WDPLAC pt 31, 6500 comments.

and for this you gush thanks for helping ’spread the gospel’. Yeah sure this is an advert for the bible like the hindenberg is an advert for hydrogen powered zeppelins….. 300 000 of them…..

However as you seem intent ‘thanking’ me for the publicity, Im only too happy to give you what you lust for. – Everyones a winner!

One example is this, I hear Christians make the point that portions of Revelations could be interpreted as thermonuclear war, but the problem with a book written 2000 years ago is that it can be interpreted in many different ways, proof of point being that there are so many sects and denominations of Christianity because they all interpret the bible differently. In such a case, the theist who makes the observation claims the end is coming close, and nuclear weapons are proof because they are described in revelations.

No, the sky falling is mentioned in revelations. What the observer erroneously did was retroactively interpret the bible based on new knowledge of new innovations, they twisted new innovations we created to fit the old model to better justify to themselves their model. Unless the bible says “and ye, God came to the Earth, and hurled tomohawk missles to annihilate the sinners in a flash of radiation and energy” you can’t assume the bible is saying anything about nuclear war or anything it does not actually say. They don’t change the old model given new information about the atom, the laws of the universe that make the atom bomb possible.

On point 1: Scientists don’t claim to know how the universe was formed definitively, but they observe the universe, interpret their observations based on other consistent observations, test their interpretations, and continually redesign a model of the universe. Theists have an unchanging model of the universe based on one idea that was put forth thousands of years ago and is untestable, neither provable nor disprovable. Therefore, Peter’s first point was only a statement of the obvious, and largely redundant.

On Point 2: Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg

Only one I need, this is a non-domesticated banana, meaning it was not engineered by humans. Look at the large seeds, where’s the perfect shape and pop top? It looks inedible.

3. Peter makes assumptions about science and when he claims that the theories cannot even detail how the first cell was created. That’s because he again assumes that science is claiming to prove. Since science is constantly redesigning theories based on new observations, the model of the the origin of life changes and is tested. In fact, recent tests have shown that RNA, the precursor to DNA which still serves important functions in cells, can be produced in the lab using conditions theorized to exist on Earth at around the time life is theorized to have began.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43723/title/How_RNA_got_started

4. Again, peter has no understanding of science, science does not claim to be absolutely definitive, which makes it more credible because it is constantly being redefined. Creationists maintain there views about how the universe was created, the history of earth, etc, whether or not new information is found. No matter what proof is presented, the theist’s model of the universe is unchanging. Scientists on the other hand formulate a model and test it to better understand the universe, rather than take a book’s word and for it and use unverifiable untestable anecdotes as evidence.

5. Peter’s statement is ironic, he is so confident and his observation was that ignorance begets confidence more than knowledge. In fact, I almost laughed when I read that. If he knew what I’ve already said three times, that science does not claim to have a full understanding of the universe, he would know that science is not entirely confident of its model, which is why it can evolve and become more and more accurate, which is why our technology and understanding of the mechanisms of the universe that make the computer and electricity possible exists, it wouldn’t if science didn’t constantly redefine its models.

6. I and Thunderfoot and athiests are atheists because we believe there is no god, how than are we our own gods? And also Peter makes assumptions about the religions of the historical figures he brings up, it is widely known that Darwin was a theist, and that he believed evolution was the mechanism God used to create the animals, he never he even thought anyone would come to the conclusion that the idea of evolution and God are incompatible with each other; to him it was proof of intelligent design.

I think before someone makes assumptions about Science and how it provides an understanding of how the universe works one should actually understand what science is and what it seeks to do. Before making claims about some group’s ego one should probably examine their own. You are the one who is so unwaveringly confidant that you are blind to the most obvious. To quote your own holy book, try taking the plank out of your eye before you attempt removing a splinter out of your neighbors.

The funny thing I’ve always observed is that Christians will ask for evidence, and the more evidence you give them the more they ask for. How many missing links does there have to be? Don’t you understand that every intermediate species that no longer exists, every dinosaur, every fossil is the missing link? Hell, look at dogs and how easily their genetics are manipulated and changed, isn’t that proof enough in evolution? We’ve forced evolution on animals and we’ve been doing it since the beginning of time with selective breeding, its right in front of everyone’s faces. How big does the mountain have to get, oh, that’s right, you don’t even bother looking in the direction of the mountain, there’s no way to enlighten someone who does not even open their eyes to the information they ask for.

Honestly this 17 year old’s argument could be shredded by anyone with half a decent education. Luckily for Peter I’m not a philosophy major, they could write a book about how flimsy his argument is.

“Premise 1: A person’s “god” is defined as that which they value the most, and that to which they give the most energy, time, and thought. In other words, a person’s “god” is what a person is willing to live or die for”.

I do not accept your definition, for starters. You have made the term ‘god’ redundant – it merely means ‘a very important thing’ now. Nothing ‘godly’ about that.

I reject Premise #1.

“Premise 2: People naturally live for themselves or die for themselves (e.g. suicide). They must be supernaturally changed (called “regeneration” cf. Titus 3:5) to do otherwise”.

Ignoring everyone that has ever dedicated their lives to the protection of the weak and the care of the sick and needy. Also ignoring all the people that have died for their country, or to protect their family.

I reject Premise #2.

“Conclusion: Everyone’s god is themselves until their desires are supernaturally changed”.

Naturally, I reject your conclusion.

Wasn’t Kenyon the one who ran away from a Creation vs. evolution trial where he was supposed to be a witness? I’m pretty sure he authored ‘Of Pandas and People’, the notorious ‘Intelligent Design’ textbook that was actually just thinly veiled Creationism.

Still, I guess he counts. He was an evolutionist until he got religion and turned creationist…. and then pretended that Intelligent Design is real science; I’ll give you that one. Anyone else?

I skipped the rest of your comment. No offense, but for me to take any of that seriously, I’d have to believe the Christian axiom that the Bible is the Word of God. I don’t, so it’s all just pretty language to me.

Cheers and thanks for responding,

1. So it is an analogy and it is a joke and it’s also evidence of design, eh? Couldn’t be more obvious really!

Ray made the analogy (originally) because he thought that bananas had always been the way we see them today, and so had comparable features with a coke can. THe coke can has designed features and so the equivalent features on the banana must also be design (by God). That was his argument – The Atheist’s Nightmare – and despite its levity, it was a serious attempt at an argument.

It fails. Hard. This is because we know that the modern banana was selectively cultivated by man to look and taste the way it currently does. Evolutionary forces of reproduction, mutation, variation and selection brought the banana to where it is today.

Everything that came after that was Ray desperately trying to save face whilst simultaneously milking it for all the publicity it was worth.

2. You’ve shifted the goalposts. The question wasn’t about providing evidence against a designer, it was providing evidence for evolution. Ray has stated that no evidence could ever convince him that evolution is true so it doesn’t matter that the evidence (that we have in abundance) is credible or not, Ray’s mind is closed to it.

3. As has been said, you are simply wrong if you think that the theory of evolution encompasses the origin of life.

4. Again, you seem to think that evolutionary theory changing to accommodate new facts and data is somehow a bad thing. It’s funny; on the one hand Creationists will call evolution a dogmatic religion that science rigidly try to uphold against all the new evidence….. and yet on the other hand the same Creationists will say that evolution changes every minute with the passing breeze! Make up your minds will you!

Yes, the theory will no doubt be different in ‘a billion years time’ it will be more accurate, for starters.

5. It was actually the claim that Thunderf00t is Thunderf00t’s god, that I was referring to here.

I’ll respond to your conclusion in a sec..

Thank you for providing me with a strong atheist who has since accepted intelligent design. I stand corrected in general, but will say a couple of things.

Flew has not accepted Intelligent Design over evolution. He still accepts evolution (as far as I am aware) but one of his reasons for postulating a deistic god was the lack of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

His is a deistic ‘god of the gaps’ rather than a well-evidenced (through DNA, say) Designer and he has acknowledged that he doesn’t keep up to date with the latest science in this regard anyway (he is 86, after all!)

In the future, could you make your references clearer when you are copy/pasting from somewhere else? It was quite difficult to parse which bits of your comment were actually written by you. Thanks.

Lastly, can you name a strong evolutionist who has turned to Intelligent Design in the light of DNA evidence?

Many Thanks,

He also isn’t a scientist, he’s a philosopher. So Excuse me if I take Francis Collins word on DNA over his.

He’s just saying “I don’t understand it! It must have been magic!”

You contradict your own false assertion.

“However, this is not the same branch of evolutionary belief that Thunderf00t would seem to believe. Normally the theory of evolution deals with the evolution of the universe and the origin of the different species. After all, “On the Origin of Species…” was the title of Darwin’s book.”

Hello! it’s right there, Darwin’s book was The Origin of Species, it wasn’t The Origin of the Universe. and it wasn’t The Origin of Life. It deals with the the cause of the variety of life on the planet.

The Theory of Evolution has no requirement for a particular answer to Abiogenesis. God could have done it, Aliens could have done, a Time Traveller could have done it.

Peter can you name 1 science that doesn’t change?

The Large Hadron Collider just broke a new world record this week for energy in a proton collision. And the plan is to go much further.

New Physics!

No field of Science is ‘complete’.

Presumably you don’t believe in Newtons Laws of Motion, because Einstein corrected them because he “wanted to make it more congruent with reality.”

Again as I said to Steven, I guarantee you have no idea what the state of the art is in Abiogenesis research.

Only recently it was announced that it was discovered that even more amino acids occur naturally in space. To go along with the others that science already knew occurred there.

Absolute knowledge is a ridiculous concept because it doesn’t get you anywhere. I don’t believe in pixies. Am I saying that NOWHERE at NO TIME is even possible for there to have EVER been pixies? No. But for all practical purposes, I’ve never been shown evidence for pixies so I can say within the bounds of reason there are no pixies.

Gravity is a THEORY. Take that in for a moment. There is a big difference between the colloquial sense of the word theory, and the scientific one. A scientific theory is not a guess! For a hypothesis to become a theory it has to go through rigorous trials and tribulations. Scientists do not take conjectures lightly. A theory is an explanation for facts based on evidence. Let’s examine the scientific theory and your God hypothesis (I say hypothesis because there is no evidence for it,which, correct me if I’m wrong is the definition of faith)

Fact: Life is diverse

The scientific theory of evolution – Life has evolved over billions of years from a common ancestor. We infer this based on biological, geological, and molecular evidence.
Your hypothesis – God did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Please actually study the experiment before you denounce it based on your own personal bias. Amino acids are not definitive “life”, true. But they are absolutely necessary for life to exist because of their integral part in the metabolism of all living things.

And to address your final diatribe, I can only reply with this; I refuse to bow down before the celestial Kim Jong Il invented by man in his mental infancy. But that is a topic for another discussion. This is about evolution and your fervent denial of reality as WE CAN OBSERVE IT. The reason I concluded that last bit is because people like you say, “Well can you can deny God but that doesn’t change the reality of him.” But just because you are gullible enough to believe in something someone just made up doesn’t make it true.

Many Christians just as devout as you are have accepted evolution, why can’t you?