Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

People in this thread said that they have no solid evidence for god's existence, yet still believe in him. This is the definition of blind faith, they have admitted to it. I don't think they are stupid for believing in him and having blind faith, yet you obviously do, hence your comment. (I don't think I ever used the term blind faith).

You don't see that maybe proclaiming that you know what some dead people who you had never met would have thought if they had been presented with the evidence for and "against" evolution might make you seem a little crackpotish, Starman? Also, I don't think that saying "Most of the scientists who would believe in what I believe are dead" is a very good way to get your point across either. (Even if it were true, which nobody can say, because there is zero evidence).

I don't believe you have pointed out a single flaw in evolutionary theory that stands up to even the most cursory analysis that I give it.

About DNA "coding". I don't think that wordplay is a valid "great flaw of atheism".

---

It is just as crackpotish to say that these same people you have never met would be swayed by evolution and you don't seem to have a problem with that. About being dead, Darwin, the guy who came up with this crackpot idea is dead and it doesn't faze you one bit as far as giving him and his other dead evolutionists cronies credibility.

About, DNA, coding it only becomes wordplay when it indicates creative MIND behind nature. In all other cases such a code is considered solid evidence of guiding mind. In fact, SETI accepts patterns which are infinitely less complex as evidence of mind and you have absolutely no trouble with that.


Flaws? There are as many as there are atheistic evolutionists who refuse to acknowledge. In fact, when they are presented with these flaws they already know that they can't accept them because that would mean that there is a God and they can't tolerate that idea in there lives. It's just like when atheistic evolutiuonists find modern human remains in the wrong strata.


BTW
The same atheists who can't see beyond their noses when it comes to perceiving mind behind the infinite complexities of nature are the very atheists who would immediately accept a simple arrowhead as evidence of a guiding planning mind. And there is where they err since accepting their double standards requires that I join in with their self-contradictory charade, by placing my mind on hold and which I and others like me are unwilling to do.

Chuck, you could tell me why you were unsatisfied with my answer in post #9, I was satisfied with it.

If you just mock me instead of pointing out where you are unsatisfied, then you will not get a satisfying answer.

Capuchin:

I accept a lot of "provable science," for example, the law of gravity.
I don't accept evolution as a "provable" explanation for why we are here or how we got here.

We can both see that from Christian to non- Christian there is a wide range and degrees of belief.


I take no offense to the questions, that's why I purposefully posed the question the way I did.



Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

It is fun how they try to switch the question, change the topic, but never will address directly the cow issue

---

Father - go back and check - I did answer the cow question, and posed one of my own.

Starman, you are the one using these scientists as your evidence, apparently you have run out of scientists born after darwin who believe in creation. I have plenty of scientists who are alive today, I don't need dead ones who had never heard of evolution to prove my point (which I have not done, you notice, because it is a bad argument).

There have been patterns found by seti. They have been put down as an anomaly, not indicative of intelligent life.

Have you heard of the infinite monkey theorem? I don't think you need monkeys for that to work, you only need a random computer. A computer, randomly producing letters, given enough time, could type the entire works of shakespeare.

Those works of shakespeare were not written by intelligence, yet if I gave you the print out, you would assume it was.

What is your explanation here?

Inthebox, to us scientists, the evidence for evolution is as convincing as the evidence for gravity. We don't believe that either is provable, because we are always willing to change our theories in light of new evidence. They give valid predictions, but they are not provable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Starman, you are the one using these scientists as your evidence, apparently you have run out of scientists born after Darwin who believe in creation. I have plenty of scientists who are alive today, I don't need dead ones who had never heard of evolution to prove my point (which I have not done, you notice, because it is a bad argument).

There have been patterns found by seti. They have been put down as an anomaly, not indicative of intelligent life.

Have you heard of the infinite monkey theorem? I don't think you need monkeys for that to work, you only need a random computer. A computer, randomly producing letters, given enough time, could type the entire works of Shakespeare.

Those works of Shakespeare were not written by intelligence, yet if I gave you the print out, you would assume it was.

What is your explanation here?

---

Majority of scientific opinion=truth
Atheistic evolution is the majority scientific opinion
Atheistic evolution= truth

The problem in using that kind of premise is that one contrary example demolishes it.
And, since in this a case in which there are thousands of possible examples to the contrary, using it as evidence is a serious mistake and does more harm than good to your argument.

About your infinite time scenario. The universe isn't infinite. It had a beginning. So an appeal to infinite time is unscientific. As for the monkeys, they would wind up breaking the typewriter. In fact, changing pages, [a requirement in your typewriter analogy if we are to be logically consistent] and replacing ink ribbons would be an insurmountable problem since they lack the dexterity due to their thumb problem. Eventually their simple minds would tire of the tedious typing and they would brain one another with the machines.


A computer needs someone to program it. So it itself needs a creator. Where is its power source coming from? Suppose it gets unplugged or there is a power outage? These things are relevant since this particular computer has to keep at it. Who will replace it's moving parts when they start to wear out? But even if ut did plow ahead because of being supernaturally gifted, then we would have to accept that the universe is as simple as words on a page--which all scientists agree that it is not.

BTW

The pattern SETI rejects are rejected because they show no evidence of intelligent source. The patterns we see in nature, and in DNA specifically do. If SETI were to receive such a complex pattern, it would immediately announce it as being from an intelligent source. However, if that same pattern is shown to them in a living organism they would claim mindlessness. That's why I consider their opinion nonsensical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

InTheBox: let me turn your question around on you - if you believe that man was given absolute dominion over animals by God, then it should follow that animal cruelty laws are bunk - is that right? After all, shouldn't a man be able to treat animals in any way he chooses? Here in the US a famous football player is `currently in trouble for sponsoring dog fighting (Michael Vick) - would you argue that man's dominion means Michael Vick has a God-given right to mistreat dogs as he sees fit, and hence should not be prosecuted?

Personally I am a Christian who believes in evolution, because it explains the facts of the physical world better than any other explanation to date. That does not mean that a man murdering a man is the same as a man killing a cow. The fundamental difference is in the level of intelligence of the victim (so yes, killing a dolphin or chimp in my opinion is more significant than killing, say, a house fly), and in the understanding that without laws against murder we would be living in a totally lawless society, and that would be a bad thing for all of us. Societal norms is what allows humans to live together in peace.

---

In my opinion animal cruelty laws are Biblically consistent - treat others with respect, love, kindness, even those below your station in life- there are references to the treatment of slaves that, in that time, were radical.

God gave us dominion, which entails good stewardship.

What are societal norms based on ?

Some may argue that in the dog-fighting culture, the kind of cruelty that Michael Vick is accused of is nothing to get all upset about.

Btw - I currently have a Boxer, pomeranian, and a rot / lab mutt - I would not stand for anyone hurting them.:mad:



Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

Majority of scientific opinion=truth
Atheistic evolution is the majority scientific opinion
Atheistic evolution= truth

The proiblen in using that kind of premise is that one contray example demolishes it.
And, since in thisa case theire are thousands of possible examples to the contrary, using it as evidence is a sderious mistake and does more harm than good to your argument.

About your infinite time scenario. The universe isn't infinite. It had a begining. So an appeal to infinite time is unscientific. As for the monkeys, they would wind up breaking the typewriter. In fact, changing pages, [a requirement in your typewirter analogy if we are to be logicall;y consistent] and replacing ink ribbons would be an insurmountable problem since they lack the dexterity due to their thumb problem. Eventually their simpole minds whould tire of the tedious typing and they would brain one another with the machines.

---

Okay, have you been drinking? Let's go through this one by one.

The premise that you are using is that a small minority of scientists do not believe evolution, therefore evolution is rubbish. That's the argument that you seem to use most, and by your own logic here, we can see that it's not a solid evidence. I have never used the fact that a majority of scientists believe in evolution as evidence for evolution, I have merely used it to show that your argument is wrong.

"About your infinite time scenario. The universe isn't infinite. It had a begining. So an appeal to infinite time is unscientific."
I said enough time. Not infinite. The time needed is not infinite.

"As for the monkeys, they would wind up breaking the typewriter. In fact, changing pages, [a requirement in your typewirter analogy if we are to be logicall;y consistent] and replacing ink ribbons would be an insurmountable problem since they lack the dexterity due to their thumb problem. Eventually their simpole minds whould tire of the tedious typing and they would brain one another with the machines."
I said nothing about monkeys and typewriters, I'm talking about a computer. You obviously need a nap or to sober up :). You know that these are also just nitpicky arguments. There is a flaw in my argument that I was expecting you to pick up on, but it seems I hold too much faith in you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

As a Christian, I believe that God created humans to be superior and above all animals [Genesis], even angels; and because of this human life is precious.

Humans did not come from the same primordial muck that all other animals came from as evolutionists and alot of scientists will have you believe.


My question is to evolutionists, agnostics, atheists, perhaps non-Christians, who avidly call in to question Christian beliefs, and seem to be active on the "Christian" threads:

If you believe that humans are like other animals [a bunch of chemicals and molecules],
is the daily slaughter of cows [ which probably ranges in the thousands ] worse than the 32 dead in one day at Virginia Tech ?


If you answer 'no' then why?:confused:

Grace and Peace

---

So, back to the original question...

inthebox you appear to have a misconception that many people do about atheists, that we lack morals or don't experience guilt. It's a common way of thinking because to you, you have someone to answer to in the end, so you want to behave (I'm simplifying a bit here). I don't have someone to answer to, so why should I care about my behavior? Thinking that way supposes a lack of morals and no capacity for guilt or remorse. Sure our morals might be different, but that doesn't mean I don't have them, especially the principle ones like how it's not nice to kill people.

People and animals are just bunches of chemicals and molecules and flesh and water and goo, but they still aren't the same. People are far more sophisticated than animals. A cow can't think "bridge" and build it; a human can. A monkey can think "bridge" and build it (sort of), but a monkey can't think "spread my knowledge of bridge building to other monkeys the world over so we all have bridges" and do it; a human can. Besides, monkeys still throw poo, and that's just yucky! :) So in a way I agree with ebaines on killing intelligent creatures - no matter how smart a cow is, it's still dumber than the dumbest person. And before someone tries to run with that, no, it's not right to kill dumb people either (well... maybe some... :)). They are people, that makes them "off limits".

To go further (and maybe a bit off topic), you mention those who "call into question Christian beliefs", what beliefs are you specifically talking about? I think when you talk about things like murder and theft atheists will agree with you that those things are wrong. We differ the most with your belief in a god, which is not unique to Christianity. Christians are also against abortion and homosexuality and while personally I'm not, I'm sure there are atheists out there who are. So really the only thing across the board that I can think of that every atheist and every Christian disagree on is the existence of a god (and in turn heaven and hell, afterlife, etc). Belief in god is a tenant of Christianity and certainly a prerequisite to being a Christian, but there are other beliefs. You might relate them to god (murder is wrong because the bible says so), but an atheist can still think murder or abortion or homosexuality or whatever other Christian belief is wrong for society. It's like how you say you believe science and belief in god are not mutually exclusive; neither is atheism and morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I fail to see your problem inthebox. Cows are different to humans, just not in such an absolute sense as you believe. They're still different though.

Yes there's nothing special about humans, except that they are our own species. Elephants grieve when a member of their herd dies, but give very little consequence to killing humans and other animals. It's a natural thing to be able to sympathise with your own species plight more than any other species.

---

My question to you is why is human life more important than any other species?
What value system is that based on?
Because if God did not create us, and humans are "nothing special" what is the big deal about Virginia Tech? Does evolution or science explain compassion or empathy.


Putting on my cold, emotionless, just the facts hat and vulcan ears:
I would say "who cares about cows," we are predator and they are prey .:)


GRace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Okay, have you been drinking? Let's go through this one by one.

The premise that you are using is that a small minority of scientists do not believe evolution, therefore evolution is rubbish. That's the argument that you seem to use most, and by your own logic here, we can see that it's not a solid evidence. I have never used the fact that a majority of scientists believe in evolution as evidence for evolution, I have merely used it to show that your argument is wrong.

"About your infinite time scenario. The universe isn't infinite. It had a beginning. So an appeal to infinite time is unscientific."
I said enough time. Not infinite. The time needed is not infinite.

"As for the monkeys, they would wind up breaking the typewriter. In fact, changing pages, [a requirement in your typewirter analogy if we are to be logicall;y consistent] and replacing ink ribbons would be an insurmountable problem since they lack the dexterity due to their thumb problem. Eventually their simple minds would tire of the tedious typing and they would brain one another with the machines."
I said nothing about monkeys and typewriters, i'm talking about a computer. You obviously need a nap or to sober up :). You know that these are also just nitpicky arguments. There is a flaw in my argument that I was expecting you to pick up on, but it seems I hold too much faith in you.

---

I can't drink alcoholic beverages due to my health. I am not sleepy I am wide awake.
Or do you believe that just because I don't share your unshakable belief in a theory that has more holes in it then there are on Noriega''s moonlike facia-buffa I must be drunk or otherwise mentally incapacitated? That is childish and isn't worthy of a man who claims to go by pure logic and who is sensitive to anything which smacks of personal attacks himself--no?
You did say infinite amount of time but now shift. However, mathematical calculations indicate that the time available for the complexities you believed happened are impossible.


BTW
Now you are resorting to personal attacks which brings the conversation to a conclusion. I have much more important things to do then read rantings a ravings about magical ideas which are equivalent to Mother Goose and Father Rooster stories told to young children.
So, as I said once, I will go my way, you go yours and everyone is happy.

BYE!

Well, lets go back a page and find out... oh here it is... "given enough time".

It doesn't say infinite to me.

I accused you of being asleep or maybe drunk because you failed to address a single one of my points sensibly, and it even seemed that you were making fun of me when I had asked you a serious question. If you were not drunk or sleepy then I apologise, you must have simply been mocking me.

Thank you for editing your post after I had replied to it. That is not a very nice thing to do in a discussion is it?

Again with the computer points you are nitpicking. The point of the computer is that it's producing random characters, like random molecules bouncing around in a primordial soup. You still haven't reached the flaw that I have expected you to.

As for the SETI thing, they have dismissed it because they have scanned the same point in the sky many times and never got a similar result. While it is unlikely to have been from experimental noise, that is the only conclusion to draw, because the unlikely happens.

As for these mathematical calculations indicating that abiogenesis is impossible, I have provided a counter argument based on mathematics, but you refused to comment on them, remember?

Again we end our discussion because only one side wants an adult discussion, the other side is only here to win.

Onto the Cows!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

So, back to the original question....

inthebox you appear to have a misconception that many people do about atheists, that we lack morals or don't experience guilt. It's a common way of thinking because to you, you have someone to answer to in the end, so you want to behave (I'm simplifying a bit here). I don't have someone to answer to, so why should I care about my behavior? Thinking that way supposes a lack of morals and no capacity for guilt or remorse. Sure our morals might be different, but that doesn't mean I don't have them, especially the principle ones like how it's not nice to kill people.

People and animals are just bunches of chemicals and molecules and flesh and water and goo, but they still aren't the same. People are far more sophisticated than animals. A cow can't think "bridge" and build it; a human can. A monkey can think "bridge" and build it (sort of), but a monkey can't think "spread my knowledge of bridge building to other monkeys the world over so we all have bridges" and do it; a human can. Besides, monkeys still throw poo, and that's just yucky! :) So in a way I agree with ebaines on killing intelligent creatures - no matter how smart a cow is, it's still dumber than the dumbest person. And before someone tries to run with that, no, it's not right to kill dumb people either (well.... maybe some.... :)). They are people, that makes them "off limits".

To go further (and maybe a bit off topic), you mention those who "call into question Christian beliefs", what beliefs are you specifically talking about? I think when you talk about things like murder and theft atheists will agree with you that those things are wrong. We differ the most with your belief in a god, which is not unique to Christianity. Christians are also against abortion and homosexuality and while personally I'm not, I'm sure there are atheists out there who are. So really the only thing across the board that I can think of that every atheist and every Christian disagree on is the existence of a god (and in turn heaven and hell, afterlife, etc). Belief in god is a tenant of Christianity and certainly a prerequisite to being a Christian, but there are other beliefs. You might relate them to god (murder is wrong because the bible says so), but an atheist can still think murder or abortion or homosexuality or whatever other Christian belief is wrong for society. It's like how you say you believe science and belief in god are not mutually exclusive; neither is atheism and morality.

---

Appreciate your reply.

Great point : atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive. I do not mean to imply non-Christians are amoral or immoral.

I see science as not having anything to do with morality, just facts.

If one does not believe in a God, where does morality come from?




Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

If one does not believe in a God, where does morality come from?

---

From your upbringing, from your sense of community, from your respect for your fellow man regardless of colour, religion or nationality.

NK put it very well; your sense of morality comes from your surroundings. That also explains why it changes over time. Remember, it used to be totally normal to own slaves and beat them because you felt like it. It used to be immoral for women to wear pants, or work outside the home in but a few professions. These things change and they have nothing to do with the bible. I'm not saying the bible can't instill good values into a person, but it also has the potential to do harm if taken literally or not applied to today's standards.

I've posted this question many times before, because I think it illustrates my point quite well; if you suddenly stopped believing in god, would you kill your neighbor because his dog pooed on your lawn? Take jail out of the equation; if you could kill your neighbor and you would never get in trouble, would you do it? For society's sake, I hope not. For society's sake, I hope there is more than the fear of god and jail keeping you from killing your neighbor, or anyone else.

My ancestors are not ameobas.

XenoSapien

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

My question to you is why is human life more important than any other species?

---

Hello in:

It has nothing to do with importance or value. It has to do with our ability to ranch and feed ourselves. I don't think I'm any better than the leaf of lettuce I consume. I am, however, glad that I can eat IT, and that IT can't eat me.

I'm sure if cows could ranch us, they would and there wouldn't be any value judgments in that either.

excon

My life is the most important thing to me.
Should I eat an ugly cow, or a marauding head of lettuce?
The lettuce was alive, too.
Or should we be sanctimonious and just not eat.
Don't want to kill anything...
Our spec on this habitable bit of isolation, in a universe so vast, most can't even conceive our own mortality.
The cow wouldn't be here if we didn't help it. The lettuce woudn't be here if we didn't cultivate it.
We're all ameobi, just multi-celled. Lucky for us, for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Well, lets go back a page and find out... oh here it is... "given enough time".

It doesn't say infinite to me.

I accused you of being asleep or maybe drunk because you failed to address a single one of my points sensibly, and it even seemed that you were making fun of me when I had asked you a serious question. If you were not drunk or sleepy then I apologise, you must have simply been mocking me.

Thank you for editing your post after I had replied to it. That is not a very nice thing to do in a discussion is it?

Again with the computer points you are nitpicking. The point of the computer is that it's producing random characters, like random molecules bouncing around in a primordial soup. You still haven't reached the flaw that I have expected you to.

As for the SETI thing, they have dismissed it because they have scanned the same point in the sky many times and never got a similar result. While it is unlikely to have been from experimental noise, that is the only conclusion to draw, because the unlikely happens.

As for these mathematical calculations indicating that abiogenesis is impossible, I have provided a counter argument based on mathematics, but you refused to comment on them, remember?

Again we end our discussion because only one side wants an adult discussion, the other side is only here to win.

Onto the Cows!

---

You misunderstood my SETI example.


Also, I wasn't mocking you. I was simply pointing out what I consider relevant factors which affect the example you provided. If we propose monkeys hammering on a typewriter then monkeys will be monkeys. If they break the machine then that's to be expected since that's what monkeys will eventually do. If you find this weird, then tell me just what kink of monkeys you are referring to and why I shouldn't hold you to your choice of a scenario. Your choice mind you-not mine.

Here is more info on the typewriter example:

Quote:

---

Excerpt:

Assuming a 50-key typewriter to accommodate letters, numbers, and punctuation, the chance of typing “THE” is one in 50 x 50 x 50 (50-3), or one in 125,000. At a rate of one strike per second this would take 34.72 hours. For the phrase “THE LORD” the chance becomes 50-8 and requires 1,238,663.7 years. The entire Psalm requires 9.552 x 101016 years to complete on average. The age of the universe is only 15 billion years according to evolutionists, so the probability is clearly outside of the realm of possibility. (It is possible that the event can happen at any given point in the trials, but the difference in time needed and time allowed is unreasonable.)


When considering the probability of the assembly of a DNA molecule, the same problems arise. Harold J. Morowitz, professor of biophysics at Yale, has calculated that the formation of one E. coli bacteria in the universe at 10-100,000,000,000, or one in 10 to the power of 100 billion. Sir Fred Hoyle has offered the analogy of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747, “nonsense of a high order” in his words. Natural selection cannot be the mechanism that caused life to form from matter as it can only work on a complete living organism...

Another major problem with the probability argument is that the chemical processes that supposedly formed life are also reversible at every step. As water is released in the formation of amino acids, the water is then available to break the bond in the reverse reaction, which is actually more favorable. Oceans are the last place amino acids would form. Huxley's typewriters would have to include a delete key for each other key in order for the analogy to be complete. No matter how much time and matter was available or the rate of interactions of atoms, the probability remains zero for the reversible reactions involved.

Chapter 5: The Origin of Life - Answers in Genesis]

---

About post editing, please be advised that I edit so grant me at least 15 minutes before responding. If a new point comes up just address it in your next commentary via editing yourself. So you see, there is really no disadvantage.