INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

I'm starting to feel a little bit like I'm repeatedly smashing my face into a wall. Just a little.

I know the feeling all too well. I think you set a pace that would burn out an apostle. I like to do slower and smaller subjects but with much more detail in a debate. Take a breather and let your keyboard cool down a bit.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know the feeling all too well. I think you set a pace that would burn out an apostle. I like to do slower and smaller subjects but with much more detail in a debate. Take a breather and let your keyboard cool down a bit.

Haha! I've had to take some prescription muscle relaxers today, so that might help. It will also explain if my responses seem a bit weird.

We're definitely covering a lot of topics. No doubt about it.

 

[1robin]

Haha! I've had to take some prescription muscle relaxers today, so that might help. It will also explain if my responses seem a bit weird.

We're definitely covering a lot of topics. No doubt about it.

If you’re on drugs maybe I can keep up with the sheer volume at least. Maybe if you drink on top of it I can convert you. Have you ever seen that Family Guy episode where Stewey (how do you spell that) said he was going to convert Luke to the BACKSIDE of the force? That is funny I don't care who you are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you’re on drugs maybe I can keep up with the sheer volume at least.

LOL Wait til you read my most recent addition.

Maybe if you drink on top of it I can convert you.

Anything's possible. Maybe I'll break out the hard liquor, if that's where this is going.

Have you ever seen that Family Guy episode where Stewey (how do you spell that) said he was going to convert Luke to the BACKSIDE of the force? That is funny I don't care who you are.

I have seen that. And I laughed so hard I had threw my back out. Hence the drugs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was an example of the absolute fact that I can use as an influence an illegitimate factor to resolve an issue (as they did with theology and science) and yet not always go with what that one fact suggests. The point was that they let theological preference influence their scientific conclusions, I never suggested they always use that one factor as the determining factor and that was never the point.

But they didn’t let theological preference influence their scientific conclusions because they accept said scientific conclusions.

It sounds like you’re explaining how “creationist” scientists go about conducting research. Or certain people like the guy I’m talking to on another thread who denies scientific evidence because it conflicts with how he views the Qu’ran.

No, they indeed do assume it is an absolute fact. I would not mind if they claimed what you do here as long as God is given a similar status but that is not what the reality of the situation is. Many (in fact probably most) scientists assume life arose on its own and there is no God. This is a good description of what the paradigm is though it is a little stronger than what I would "term" the average is.

I’m not sure why you think so. Nothing in science is considered “absolute” fact. Everything is always subject to change if or when new information is presented. I’m pretty sure they do claim what I claim here.

So far, “god” is not demonstrable, so it’s not accepted as an explanation, and also because as I said, “god did it” really doesn’t have any explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us how it happened or what mechanisms were involved. It’s an explanatory dead end. Although, I do think some of the claims for your god could be demonstrable or testable in some way, as I said before, given that you seem to think “he” involves himself in the material world.

This is why the eminent Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin states:
"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."13
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

I’m not much of a fan of quote mining based on the fact that most given quotes are choppy and usually taken out of context, like the one above. Also, I’m usually a little skeptical when I see “…” included in a direct quotation. In any case, I always look to find the original quotation, in its original context. I’d advise you to read the entire piece, before jumping to any conclusions. You can find it here (it’s actually a review of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World):
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
The scrap of quote you’ve provided shows up about three quarters of the way down the page.

That is a very good site.

I don’t know. If you have a problem with scientists having preconceived notions about god, I’m not so sure you should be quoting from a site whose mission statement declares:
“So, we admit, IDEA does have an agenda and a bias. And, just as we encourage each other to admit bias at our events, the leadership of IDEA freely and publicly acknowledges its own bias: We believe that life is not the result of purely natural processes, but that it was in some way designed by an "intelligence." And because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, IDEA Center Leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.”

“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

He's not exactly accurate on this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/03/14/1019191108.long
http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/science/article/pii/001670379500037Z
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.abstract
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

But again, nothing is settled on this one. There’s plenty of room for further study.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, p. 199

Apparently Eiseley didn’t think that our current level of technology would have allowed scientists to explain the origin of life. Of course he wrote The Immense Journey in 1958, so that might have something to do with his position.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The old tried and true and still in textbooks Idea is that nothing became everything in an expansion process (explosion is now heresy for some reason). It condensed by gravity into planets eventually, and the "prebiotic soup" at least on Earth after receiving about 300,000 volts eventually coughed up life. Which part do secular scientists deny?

That’s probably because expansions and explosions are different things. There are several ongoing hypotheses concerning the prebiotic soup idea.

Have you read any Lawrence Krause?

What? That is like saying we have mapped California so we could duplicate it. Or saying since we have created scans of human nervous systems we can grow a man in a test tube.

Not it isn’t. It is like saying exactly what I said (I don’t really need to repeat it again, do I?). Why don’t you address my analogies at all?

I never said anything even hinting science is meaningless. It has produced a wealth of great things, unfortunately it seems to balance the scales by producing equally bad things like weaponized anthrax and Tsar bombas. I said that specifically in the case of the origin of life we have produced the equivalent of sand and water and claimed the Taj Mahal arose on its own. In fact the difference between amino acids and life is greater than sand and sky scrapers. Don't drag my argument into another context and yell fowl.

Science is a method of discovering the world around us. It has produced everything we know about everything. Both good and bad.

How did I drag your argument into another context? I thought I was speaking directly to it.

Of course their judgment is swayed by the evidence and most times it is governed by it. It seems however that in theoretical science their judgment exceeds the evidence about 85% of the time and the evidence is irrelevant in another 5%.

You’ve implied that their judgment was swayed by personal opinion regarding religion, and more specifically, god.

Are you asking me to provide a statement where a scientists said all the evidence adds up to X but I like Y better. I am sure I could but I provided one just as effective above and at least two where their theological preference affected (but not controlled) their conclusions. If they were not enough nothing would be.

If that’s what you’re saying scientists do, then yes. The statements you gave above don’t do it.

I have no idea what was the specific case in their situation but without any doubt what so ever those factors have influenced and even controlled professional claims. That was never the issue anyway. The fact remains and was the issue that theological preference was present in the equation they used to arrive at a scientific conclusion. It does not matter if this one factor was not strong enough to render a verdict consistent with it. It should not be there in any respect or amount. You either missed or intentionally missed the entire point.

No it wasn’t since they accepted the conclusions based on evidence, which is what they’re supposed to do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is one strange claim. You say basically this and I agree with.

From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller
How is this remarkable at all? What new discovery is ever free from skepticism? That is no honorable or unique accomplishment.

So then, what’s the problem? Piltdown man was never considered accepted science.

I don’t think I’ve said it’s remarkable at all. It’s the norm in science, as you point out.

I did not scientists are all unethical boobs and would not eventually figure out (after 40 years) something pieced together by an amateur is a fake. There however is little extraordinary merit in eventually doing so. BTW how many are still a hoax and either not noticed in ignorance or covered up on purpose (no way to tell). It took 40 years in this case because all of the relevant science in the field was wrong.

You don’t see anyone using Piltdown man as evidence of human evolution, do you? That’s what matters. There were huge concerns from the get-go that it didn’t fit with the known evidence for human evolution.

The Piltdown man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man#Identity_of_the_forger
Is this what you call conscientious science?
The scientific community celebrated Dawson's discovery as the long-awaited "missing link" between ape and man and the confirmation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. As the decades passed and new information came to light, however, it became clear that the Piltdown Man was not what he seemed.
http://www.history.com/news/piltdown-man-hoax-100-years-ago

Looks more like convenient, bias driven, sensationalism if the claim is accurate.

And yet it was never incorporated into our understanding of human evolution. Isn’t that interesting?

I am not sure you are getting what I am driving at. My point is that just because you find an article that claims "scientists create life" it still has never been done.

Who said it has? Please don’t make me repeat myself again.

I have tracked down at least a dozen articles given by your side as a counter claim to my claim that science has never proven life arose from non-life. Every single one once read eventually admits they made no life what so ever. The point was science for various reasons many times claims stuff it never produces and it gets wearisome. This guy was from Bell labs and given many awards and yet was not just wrong but intentionally wrong. It is evidence there is much more that evidence driving many in the field. None of your details changes this an iota.

How about we just stick to the articles I’ve provided for you. How can I be responsible for something someone else may or may not have provided without even knowing what it is? Unless you want to cite some of them? Where is it that you say science claims stuff it never produces? Where is this happening?

The popular press may have made some pretty sensationalistic claims about these studies, but they’re more concerned with drawing in readers than properly and accurately explaining scientific findings. Which is why I tend not to read them.

He may have been from Bell labs but he was exposed for the fraud he was, stripped of his degrees and tossed out of the scientific community. That’s what happens to you when you produce bad science. If your assertions are true, this probably never would have happened. There may have been more than evidence driving him, but when he produced bad science, he removed himself from the scientific community which is evidence that the scientific method works. Which is what I’ve been saying.

Actually I just got them from a random list. Since I see they will be contended let me augment this claim with a better one of the same type. BTW you said this one was a good one, Why? I submit a similar and better known one. The famous Pepper Moth:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-biston-betularia.htm[/quote]

Now that I think about it, it may not be your best example, given that it appears that Linnaeus truly thought it was a new species of butterfly.

The peppered moth wasn’t a hoax, it was a study that included an error (namely photos that didn’t properly identify the environmental conditions involved). But it really didn’t detract from the gist of the study. Since that time, many more studies have been carried out, all confirming the original findings. I could cite them, if you’d like.

Again what is not met with skepticism in it's early history. Since the last .002 of human history is now ancient let me see if I can find a similar but more modern one. Try the study of the town of Vilcambaba in 1978. BTW adding details to a failure does not make it a success.
Continued below:

It was accepted by virtually no one in the scientific community, in fact, it was the subject of great ridicule. As far as I can see there was maybe one anthropologist who thought it might be real.

Adding details to the story better illustrates what happened, much more so than just cutting a pasting a label from a website.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me put it a different way to make it more understandable. Let's say that for some reason the US auto racing establishment became endowed with the almost omniscience that we have for science in modern times. People simply trusted it and thought if there was any danger that they would be protected by the great researchers at the racing authority. However when a car goes sailing through the crowd and kills 150 and fifty people I do not think claiming well they put up a better fence is going to help those 150. You must remember the context and what I am actually claiming, so I will restate.

I don’t get the analogy. Science publishes its findings, so anyone in the public can stay informed, should they choose to do so. We don’t have to blindly trust them and put our faith in them. I don’t want to do either of those things and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to do it either. If you’re trying to say that they hoaxes you pointed out are akin to something as dangerous as what you’ve stated above, I fail to see it.

1. There exists nothing "Known" to science that indicates God and the Bible in general is unworthy of placing faith in.
2. However even though there is nothing known to challenge faith a few things are "claimed" to be reliable enough to challenge faith. Multiverses, abiogenesis, etc....
3. My only point in criticizing science is to point out that even in non-theoretical areas claims are often wrong and no area of scientific v/s biblical contention is science at a reliable state or even close to that level.
4. Science is great, I studied it, work in it, and have a degree in math and it is also faulty in the best of circumstances bot to mention the rarified hyperbolic arena where claims exist that are used to challenge God.
5. Even in my field of applied electrical engineering we are approx. 7 for 7 in failures for new instruments in my current project. I will not wager my soul on the theoretical guys when the practical guys are 0 for 7 in my case at least.

Why do you think scientific claims are made to challenge god? I mean, I think they’re made to open avenues of study that aren’t fully understood at the time and require further investigation.

I will give a classic example. The poster child for theology influenced science is Dawkin’s. He was asked where life came from, in the context of first cause issues, science can’t answer. He started off great and honest, he said “don’t have a clue”. However his theology or Hubris (apparently) just could not leave well enough alone. He said but Aliens could have “seeded” life here. This is a archetype of what I am complaining about and I will list why.

That’s not entirely accurate, and somewhat out of context. I’m thinking you pulled this from the movie Expelled?

I’ll let Dawkins explain, in his own words, since he was pretty ticked off that the context of his comments were removed from the movie:

“Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure — that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience).”
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394-lying-for-jesus

That should both clear things up and address the comments you made below.
(Continued Below)

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. He did not fix anything even if he was right. He only kicked the can down the road and said there, take that. Apparently he thinks we are too stupid to know we are still in need of an origin even with aliens. Apparently he doesn’t. See above.

2. He completely left the field where he or anyone on Earth has any training. He went straight to science fiction. There are only a few reasons why he would have done this and NONE are valid. Yes, he realizes that and did it on purpose. See above.

3. He invented a solution because of a nonscientific reason. Science dead ends at the arrival of a cell or close to it. He was trying to make a point about intelligent design, actually.

4. He could have simply stopped at “I don’t know” and would have respected his honesty. Context makes all the difference, doesn’t it?

5. On another occasion he was honest and said in evolution there is no way to say Hitler was not right. I guess because it was biology his pride just would let him here.

He also address this in the article I cited above:

“The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very ungarbled understanding of the anti-semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did. My own view, frequently expressed (for example in the The Selfish Gene and especially in the title chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) is that there are two reasons why we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.”

I am sure that is true in many cases and I equally sure the exact same cliques and old boys clubs exist in science as they do IN EVERY OTHER field of human endeavor. I also imagine that is more true of the theoretical group than most.
Don't get it.

They probably do exist in science but again it’s the evidence that is the determining factor.

You are equivocating so much it looks intentional. It's too old (within 200 years). He was only a young scientist (degreed). It was eventually discovered (40 years). It was announced (not determined) by a magazine. Some were skeptical (of what are they not). Details are not good excuses. I will however give you this one. I did not notice how fast science contradicted National Geographic.

I didn’t say “it’s too old,” I simply said it isn’t exactly modern, given that’s the word you used to describe it.

Well, the devil is in the details, so to speak.

Scientists are skeptical toward everything, it’s part of their training. So you agree with me? I thought you had said they were mostly just skeptical concerning god claims?

I don’t accept much of anything the popular press has to say about science claims. Their main goal is to sell magazines.

Let me replace this one: A survey of climatologist predictions between 1965 and 1975 had about 20% predicting cooling and about 55% predicting warming, and about 25% apparently who could not read a thermometer. Today Russian science says global warming is over and European science that says Iceland will be gone in a decade (exaggerating of course). Who is right and what is going on? I would think a thermometer would settle this issue.

Climate and weather are different things, a simple thermometer reading isn’t going to clear everything up. We have to go where the evidence leads, which in 2013 points towards global warming and climate change.

You also never sufficiently explained my original complaint. Let’s say the 4000 years ago the ignorant Hebrews did as you or another suggested looked around and decided that sanitation was important for health. Even if that was all there was to it why were surgeons in 1860 not even this smart? Millions paid for this regress of science. I do nothing we will get anywhere with just how valuable and accurate science is but my claim requires even far less evidence than I have given so far, see 1-5 above. I think we are getting off track.

People have known something about sanitation and health since ancient times. The ancient Minoans, Chinese, Egyptians, and Greeks all practiced it in some form or another. It seems like it was the Europeans who lacked knowledge of it which I suspect had something to do with the dark ages following the collapse of the Roman Empire since we know it was a period of decline in technology, economics, and overall knowledge in general.

 

[Skeptisch]

The issue deserves better and more sincere discourse.

Again I agree with you that the issue deserves a more sincere discourse. Showing some intellectual sincerity would be a good start steering toward that. When you argue against science and in favour of the Abrahamic God you are arguing against common sense, reason and logic in favour of pitiless cruelty.

"To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used".
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

 

[SkepticThinker]

The way you quote posts the links to the previous time a statement was posted do not exist and I am not looking through the 50 pages of stuff we have said to answer this. Let me instead post some things that I do not remember if I have yet or not.

1. The Bible is by far the most textually accurate document from ancient history.

Says who?

2. Christ is the most textually attested character of ancient history.

Says who?

3. There is no claim in theoretical science that is not at least somewhat and sometime composed of a majority of opinion.

Actually it’s consensus of evidence that matters, not majority of opinion.

4. Sometimes reasoned and sometimes against reason.

It’s the evidence that counts.

Well when it started to become certain that we can only show that we have one FINITE universe, that indicated or was so consistent with God that these ideas that have virtually no evidence either started to be born or resuscitated. I do not know if it was incidental or causal but it appears that as soon as science had pretty much eliminated non-God indicating universes (steady state) then once that do not indicate or have need of God appeared in forms that can't be verified. Not one of these issues is enough to even make God a good theory. However when you have them in such abundance from just about every field of academics there is it is more than enough to justify faith even possibly without a Bible.

First of all, why do you accept Big Bang theory when you don’t accept evolution? It’s not because it reinforces your beliefs, is it?

Secondly, how is it that you’re asserting that there all this evidence for god from just about every field of academics?
How does one provide empirical evidence of the supernatural?

Let me change my claim just to reduce pointless contention. To give truth to one who loves it not is only only to increase opportunity for contention- one of my favorites. I claim that reality (cosmology is what we have been discussing) has produced reliable evidence that it's nature is consistent with God if you object to indicative for no apparent reason.

Okay, but the cosmology in the Bible doesn’t match up with scientific findings on cosmology (aside from your big bang assertions).

Since something is getting very lost here let's evaluate an analogy instead. Nature is well known to be able to produce lower than equilibrium complexity and occasionally a little higher level of complexity. That means I would have said amino acids were possible to produce by nature long before an experiment was done. Same with elements, etc. I have used the analogy that producing sand and iron let’s say and then claiming that indicates a world trade center can arise on its own is not valid. What is it you do not agree with? I feel as frustrated with you as you claim to be with me and I wish you could explain why the simple and obvious claims I have made aren’t.

What is “lower than equilibrium complexity?” Evolution indicates that things evolve from simple to complex.

Your analogy doesn’t really cut it because skyscrapers aren’t naturally occurring organisms which are capable of reproducing.

So you already agree that nonliving/inorganic matter can produce amino acids (organic matter)? So what’s the problem then? Then why do you argue so vehemently that it doesn’t indicate to us that it’s theoretically possible for inorganic elements to produce organic ones? That’s what I’m not getting. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the building blocks for enzymes, cell production, and reproduction and serve as catalysts for biochemical reactions (among other things). So I don’t know where your objection to my claim lies.

1. Do you think the analogy inaccurate? I do not know about all parameters but the relative difference in complexity is less between iron plus sand and WTC and amino acids and life.

Yes I do, for the reason stated above.

2. Or do you think producing sand and gravel IS evidence that computer controlled elevators can arrise naturally.

Computers and elevators aren’t self-replicating organisms.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me give another. Put all 100 puzzle pieces in a bag separated and shake them up and you will get a few that fit together correctly but break up before many are fitted. Your experiments are the equivalent of getting three pieces and saying that puzzles self organize when shaken long enough. This will never be because like nature the chances things break apart is astronomically greater than the right ones come together.

Not when we’re talking about chemistry and biology.

See: molecular self-assembly, reaction-diffusion systems, autocatalysis, self-assembled monolayers, protein folding, hypercycles, morphogenesis, homeostasis and flocking behavior.

I believe this analogy is representative because it was a favorite of A. E. Wilder (a very credentialed and accomplished Chemist). Some of the additional myriad other complications are illustrated here. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838[/quote]

Umm, A.E. Wilder-Smith was a young earth creationist who didn’t accept evolution and thought the Paluxy dinosaur/human footprints were real. Furthermore, he never published a single peer-reviewed paper on the topic we’re discussing, so I’m not sure how well credentialed or accomplished he is in regards to this discussion.

Now please cut it out with the name calling and tell me specifically what is wrong with the .01% of the problems associated with your claim.

Oh come on. I didn’t say you were stupid, just that I feel like you’re being thick-headed on this issue and ignoring the evidence.

Unless I am wrong (and that is certainly possible this article illustrates how to check for this multiverse claim. Before we discuss whether it is good or bad or if I understand what they said how is this evidence for something. To me it says the equivalent of well if aliens exist we can scan such and such with such and such, therefore they exist. Maybe I am not educated enough to get that article, in fact I will bet that not .001% of the population can but I saw nothing to indicate finding evidence that proves anything.

For the ten zillionth time, scientists don’t prove things! They produce evidence for them!

Here, maybe this is better:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm

I never said or did not intend to ever even hint that science claims this is true. I claim two things.
1. It is an almost completely fantasy based theory yet it is viewed as intellectually permissible.
2. It is used as a counter theory to the well-established and well evidenced God consistent single finite model.
In other words science can suppose or consider a fantasy devoid of almost ( maybe any) evidence to counter reality as we know it almost exclusively when reality is consistent with God, but will reject the concept of God as even allowable as being an explanation of what we can reliably know. That is not valid in either science or anything else. No semantic gymnastics can alter that.

I’m pretty sure you did, but I don’t feel like searching pages and pages of back and forth so I’ll have to take your word for it.
1. It’s not purely fantasy based. It’s based on the existence cosmic background radiation. It could turn out to be total crap, but how about we let them investigate it first and possibly rule it out.
2. And here you go again, asserting that they’re trying to disprove god, based on your wild speculations.

God is not considered a good explanation because “he’s” not demonstrable in any way. God is a dead-end explanation because it has no explanatory power. Can you please finally address this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been an amateur military historical for the past 30 years. See any war prior to 1863 especially the US civil war.

What does the claim have to do with military history?
Are you comparing surgeries performed on the battlefield to those performed under hospital conditions?

You had a choice between them not committing sexually deviant acts, not saddling the burden of their actions on others, or them adopting Christianity that where ever it is practiced has produced advanced medical capability, but you chose Rome's resistance to contraception. This is truly desperate. Never blame the ones who actually do the acts when the Church is such a ready target, seems to be a modern mantra. However I do not defend Catholicism so I will leave this train wreck here.

Yes. Sex is a natural act, which the vast majority of people participate in. This is a fact of life. Instead of fighting it and pretending that it doesn’t happen, we need to give these people birth control so they can stop spreading around a deadly disease. I mean, if someone contracts a disease by means that don’t include sexual intercourse, do we deny them the cure? In my opinion it’s pretty sick to let these people continue on like this because you disagree with their actions and judge them to be “sexual deviants” in your god’s eyes. Get over it and help the people! I’d say this is where our worldviews collide in a big way, because in my view, these people should be given every opportunity to live out their lives. And in your opinion, s***w them because they’re doing something you don’t like.

And I’m sorry but if the Catholic Church wants to deny these people contraception because they don’t like the “deviant behaviors” they think they’re acting out, then they’d better start cleaning up their own backyard before they even BEGIN to try to judge anyone else. Any group of people that are systematically abusing children has absolutely no moral high ground in any debate about anything, especially sex.

The adoption of Christianity doesn’t produce medical capability. If that were true, Mother Teresa would have brought medicine to all those suffering poor people, instead of more suffering.

Birth control and contraception improves peoples’ lives.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is as bizarre and invalid as saying I think it wrong for a father to punish his son for using the rifle he gave him to shoot his sister.

How so?

I will restate, the God of the Bible is not. There may be a God who is different than the one I believe in (however there is little reason to think so) and he may think stereo lithography is important. There may also be a planet where that would make for a meaningful point but it isn't this one.

How do you know? Can you read “his” disembodied mind?

Once again this is as inaccurate and a meaningless as saying that God gave me a 59 Barachetta and I drove it into a coal mine and it exploded so God should be ashamed.

How so? You didn’t create the world and everything in it. Did you?

I cease to credit your fanned ignorance as accurate at this point.

Don’t wear clothing of mixed fabrics? Don’t worship any other gods? Don’t covet your neighbours’ chattel? These are the big moral instructions for life?

Not even close. The Bible's "system" is based on our acceptance and admission of truth. It also gives moral laws and principles that "should" be followed but that is not the primary focus nor what gets us to heaven. There is nothing as universally associated with morality than the Bible. Many times human law is completely independent or opposite to moral law.

You didn’t actually address my argument. God’s instructions are “do what I tell you and believe in me without question or you don’t get into heaven.” How is that not a system of obedience to authority.

Can the following be said about any other person or even the collection of the cumulative "wisdom" of man?
"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

Jesus (in the Bible) had some decent things to say and some not-so-decent things to say. He sure is a whole lot better than anything found in the Old Testament, I’ll give you that much. Unfortunately there’s a whole lot more to the Bible and to your god than just Jesus.

I’d say the Enlightenment accomplished much of the same thing.

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.
He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciple’s feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish TheologianJames Stuart

Spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming? Excuse me for rolling my eyes at that one.

That is one of the most self-refuting statements I have ever heard but it takes time to dissect.
#1 Why do you think you were a Christian at some point?

I don’t care what you think it is. It’s a fact.

I went to church and youth group on a weekly basis, and I accepted Jesus into my heart. Then I actually read the entire Bible and realized it was all nonsense and that I had no good reason to believe any of it.

I do not think I mentioned pork as an example of extraordinary knowledge. I think it was to illustrate the practicality of rules most people do not have the context for.

You refuse to give examples, so I’m wondering what it is you’re referring to. I think you mentioned sanitation, which to me, is something they could have figured out from simple observation. Much like they would have figured out what to eat and what not to eat. All they would have to do is observe someone eating something, and then observe them becoming ill or dying after eating it. Done, lesson learned. Don’t eat that thing!

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
LOL Wait till you read my most recent addition.

Oh Boy!!

[/font][/color]
Anything's possible. Maybe I'll break out the hard liquor, if that's where this is going.

Are you sure you want to risk being converted or is your stance so firm that not even the killing of brain cells can alter it? Your last brain cell might be like Stalin and raise up out of his coma and shake his fist at God then die. Of course my last few brain cells will probably get the directions to heaven wrong and I will spend eternity on South Street in Philly knowing my luck.

I have seen that. And I laughed so hard I had thrown my back out. Hence the drugs.

If they would cut out the body humor (I can't stand it) that might be one of the funniest shows ever.

 

[1robin]

But they didn’t let theological preference influence their scientific conclusions because they accept said scientific conclusions.

At this point I think you are misdirecting. The fact that theological preference influenced (though maybe not have overwhelmed) their scientific judgment is indefensible.

It sounds like you’re explaining how “creationist” scientists go about conducting research. Or certain people like the guy I’m talking to on another thread who denies scientific evidence because it conflicts with how he views the Qu’ran.

I sincerely attempt to never deny scientific facts or very good theories with undeniable evidence, and all of that is consistent with the Bible or pretty darn close. A faith based on denial of truth is meaningless. All the science I contest is in the fantasy, virtually no evidence, realm. Science like every other aspect of human life (creationism included, probably more so) is not free from greed, pride, preference, and the in crowd. I try and segregate the good from the bad and have consistent standards and that is all I expect from your side but never get it.

I’m not sure why you think so. Nothing in science is considered “absolute” fact. Everything is always subject to change if or when new information is presented. I’m pretty sure they do claim what I claim here.

Actually in the context of theology it does not matter. I only insist evidence is weighted evenly and that is exactly what does not happen. Virtually anything is fine for non-theological explenations and virtually nothing is enogh for theological theories.

So far, “god” is not demonstrable, so it’s not accepted as an explanation, and also because as I said, “god did it” really doesn’t have any explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us how it happened or what mechanisms were involved. It’s an explanatory dead end. Although, I do think some of the claims for your god could be demonstrable or testable in some way, as I said before, given that you seem to think “he” involves himself in the material world.

Nor are multiverses, abiogenesis, or morality without God. I would not even mind if the God indicating aspects of a single finite universe were considered no better than the non God indicating aspects of a multiverse would be. At least that would be a start. The point is the most rabid of unequal standards are used with virtually no justification. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I’m not much of a fan of quote mining based on the fact that most given quotes are choppy and usually taken out of context, like the one above. Also, I’m usually a little skeptical when I see “…” included in a direct quotation. In any case, I always look to find the original quotation, in its original context. I’d advise you to read the entire piece, before jumping to any conclusions. You can find it here (it’s actually a review of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World):
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
The scrap of quote you’ve provided shows up about three quarters of the way down the page.

What? Is 1/3 of a page the limit for what may be used. I read teh surrounding context for that claim and it just got more damning. There exists no context in teh immediate area that changes that quote. It only enhances it. Take a look at what you have doen on this issue. You have stated that just because facts eventually overcame theological preference for a scientific conclusion that it means nothing. Then quotes are invalid. Then only those in the first 66.6% of an article are ok to get out from under the unavoidable fact that science like everything else is affected greatly by human preference.

I don’t know. If you have a problem with scientists having preconceived notions about god, I’m not so sure you should be quoting from a site whose mission statement declares:
“So, we admit, IDEA does have an agenda and a bias. And, just as we encourage each other to admit bias at our events, the leadership of IDEA freely and publicly acknowledges its own bias: We believe that life is not the result of purely natural processes, but that it was in some way designed by an "intelligence." And because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, IDEA Center Leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.”

1. I have never claimed religious folks are completely unbiased. I think I have said the exact opposite many times.
2. Where does what you posted come from. I searched the site and found no reference to it?
3. This is what I found: The article will show how intelligent design theory is science, and not religion, and it will show that while individuals at IDEA Center have religious beliefs, this does not affect the quality of the science we promote as an organization nor does it negate the secular, scientific basis of the theory of intelligent design.
4. Even if they were completely biased that does not make their claims wrong.
5. Even if wrong is it not justified to get both sides. The only demand I would make is that your side be as honest as that statement you found somewhere that contradicts what the site says.
6. We are all biased and use faith as a primary input. At least Christian’s admit it.

He's not exactly accurate on this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/03/14/1019191108.long
http://0-

Needs a login.

www.sciencedirect.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/science/article/pii/001670379500037Z

Needs login.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.abstract

????

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

Can't make work. What are you claiming these sites negate. We do not know what existed by then however many claim they do know. What is wrong about that?

But again, nothing is settled on this one. There’s plenty of room for further study.

Yet they claim to know anyway. Study their hearts out in my opinion just do not claim you know what you don't and all is well.

Apparently Eiseley didn’t think that our current level of technology would have allowed scientists to explain the origin of life. Of course he wrote The Immense Journey in 1958, so that might have something to do with his position.

That was not the real issue here. They were claiming X existed yet they could not provide evidence of X and the double standards that indicates are obvious and the actual issue. Little has changed since 1958 in either of these two respects. There still is no evidence worth the name that life originated on its own or that science only claims what it knows. The same is true about all of humanities "experts" 60 years ago or 6000 years ago. If I could find a person that debated from science that did not employ obvious double standards I think I would buy them a Daniel Webster cigar.

I had little time today. My job is fixing even the many mistakes of the application scientists and buisness is a boomin. Please wait for me to respond to the rest of your three volume work before adding more or it will become unmanigable. I will do so soon.

 

[Skeptisch]

Please wait for me to respond...

Are you trying to regrow some feathers? :sarcastic

 

[1robin]

Are you trying to regrow some feathers? :sarcastic

I don't get it. I like humor and hate it when I miss it. Can you clarify?

 

[1robin]

That’s probably because expansions and explosions are different things.

They use both terms frequently and for a forum either is sufficient.

There are several ongoing hypotheses concerning the prebiotic soup idea.

There are hypothesis for aliens building the pyramids, lizards in congress, and Atlantis. That does not mean any of them are true.

Have you read any Lawrence Krause?

The name is very familiar but I cannot place it.

Not it isn’t. It is like saying exactly what I said (I don’t really need to repeat it again, do I?). Why don’t you address my analogies at all?

Because they are vastly inadequate. We have done nothing in any lab that is even remotely sufficient to claim life came from non-life. My examples were absurd yet less so than the experiments and the claims made about them.

Science is a method of discovering the world around us. It has produced everything we know about everything. Both good and bad.

Science is a word.

You’ve implied that their judgment was swayed by personal opinion regarding religion, and more specifically, god.

It was and they said so in their own words in at least three quotes I have given. There is nothing about that claim that suggests that sway factor was permanent or conclusive. It just means it was there and should not have been. Again, it is indefensible.

No it wasn’t since they accepted the conclusions based on evidence, which is what they’re supposed to do.

You must be being intentionally obstinate. Science claims that it does not ever use theological preference in the methods for determining truth yet they in their own words did. It makes no difference if it was not an overwhelming factor. It is indefensible. When indefensible things are defended it makes al the arguments of a person look suspicious. It suggests your motivation is "science wrong or right" which is almost as bad as "I am driving drunk or sober". If you had instead of defending what they did would have said “so, they are human and have human faults and they are a very small minority” I would have accepted that. But no your side always opts for the "My country right or wrong, or there is no God true or false"