evolution, and then admit you can't, but then steamroll on and forget that you ever conceded it! It's amazing.
Which is why I'm saying that animals AREN’T designed, slow-poke, otherwise the analogy used by creationists would be a far more fitting one; hence my differentiation from human technology to show how the two are utterly different
1) Assumption that you know what the signs of design are. As if there's some sort of telos to which to appeal, as I've said.
2) Other Darwinians feel very free in comparing organisms to "motorcycles" and "computers". Maybe you should clean your own house.
Prove that Tiktaalike had any children. Go ahead.
>You really are one disgusting charlatan. Here’s the prediction, moron: things like Tiktaalik should exist.<
Haha, fail. No argument given, just mockery. Now, why would that not be "invoking Mammy Nature and Papa Darwin" on your part?
Red herring; failure to acknowledge confirmation of basic tenet of evolution
Haha, fail AGAIN. Um, of COURSE I "fail to acknowledge 'confirmation'" of it. Where is the confirmation? Don't assume it, prove it.
I'm going to have to conclude that, given 2 chances and 2 failures, you can't. Thanks.
The fossil record also provides the following rather inconvenient fact: mass extinctions.
And that's a problem for YEC how?
Kinda funny that these weren't documented in the Bible, all except the Great Flood
1) So what?
2) How do you know that a huge global flood couldn't acct for most of them? Evidence, please? Or at least an argument?
Minds all exist in brains.
Relevance? Prove that minds ONLY exist in brains and we'll get somewhere.
You’ve not shown how they can possibly exist outside of brains.
Ideas, concepts, colors, numbers, logic, and many other things exist immaterially.
If minds don't exist outside of brains, your "mind" is nothing more than chemical reactions, the same as a soda can shaken up and fizzing. Why trust a fizzing soda can? What would make me think that brain-fizz would be a reliable producer of true beliefs? Help me out here.
Next you’ll be telling us that computer programs don’t necessarily need to be ultimately grounded in computers.
Um, don't programs come from OUTSIDE the computer?
And don't the INFORMATION and IDEAS they express come from outside? Nice.
they don’t exist “immaterially” at all, except in a specially defined sense: as high-level abstract views of evolving physical systems.
Oh, where can one find "The Number 4"? What is it made of? What does it smell like? What is its molarity? How do you know?
All these things are ultimately grounded in physical processes in the brain and body,
So in what part of the brain is The Number 4 produced? Can a hard blow change it to The Number 5?
What does it mean that all people have the same concept of The Number 4?
Take away the physical universe, and they become meaningless
Argument from ignorance. How could you possibly know that?
Why not just have small, more “primitive” brains for basic bodily hormonal and chemical chores and leave the consciousness stuff to the immaterial ghost
1) It's not a "ghost".
2) B/c God likes physical stuff too. This is the same dumb question as you've been asking above, but it's irrelevant.
If thinking doesn’t require the brain, then here’s a challenge: shoot yourself in the head, and use your soul to tell your body to walk around.
1) Why would that respond to my position? My position states that the souls of the dead don't have control or even all that much interest in the physical world for a time until the Eschaton.
2) Hmm, seems like God did just that when Jesus rose from the dead. But no, you don't accept that b/c you assume it's false.
3) This WILL happen in the resurrection. 1 Cor 15.
4) You'll whine "Evidence?" but that will simply illustrate my point - you're selective on what evidence you'll accept.
Holy Trinities aren’t compatible with God being “simple”
1) Assertion in search of an argument.
2) When compared to the untold trillions of coincidences that against all probability conspired to produce a planet like Earth in a pretty brief amount of time and to produce life on Earth, um, yeah, not that that complex.
Note that YOU added “immaterial”! : ), thus making it even less worthy as a proposition that one should imagine can explain anything.
So please explain the existence of ideas, colors, information, numbers, laws of logic, laws of mathematics, thoughts, dreams, desires, evil and good, forces, humor.
So big, in fact, that he doesn’t require any explanation or accounting
Anyone can see that I've spent more than my share of time discussing just that, in fact. Luis is a windbag.
How would pointing out that there's sthg I don't understand about Him be an argument against His existence?
Because you’re not actually talking about anything.
Watch this.
Luis doesn't understand how everything in evolution occurred, much less explain how each organism (or, ahem, any organism) evolved from its lowly predecessors, but that doesn't stop him from arguing for evolution.
Thing is, he's not actually talking about anything. See how easy it is to dismiss naked assertions like that? Where does that get anyone? Why did Luis "argue" that way?
I think I’ll stay where I am, thank you: with the mundane choice, as I would when considering the Koran.
1) Luis has apparently never studied the Qur'an with any depth.
2) Luis begs the question about what is mundane, as I've already pointed out. No response to that.
Funny how fundies deride the sin they sare so adept in seeing in others, when they themselves are so often the biggest violators)
Is that supposed to mean sthg to me? Where have I denied that I am a great sinner?
1 Timothy 1:15It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
It's a tu quoque fallacy to point to someone else's sin in order to distract from one's own guilt.
Firstly, there are plenty of other reference points one could choose: the Koran, the Hindu texts, etc.
So, you know, we analyse those critically, too. Luis acts like he's never met a Christian before. But I know he has, so our most probable conclusion has to be that he is unteachable and doesn't care to learn. He just likes to lob insults and first-level shallow retorts, as if they haven't been dealt with over and over.
So the presence of liars and the fact that some, or even many, ppl fall for them is a reason not to think that a population conducted science
“A population doing science”. Yeah, that’s what they were doing. Science.
Note the bias toward modernity. Only modern people are smart. All ancient people were idiots.
the population always lags far, far behind in their understanding of science than do the scientific community
While a great deal of the scientific community is also religious. Funny he should open himself up like that.
I asked you to state why these miracles can’t have been explained by more mundane things
1) Why prefer more mundane things? Luis can't give us a reason apparently. The explanation of miracles from God give me a good reason to think that mundanity is not exactly what He was after.
2) How would one explain Christ's resurrection in mundane terms? Witness the many many failures of alternative explanations, the way they founder against, say, William Lane Craig's apologetic for the resurrection.
You're a philosophical naïf.
This coming from someone who thinks that disembodied minds and a 6,000 year old Earth are serious scientific propositions.
How does that respond to what I said?
Do I claim that those things are "serious scientific propositions"? Or did Luis just commit aNOTHER philosophical gaffe, that of strawmaning me? Yep, it's that.
Again you beg the question that the naturalistic explanation is "mundane",
No I don’t. I simply state what’s uncontroversial: that the physical universe is what we experience everyday
Don't be so disingenuous - that's far from what you're doing. You've been making mundanity a measure of preference for truth claims.
Who denies that the "physical universe is what we experience everyday"? What is this supposed to prove?
What I'm pointing out to you is that you claim a superior level of knowledge but you weren't even there; you have zero access to how it went down.
Except via recourse to the evidence left behind. You know, like a detective at a crime scene.
1) Note that he concedes that my characterisation of his position is correct.
2) So he can't repeatedly observe things, can't test them. But he has faith that his way-after-the-fact examination can reach truth. But he can never confirm it. Whereas we have recourse to an infallible eyewitness.
Surely you’re not saying that the police should never be allowed to arrest people unless eyewitness testimony is found? Because you kinda seem to be
No, I'm not. Again, Luis appears just to be a bit of a buffoon and a novice when it comes to engaging Christians.
Where did God speak with respect to this or that crime that occurred last week?
How does a crime last week compare with the millions of yrs that have transpired since the events in question?
1) I don't know and neither do you know whether they were like that before the Flood.
Yes we do, since the equivalent strata on both continents show the same fossil fauna and the rock types are the same, and the Mid-Atlantic ridge has magnetic patterns that fan out from the ridge on both sides like a mirror to each other (thus confirming a prediction of old-Earth geology
1) More question-begging. How does Luis know they weren't created like that? He doesn't. He assumes it.
2) Did I rule out that the Flood split the two apart? Nope. That would also explain what happenED.
So how is this evidence for old-earth geology against YEC?
But boy, aren’t we lucky that a sentient, incorporeal entity with spiritual power exists?!
That's stretching "lucky" far beyond its meaning. God is a necessary being, not a coincidentally-existing one. He didn't pop into existence.
Please indicate how you get past the gross improbability of that occurring.
A vast universe with hundreds of billions of planets.
100,000,000,000 = 1X10^11 does not compare to the much higher improbability along the lines of 1X10^60 or so of life arising. But does that stop Luis? Nope.
1) Yeah? Please point out sthg that would embarrass me.
The recurrent laryngeal nerve.
BEAR!
1) Oh, OK. So you didn't make a moral claim about burning witches. So, why do you seem upset about it?
Do I? Well, I suppose I am. But I’ve no interest in “justifying” my moral system to someone like you, who will simply discount it.
So Luis won't defend his moral claim. OK, then I'll simply dismiss it.
From experience I'm pretty sure that any defense he could make of his moral framework would be silly, but if he doesn't care enough about it to take it seriously, who am I to argue?
No, what I actually was centrally concerned about in that statement was the stupidity
1) Naturalistic fallacy.
2) What precisely is stupid about removing people from the gene pool who were stupid/inept enough to allow themselves to be burned to death by religious zealot idiots?
In some moral frameworks (like the Christian one of the Middle Ages), cruelty was seen as a moral obligation in many situations. Hence, systems of morality and the use of cruelty aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Under some systems of morality, cruelty is in fact a prerequisite.
Still no answer to the question. Luis doesn't tire of throwing out buzzwords and working the emotions. Like a politician who is stalling for time and reelection.
those burnings were facilitated by the Rhologies of the time, who never questioned their presuppositions
Ah, now Luis is reading my mind. He has no idea what struggles I've experienced, both intellectual and emotional, in my journey. But why would that stop a nasty antitheist like him from insulting and unfounded speculations about someone with whom he disagrees? Demonisation is part of the plan, after all.
2) Speaking of dodges... want to answer the question?
No one knows for sure yet. But it’s almost certainly something like the RNA world hypothesis.
But Luis has faith.
Luis could do worse than to check out Stephen Meyer's discussion of the RNA world in "Signature In the Cell".
information, in the DNA was here long before minds were around.
How is information information when no one is around to understand it?
And crucially, it doesn’t require minds to interpret it,
Haha - I'd like to see just one example of that.
Information isn’t material? Hmmmm. Then show me a software program that doesn’t ultimately reside as some pattern on a physical medium.
Umm, RESIDING and EXISTING are two different things. Patterns aren't material - they can be EXPRESSED materially, sure, but that's not their essence.
So if I destroy all CD copies of a software program, is that program now non-existent? Can it be reproduced from memory?
Thanks for all that, Luis!
Peace,
Rhology
It appears Blogger ate some of my comments. See the full comments tomorrow at my blog.
Sorry about that, Rhology.
A total of nine comments were available for my moderation.
I approved all nine, and none is left.
Despite Luis’ invitation for me to pick up where he left off with Rhology, I do not intend to intrude into their tête à tête. However, I shall articulate why Young Earth creationism is a bankrupt, incorrect, actively disproved notion that no one could defend except through willful adherence to an unyielding, inflexible dogma.
#1 Radioactive dating disproves Young Earth creationism.
Carbon-14 decays to Nitrogen-14; its half-life is 5730 years. Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206; its half-life is 4.5 billion years. Uranium-235 decays to Lead-207; its half-life is 704 million years. Other unstable isotopes include Potassium-40, Thorium-232, Rubidium-87 and Samarium-147. Several radioisotopes usually occur together, so the dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariably agree. To put the lie to the Young Earth position, and demonstrate why the oft-repeated “uniformitarian assumptions” objection rings hollow, consider this: If a hunk of rock is radioactively dated at, say, 250 million years old, but in actuality it is only 6000 years old, per YEC, that would entail that the multiple radioisotopes present, all of which converge on an age of 250 million years, would have all had to change differently. Uranium-238 would have had to change differently from Uranium-235, and both would have had to change differently from Samarium-147. If several radioisotopes usually occur together, and they have different half-life values (those half-life values frequently crossing orders of magnitude), there is nothing in the cross-checking process that would require the separate calculations to converge on the same age. Yet, despite the fact it very well could be otherwise, it is not; the ages, across radioisotopes, invariably agree. The changing-decay-rate YEC hypothesis, barring a deceptive creator twist in which the creator wants to impart incorrect information, would be the equivalent of Rhology, Barack Obama, William Lane Craig and me all agreeing to meet at a particular diner “sometime in 2011” and, by sheer and utter coincidence, all four of us arriving at the diner on exactly the same day at precisely the same instant.
#2: Astronomic knowledge disproves Young Earth creationism.
Gaze up into the night sky. Proxima Centauri, the star nearest to our Sun, is 4.3 light years away, meaning that light from it takes 4.3 years to reach us. Our galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years across, meaning that it can take tens of thousands of years for light from some stars in our galaxy to reach us. For stars that we can see in nearby galaxies, it can take millions of years. The farthest objects we can see are quasars, which are so distant that the light we see from them today left billions of years ago. If the universe were merely 6000-some years old, the light simply would not have had the requisite time to reach us. Although I have heard the “god created the stars as well as light beams” response, I recognize it as a frantic harmonization scheme in which the YEC proponent is confronted with a fact that is utterly contrary to what the bible would predict and, thus, the creationist must confect an unparsimonious, tortured “explanation” that bespeaks not so much understanding as slavish, willful, dogged adherence.
#3: Dendrochronology disproves Young Earth creationism.
An 11,500-year dendrochronological record, existing wholly independently from radiocarbon dating and that is to-the-year accurate, has been achieved through a daisy-chaining process having to do with characteristic tree-ring sequences in a particular geographic area. Utilizing those characteristic tree-ring sequences, scientists can daisy chain their way back thousands and thousands of years, thus disproving a young Earth. Furthermore, those to-the-year-accurate dendrochronological records can be, and indeed are, used to calibrate our radiocarbon dating, thereby allowing us to date many things of the relatively recent past (but considerably beyond 6000-some years).
That turned out better than I could have hoped.
Thanks, JN.
And about Blogger, OK, thanks. It does look like they all came thru.
BTW, I applaud you, sir, for correctly spelling tête à tête. Most people get that wrong. As a francophile, I appreciate such things. :-D
Your appreciation is appreciated. :-)
I must admit, both in my professional life and personally, I am an insufferable stickler for spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Indeed, in the rather lengthy reply I posted to your blog this evening, I made a couple of errors, which are now unreasonably vexing to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home