"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
Well, I was watching some vids, and one of DPR Jones' recent series cropped up. As some people on this thread have invoked William Lane Craig, I thought it was useful to show you exactly what William Lane Craig's argumants are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Her0NJLGkpY
It is a 3 1/4 parter thus far and shows precisely how weak this 'great christian apologist' and his arguments are. Enjoy. DPR Jones is the host of the 'Magic Sandwich Show' by the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Her0NJLGkpY
It is a 3 1/4 parter thus far and shows precisely how weak this 'great christian apologist' and his arguments are. Enjoy. DPR Jones is the host of the 'Magic Sandwich Show' by the way.
Resurrected! To live again...
Hope springs eternal!
A story of a man who heard the voice of God...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18170463
Hope springs eternal!
A story of a man who heard the voice of God...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18170463
mattnunn said:
Resurrected! To live again...
Hope springs eternal!
A story of a man who heard the voice of God...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18170463
Mental.Hope springs eternal!
A story of a man who heard the voice of God...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18170463
Quite a funny rant in response to a US news segment. The people they get on to these shows do seem to be quite befuddled in how they come to their opinions.
NSFW for general ranting and swearing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_8najN6QY
C0ct0pus makes me giggle, funny little man.
NSFW for general ranting and swearing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_8najN6QY
C0ct0pus makes me giggle, funny little man.
IainT said:
The apologist website Answers in Gensis even has a section on topics to avoid. Funny that they should even consider such a segment. I'll have a go, if you don't mind.
1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
Life has been created from chemicals in laboratory conditions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scienti...
As far as the scientists are aware, there was no divine intervention.
2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?
Er...no it's not, it's a nucleic acid with four bases.
http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Protein-Transcriptio...
3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?
Because evolution happens over a very long time, with very short generations in microbial lifeforms. There are amazing possibilities when you're not constrained to thinking the age of the Earth to be 6,000 years.
4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?
Wow, this must be a joke right? I'm not sure if I can even grace this one with an answer. How can you actually type these words and keep a straight face? Can anyone truly believe that certain genetic traits can help the parent organism survive and adapt better to its environment but that this is not proof of evolution? Natural selection IS part of evolution, the concentration of successful and eradication of unsuccessful genetic traits over time. Are you admitting that God creates crap animals just for a laugh?
5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
Not lucky accidents. Chemicals interacting over very long periods of time, chemicals that combine in certain ways survive better as they start to replicate themselves.
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: Is the design explanation legitimate?
Life is designed, as is the entire Universe, by itself, the designs are not set, we are in a constant state of redesign, we are all still on the drawing board, this is why we procreate quickly, age rapidly and die, life works best this way as it can adapt quicker.
7. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?
http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-s...
8. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).
This is pure nonsense, sexually reproducing organism can revert to asexual reproduction, life does what works best. Sexual reproduction allows greater genetic diversity, genes leading to sexual organs that don't fit, don't survive.
9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.
Sure there are missing fossils, most organisms die without a trace, fossils are an incredibly small sample of past life. Surely you should be more worried by the presence of any fossils? It's like a tracker finding footprints of an animal leading toward a riverbank and seeing them continue the other side but giving up on the hunt (and hunting in general) because there are footprints missing across the river.
10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”
Some organisms reach an equilibrium of design where further mutation leads to less successful adaptation. They are near perfect. For every long spanning organism there are millions that have succeeded for millennia but not survived to the present day. Incidentally, read about Tuaturas (an example of your misnomered 'living fossils'. They are an amazing example of homology, where genetically different creatures share similar form and characteristics. Incidentally, why would God do this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)
They also exhibit the highest rate of molecular evolution of any living animal, so they actually adapt and evolve very quickly, hence why I think the term 'living fossil' is a misnomer.
11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
Firstly, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. You creationists are so narrow minded that you think either God exists 'your way' or not at all.
Students can learn nihilism if they like, or about countless other subjects that do not depend on a belief in Creationism (in fact most depend on the opposite). At least they will be learning and not ignoring the truth of our existence.
Just for the record, SCIENCE is learned in science classes. Nihilism in philosophy classes.
12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”
Shall I list the things that have been or are being done right now in God's name? If an article has the word evolution in it, it does not mean it is agreed with by all (or indeed any) evolutionists.
13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
Evolution has changed the way we understand all life, in a scientific, philosophical and indeed religious sense. Why do churches and Christian Schools teach creationism so dogmatically rather than worthwhile moral and ethical life lessons (or indeed experimental biology) that might help young people?
14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
Ummm...I think you may have answered that one yourselves, and we can observe what has happened in the past by looking at the evidence of it and the ongoing creation of that evidence, you can see how organic sedimentation occurs and leads to limestone beds and how compost becomes peat, then lignite, anthracite, jet and diamond. We can see how fossils are created now and we can examine and date the fossils created in the past. Do I need to even mention the Woolly mammoths? Not many of those around now are there?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=woolly+mammoth+fo...
15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?
Wrong. The study of evolution is science. This is just a silly notion bandied around the internet by Creationists. Science is all theory, proofs only exist in mathematics. This does mean that they cannot be considered factual.
Remember, true scientists don't have an agenda other than to discover the truth. They are not looking for evidence of evolution, they are looking for the contrary, the evidence is there and cannot be ignored.
God would not want you to believe this utter tripe. Please cease and desist.
I have only one question for creationists:
Why do creationists not have access to Google? You can talk to God but not type words into a search engine, strange.
1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
Life has been created from chemicals in laboratory conditions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scienti...
As far as the scientists are aware, there was no divine intervention.
2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?
Er...no it's not, it's a nucleic acid with four bases.
http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Protein-Transcriptio...
3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?
Because evolution happens over a very long time, with very short generations in microbial lifeforms. There are amazing possibilities when you're not constrained to thinking the age of the Earth to be 6,000 years.
4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?
Wow, this must be a joke right? I'm not sure if I can even grace this one with an answer. How can you actually type these words and keep a straight face? Can anyone truly believe that certain genetic traits can help the parent organism survive and adapt better to its environment but that this is not proof of evolution? Natural selection IS part of evolution, the concentration of successful and eradication of unsuccessful genetic traits over time. Are you admitting that God creates crap animals just for a laugh?
5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
Not lucky accidents. Chemicals interacting over very long periods of time, chemicals that combine in certain ways survive better as they start to replicate themselves.
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: Is the design explanation legitimate?
Life is designed, as is the entire Universe, by itself, the designs are not set, we are in a constant state of redesign, we are all still on the drawing board, this is why we procreate quickly, age rapidly and die, life works best this way as it can adapt quicker.
7. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?
http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-s...
8. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).
This is pure nonsense, sexually reproducing organism can revert to asexual reproduction, life does what works best. Sexual reproduction allows greater genetic diversity, genes leading to sexual organs that don't fit, don't survive.
9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.
Sure there are missing fossils, most organisms die without a trace, fossils are an incredibly small sample of past life. Surely you should be more worried by the presence of any fossils? It's like a tracker finding footprints of an animal leading toward a riverbank and seeing them continue the other side but giving up on the hunt (and hunting in general) because there are footprints missing across the river.
10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”
Some organisms reach an equilibrium of design where further mutation leads to less successful adaptation. They are near perfect. For every long spanning organism there are millions that have succeeded for millennia but not survived to the present day. Incidentally, read about Tuaturas (an example of your misnomered 'living fossils'. They are an amazing example of homology, where genetically different creatures share similar form and characteristics. Incidentally, why would God do this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)
They also exhibit the highest rate of molecular evolution of any living animal, so they actually adapt and evolve very quickly, hence why I think the term 'living fossil' is a misnomer.
11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
Firstly, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. You creationists are so narrow minded that you think either God exists 'your way' or not at all.
Students can learn nihilism if they like, or about countless other subjects that do not depend on a belief in Creationism (in fact most depend on the opposite). At least they will be learning and not ignoring the truth of our existence.
Just for the record, SCIENCE is learned in science classes. Nihilism in philosophy classes.
12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”
Shall I list the things that have been or are being done right now in God's name? If an article has the word evolution in it, it does not mean it is agreed with by all (or indeed any) evolutionists.
13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
Evolution has changed the way we understand all life, in a scientific, philosophical and indeed religious sense. Why do churches and Christian Schools teach creationism so dogmatically rather than worthwhile moral and ethical life lessons (or indeed experimental biology) that might help young people?
14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
Ummm...I think you may have answered that one yourselves, and we can observe what has happened in the past by looking at the evidence of it and the ongoing creation of that evidence, you can see how organic sedimentation occurs and leads to limestone beds and how compost becomes peat, then lignite, anthracite, jet and diamond. We can see how fossils are created now and we can examine and date the fossils created in the past. Do I need to even mention the Woolly mammoths? Not many of those around now are there?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=woolly+mammoth+fo...
15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?
Wrong. The study of evolution is science. This is just a silly notion bandied around the internet by Creationists. Science is all theory, proofs only exist in mathematics. This does mean that they cannot be considered factual.
Remember, true scientists don't have an agenda other than to discover the truth. They are not looking for evidence of evolution, they are looking for the contrary, the evidence is there and cannot be ignored.
God would not want you to believe this utter tripe. Please cease and desist.
I have only one question for creationists:
Why do creationists not have access to Google? You can talk to God but not type words into a search engine, strange.
Einion Yrth said:
mattnunn said:
I'd just like to interject here to point out that Science, Religion and Philosophy are the same thing and should treated as such at all times, think of a tree with branches.
HTH
You've almost made a career of pointing that out; it's still bHTH
ks.There is no doubt that some truths have more effect on us than others, there are definately some facts, many of which scientist would call "laws".
Tell me why is their a law of gravity and yet not a law stating all humans think?
It leads to the problem of induction and back to Hume and our black swans.
it doesn't matter what you teach 16 year olds really, just as long as they're getting to grips with a process, religion and science are both a process, as is philosophy.
There is, in fact, no right or wrong, no truth, there is only your ability to assign meaning via process.
mattnunn said:
Well consider this.
There is no doubt that some truths have more effect on us than others, there are definately some facts, many of which scientist would call "laws".
Tell me why is their a law of gravity and yet not a law stating all humans think?
The two things are not equivalent. Gravity is a physical phenomenon that can be precisely described with equations. I can discuss the effect that gravity has on my cup of coffee.There is no doubt that some truths have more effect on us than others, there are definately some facts, many of which scientist would call "laws".
Tell me why is their a law of gravity and yet not a law stating all humans think?
However, I cannot discuss the effect my cup of coffee has on gravity, because the one thing is a physical phenomenon that can be precisely described with equations, and the other is a delicious caffeinated beverage.
The law of gravity and the hypothetical law of cogitation are not congruent.
mattnunn said:
There is, in fact, no right or wrong, no truth, there is only your ability to assign meaning via process.
There are two circumstances where this is complete toss:1. You're in an aeroplane at 10,000 metres
2. You've just been hoofed in the goolies
The notion of truth as relative is shown for what it is.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff