How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[cman]

EDIT: and the anthropic principle really is just another stand point that really isn't anymore valid than intelligent design. I'm ******** and am like "OMGZ THERE IS LIFE ON EARTH? THERE MUST BE A GOD" its how PERFECT we are in comparison to everything else. How everything seems to be shaped perfectly? How come we're so dominantly intelligent. There is nothing that comes remotely close that we have on earth. Nothing. That alone should make you think a little rather than just dismiss it because the concept of a God seems illogical. The first half of this tells you what logic means to the concept of a God.

HAHA. I actually laughed out loud when i read that. Are you honestly trying to argue humans are perfect? I don't remember the last time a couple animals got together and crusaded against another group because the former's unfounded ideas were superior to the latter's unfounded ideas. Have you ever watched the news? It's hard to believe you have when you claim humans are perfect. Also we have organs that serve no purpose, which would be odd for a perfect being?

And if you want to go along the "we're smarter than the others" avenue, shouldn't it tell you something that the the majority of the smartest of our species lack a belief in a higher power? (I don't feel like finding a source for this, but there have been many studies done, and if you want to look it up and can't find a good source, I suggest an 'Intro to Google' course.)

If there is an all-powerful creator, then he is either malevolent or just sucks at his job (which might be a problem for an all-powerful entity), so i'm going to just say there isn't.

 

[chucklesXcore]

Look, I don't know why people are still addressing me after I said I was done.

I'll try to sum up what is wrong with my debate right now as simply as I can.

The few who seem to be addressing me with legitimate points are vastly more knowledgeable on their side of the debate. It's extremely hard to argue without putting anything skeptical out there. That is not an excuse. I'm saying, for my own side, believing in God... I'm not the best representative person. There are people who have studied religion and if it is real or not. They've looked for evidence. Me, being young, and how broad of a topic religion is, have just now found what I believe(I had to look around at all the religions before even picking something I liked). I haven't even begun to delve deep into how I can get some evidence. I've heard some things. Some very basic and skeptical things that I don't feel are worth bringing up. An example would be, they found what could be the remains of Noah's ark on a mountain top near mt.Ararat(where the bible says the ark supposedly was when the flood ended) Mt.Ararat could have been different back then, but granted I have not and do not feel this is a reliable source. (the person who showed me, found it on some random obscure site and the pictures were extremely blurry and looked fake IMO)Its not worth bringing up. I brought it up now saying there are skeptical things out there that can be looked into and MAYBE a few of them will be good arguments, but right now I am not well schooled or have looked into enough to really debate this. I was under the impression this debate was about "how can anyone believe in god?". I believed I answered that question. It was simply a person being illogical and basing things off their feelings more than logic. Which, according to you all, is wrong. However, I just felt that the debate hall was a place to express legitimate views. Which it is a legitimate view. It may not be the smartest, but its a view. It makes someone highly less likely to know whats going on. I've admitted that several a times, but nonetheless its a standpoint. However, the more I debate the more this debate is on "how do you know God is real?" Now, that I'm fully aware this isn't a topic about self-belief. I feel there's no point for me to be here. There have been very few people addressing me properly, but the few that have I respect. AltF4, RDK, etc. All have come at me with some legitimate points. However, again, I'm unschooled and not so knowledgeable on my side of things. And most people are when it comes to God and THAT is how I am foolish on my part. I'm willing to back down for now. I'm not saying I'm wrong either. I'm saying I need to look into things more so I can better represent what I believe in. I feel, as a believer, I've been making us look a little dumb since this topic has become about how is God real. Get someone in here from PBU(Philadelphia Biblical University and where I plan to attend) with a doctorate or a master's and I'm sure they'll be able to tell you A LOT more than I could and be able to counter your arguments. Unfortunately for the rest of us I'm not that knowledgeable, and logic is something easily attainable by people who have put forth some effort into being intelligent. If this is about logic, I'm leaving until I feel I have a stronger argument either wise this whole thing is pointless. As is for any believer. Unless there is a knowledgeable person out there on the religious and spiritual side of things this will be an extremely one sided debate. The logical people can simply say "logically prove your god" and boom. Win. Because most who believe are comfortable with just basing things off what they feel. So when they come into a topic that requires them to prove that its almost impossible for them. Actually it is. Does that mean there is no God? No, it means we personally can't prove it to you due to our lack of knowledge. And because of that I am forced to respect that I need to get more knowledge before entering a debate about whether God is real or not. I apologize, but in my defense, I was truly under the impression this was a debate about a person's right to believe(how can you believe in God? you have NO reason to believe in god!). I truly thought it was going in here and is the only reason I posted to begin with.

And there....I hope THAT clears things up.

 

[snex]

chuckles, somebody with a "doctorate" from a bible school will have arguments just as bad or worse than yours. there is really no substance to theology. people have been in this thread quoting the top theologians like alvin plantinga, william lane craig, etc, and the arguments are all CRAP. you should go to a real school and get a real degree - not because theology is nonsense but because real degrees are actually useful.

the problem you keep running into is about what the default position should be. in the absence of knowledge about gods (or any other topic), what should we think? should we just accept that the things do exist, or should we treat them as if they dont? you cant pick one answer for god and a different answer for everything else. you have to be consistent, or else you are simply deluding yourself.

some theologians claim that on the topic of god, the default position should be that he does exist. but why? they have no reason to offer you. you cant just pick whatever you want and say that the default position is that it exists without evidence. thats simply not how reality works. if people acted that way all the time, we would still be hunting gnus with spears.

 

[EC_Joey]

I apologize, but in my defense, I was truly under the impression this was a debate about a person's right to believe(how can you believe in God? you have NO reason to believe in god!). I truly thought it was going in here and is the only reason I posted to begin with.

People are free to believe whatever the hell they want. It's when they start pushing their beliefs on other people (Intelligent Design), or discriminating against people with different beliefs (American Christians like to discriminate against Islam), when it becomes a problem.

 

[chucklesXcore]

chuckles, somebody with a "doctorate" from a bible school will have arguments just as bad or worse than yours. there is really no substance to theology. people have been in this thread quoting the top theologians like alvin plantinga, william lane craig, etc, and the arguments are all CRAP. you should go to a real school and get a real degree - not because theology is nonsense but because real degrees are actually useful.

the problem you keep running into is about what the default position should be. in the absence of knowledge about gods (or any other topic), what should we think? should we just accept that the things do exist, or should we treat them as if they dont? you cant pick one answer for god and a different answer for everything else. you have to be consistent, or else you are simply deluding yourself.

some theologians claim that on the topic of god, the default position should be that he does exist. but why? they have no reason to offer you. you cant just pick whatever you want and say that the default position is that it exists without evidence. thats simply not how reality works. if people acted that way all the time, we would still be hunting gnus with spears.

ah jesus christ, you don't give up do you? And no, somebody with a doctorate can actually back up claims from the bible with physical evidence in the real world that cites the events in the bible have happened. At the least to a debatable standpoint. I wouldn't say they can cite their evidence as facts, but it would put up a logical argument, which is what everyone is asking for. So to say someone who's very well schooled will have no arguments...is very very wrong. I'm sorry, but the top scholars on the religious and spiritual side of things still believe for a reason. I'm sure its not just off of feelings. They have brains too ya know. but again, I don't want to debate this anymore. I'm going to come back when I feel I can come up with a more logical argument thats necessary for this debate.

And you see, I am consistent in my beliefs. I don't follow an exact religion, so I am free to believe whatever I want about the God that I am feeling. Sure, I mostly follow the Christian beliefs, but if I feel something isn't right when I pray or I see a contradiction I'm more than aware of what's going on. You see, most Christians aren't logical in one stand point. They think the bible is perfect and you have to follow every word. I think its a solid guideline for morals, but its been a little corrupted by man over time. Same with the church. Man is very corrupt and has kinda destroyed everything over time. However..I don't pass these views off as the way. Anyone is free to believe whatever the hell they want. Right now though, I feel this is a safe bet. I'm not going to leave it at this as that's not smart. Anyone who believes should keep trying to look into and learn more about what they believe. I'm always open to change depending on what new knowledge I learn.

And Variola, I didn't mean to make it seem like "intelligent design" was correct either. I meant to put it out there as a possibility. While it has no sound argument, all I meant was that is a viewpoint. Its a theory. I don't believe "everything came together so nicely there HAD to be a god" I'm saying "everything came together so nicely, maybe possibly there could have been a God behind this?" I never try to pass off a view when it comes to God as the only way and right.

You see, what everyone doesn't seem to get with me is I don't want to force my views on anyone. I also don't discriminate. When it comes to this I am more on the atheist's side of thing than anything else. This is one of the MAJOR places I feel the spiritual community is corrupt. I've read into the bible and my beliefs and from the Christian stand point, one should NOT overly force their views on another. The Old Testament....is not so reliable. so don't throw anything like that at me please. I'm just saying, its a misconception in my own opinion that we have to ram God down everyone's throat. There's a specific verse, not sure where exactly, but I'll find it eventually and bring it up. Anyway, it says something along the lines of "if you can't get through to a person, leave them be. God will handle it. And do not turn away a person because all should be open to seeing the spirit of God."(note: not an exact quote obviously) I'm not saying there IS a God. I'm saying if you believe and follow the bible you should know that you are here to represent God. And those who discriminate and push their views on others are NOT representing him. The only way people are going to see the spirit of God in a person is if you are not forcing your views down on them. People are naturally defensive and when you attack them with something illogical all you've really done is reassure that they will never want to believe in God ever again. No one wants to look into something with so much hypocrisy and discrimination. So anyway, sorry this seems jumpy, but I just feel the spiritual kids should worry about themselves. If they want to share God with anyone who's willing go for it. But if they aren't, just keep it to yourself. You aren't doing God a favor by telling an Atheist he's a bad person for not believing. Anywho, rant over. Sorry. Thats the one thing that frustrates me about my fellow believers. It leads to our negative stereotype.

 

[snex]

ah jesus christ, you don't give up do you? And no, somebody with a doctorate can actually back up claims from the bible with physical evidence in the real world that cites the events in the bible have happened. At the least to a debatable standpoint. I wouldn't say they can cite their evidence as facts, but it would put up a logical argument, which is what everyone is asking for. So to say someone who's very well schooled will have no arguments...is very very wrong. I'm sorry, but the top scholars on the religious and spiritual side of things still believe for a reason. I'm sure its not just off of feelings. They have brains too ya know. but again, I don't want to debate this anymore. I'm going to come back when I feel I can come up with a more logical argument thats necessary for this debate.

perhaps you should read the crap arguments they put out there. they are truly awful. there is really no physical evidence for any miracle claims in the bible. how could there be? miracles are by definition outside the bounds of evidence. the only evidence for events in the bible are mundane historical events like wars, successions of kings, and the like. but so what? every culture has that. it no more indicates the truth of the miracle stories any more than coins depicting a real caesar prove the existence of the roman pantheon.

the "smart" believers believe for the same reason you do - theyre just good at rationalizing it to themselves.

seriously, read a book by one of these guys. and dont just passively read it. look for holes in the arguments. check their references. youll find that there isnt a single solid case for god in any of it.

And you see, I am consistent in my beliefs. I don't follow an exact religion, so I am free to believe whatever I want about the God that I am feeling. Sure, I mostly follow the Christian beliefs, but if I feel something isn't right when I pray or I see a contradiction I'm more than aware of what's going on. You see, most Christians aren't logical in one stand point. They think the bible is perfect and you have to follow every word. I think its a solid guideline for morals, but its been a little corrupted by man over time. Same with the church. Man is very corrupt and has kinda destroyed everything over time. However..I don't pass these views off as the way. Anyone is free to believe whatever the hell they want. Right now though, I feel this is a safe bet. I'm not going to leave it at this as that's not smart. Anyone who believes should keep trying to look into and learn more about what they believe. I'm always open to change depending on what new knowledge I learn.

if the bible is corrupted, then how can you know which parts are corrupt and which parts arent? you have no way of knowing whatsoever.

 

[Quicksand]

intelligent design is not a theory. a theory is a well-supported (by evidence) body of knowledge that explains some aspect of the world by making predictions about what will happen if that theory is correct.

intelligent design is NOT well supported by evidence. it is NOT a body of knowledge. it does NOT explain any aspect of the world, and it does NOT make any predictions. intelligent design is nothing but a disguise for creationism meant to sneak it past public school standards. this was made clear in the kitzmiller vs dover school district case.

Actually, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. It is because it meets the criteria of being able to be falsified.

ID has nothing to do with creationism.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Either ID can't be falsified, then that means Darwinism can't either, since they are nothing more than two conclusions drawn from the same question: Is there teleology in biology?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia.html

 

[snex]

Actually, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. It is because it meets the criteria of being able to be falsified.

ID has nothing to do with creationism.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Either ID can't be falsified, then that means Darwinism can't either, since they are nothing more than two conclusions drawn from the same question: Is there teleology in biology?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia.html

utter nonsense. ID is not a scientific theory and it cannot be falsified. name one observation that could falsify intelligent design. it cannot be done.

meanwhile, there are TONS of potential observations that could disprove common descent, natural selection, genetic drift, and any of the other aspects of evolutionary theory.

evolution does not seek to answer the question "is there teleology in biology?" evolution seeks to answer the question "how did that get to be the way it is, rather than some other way?" thats what all science addresses, and intelligent design simply doesnt do so. ANY set of observations is consistent with teleology, so therefore it can never be falsified.

 

[AltF4]

Umm, I read both of those links, Quicksand, and I failed to see any examples of exactly how ID could be falsified. All you need is one. Just one example of how it could potentially be falsified, and you're good to go. No more questions. So, why did I not see one in those articles? Why did you not post one yourself?

I would much like to hear it.

 

[Aesir]

Actually, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. It is because it meets the criteria of being able to be falsified.

It does not though, as any objects can quickly be refuted according to the theory that. "It's the way the Designer made it."

How can you falsify it? you can't test it, or observe it.

Lets not even get started that if life was really designed like this, the designer is a complete ****** who would probably flunk engineering

ID has nothing to do with creationism.

It's actually Creationism renamed.. many of the early creationist text books used the term creation or god, then sometime later in the 80's these words creation and god were substituted for Intelligent Design and Designer.

Either ID can't be falsified, then that means Darwinism can't either, since they are nothing more than two conclusions drawn from the same question: Is there teleology in biology?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia.html

This is where you're wrong, ID doesn't offer an explanation, it's just a shrug with the ID advocates going. "It's the way the designer designed it." It's not a scientific theory it's religion in disguise the supreme court ruled it was, as well as many judges (Dover Trial anyone?)

Lol @ Using the discovery institute as a source, read up on the Dover Trial and you'll understand why this isn't science.


Intelligent Design? More like stupid design. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

 

[Deleted member]

I'm currently wearing a shirt with Buddha on keyboard, Jesus on bass, Moses on lead, and Ganesh on drums.

Do I win?

 

[Aesir]

Who's on Vocals?

 

[EC_Joey]

Who's on Vocals?

I'd imagine it's the person wearing the shirt?

 

[Quicksand]

utter nonsense. ID is not a scientific theory and it cannot be falsified. name one observation that could falsify intelligent design. it cannot be done.

meanwhile, there are TONS of potential observations that could disprove common descent, natural selection, genetic drift, and any of the other aspects of evolutionary theory.

evolution does not seek to answer the question "is there teleology in biology?" evolution seeks to answer the question "how did that get to be the way it is, rather than some other way?" thats what all science addresses, and intelligent design simply doesnt do so. ANY set of observations is consistent with teleology, so therefore it can never be falsified.

I never said that evolution sought to answer that question, I said Darwinism. ID and common descent and co-exist happily. They are not at odds with each other at all.

Umm, I read both of those links, Quicksand, and I failed to see any examples of exactly how ID could be falsified. All you need is one. Just one example of how it could potentially be falsified, and you're good to go. No more questions. So, why did I not see one in those articles? Why did you not post one yourself?

I would much like to hear it.

ID is falsified very easily because ID's one and only focus point is whether or not irreducibly complex systems could have been created gradually through Darwinian processes (since we know Darwinian mechanics can certainly result in variation of already existing objects). That having been said, ID is falsified by showing that an irreducibly complex system could evolve naturally.

CLAIM: The flagellum is irreducibly complex. It must be designed since this for it to function, several parts must come about simultaneously, out of the reach of Darwinian process. Therefore, it must have had a designer.

FALSIFICATION: Show that a flagellum (or any other irreducibly complex system of similar intricacy) can evolve without help from an intelligent agent. Once an irreducibly complex system is shown to be able to evolve naturally, then there is no reason that given enough time, all of life's other IC systems couldn't have evolved naturally. ID is effectively falsified.

It's actually Creationism renamed.. many of the early creationist text books used the term creation or god, then sometime later in the 80's these words creation and god were substituted for Intelligent Design and Designer.

O rly?

So your grouping in every advocate of ID in the same group as the few ones who do actually use ID to push Biblical creationism into schools? That's like saying since there are extremist Muslims who like to fly airplanes into buildings, then that means every follower of Islam is a card carrying terrorist. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

This is where you're wrong, ID doesn't offer an explanation, it's just a shrug with the ID advocates going. "It's the way the designer designed it." It's not a scientific theory it's religion in disguise the supreme court ruled it was, as well as many judges (Dover Trial anyone?)

ID is the beginning of the explanation. Once you discover there is a designer, the next step is to discover who it is.

I'll just ignore your appeal to authority as a valid argument, besides the fact that courts have been wrong numerous times through out history (Dred Scott vs. Sandford anyone?) and have overturned their own rulings numerous times.

 

[cman]

ID is falsified very easily because ID's one and only focus point is whether or not irreducibly complex systems could have been created gradually through Darwinian processes (since we know Darwinian mechanics can certainly result in variation of already existing objects). That having been said, ID is falsified by showing that an irreducibly complex system could evolve naturally.

CLAIM: The flagellum is irreducibly complex. It must be designed since this for it to function, several parts must come about simultaneously, out of the reach of Darwinian process. Therefore, it must have had a designer.

FALSIFICATION: Show that a flagellum (or any other irreducibly complex system of similar intricacy) can evolve without help from an intelligent agent. Once an irreducibly complex system is shown to be able to evolve naturally, then there is no reason that given enough time, all of life's other IC systems couldn't have evolved naturally. ID is effectively falsified.

AFAIK, all "irreducibly complex systems" have been shown to be otherwise. Using your example of the flagellum, there are several ways that the ic claim can be shown to be false. For example, the 'motor' of the flagellum, even without the flagellum itself, can perform important functions to the cell, such as exporting proteins. Therefore, the motor may have existed before the full system for this purpose.

Another way, there are around 40 different proteins in an E. Coli's flagellum, and only 23 of those are common to all other bacteria flagellum. This difference clearly demonstrates that considerable variation is possible while still maintaining a fully functional system.

Considering that there is more than one makeup, and many possible functions to the parts of the flagellum, it is easily concievable that the system evolved slowly.

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/channel...cterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

ID debunked?

Keep in mind that if you say no, you have just defeated your argument on ID being falsifiable.

 

[Aesir]

O rly?

So your grouping in every advocate of ID in the same group as the few ones who do actually use ID to push Biblical creationism into schools? That's like saying since there are extremist Muslims who like to fly airplanes into buildings, then that means every follower of Islam is a card carrying terrorist. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

No it's not because it's true, most ID advocates push it into schools because they think for whatever reason their theory holds more weight then or just as much as evolution. In reality it can't even hold a candle to the theory.

Id Argues that since certain aspects of life are so complex they couldn't have evolved over time. "Irreducible complexity".

They bring forth things like the eye, the immune system, and the flagella in bacteria which acts like a propeller.

It's an interesting Critique of Evolution, however not only does evolution answer these questions it answers them without the need of an designer.

It's an argument if ignorance to assume since something is so complex a designer had to of made it. Especially since if a designer did make it, he's a horrible engineer.

ID is the beginning of the explanation. Once you discover there is a designer, the next step is to discover who it is.

I'll just ignore your appeal to authority as a valid argument, besides the fact that courts have been wrong numerous times through out history (Dred Scott vs. Sandford anyone?) and have overturned their own rulings numerous times.

ID assumes there's a designer there is no evidence of said designer, it's an argument if ignorance. I brought up that trial because it's one of MANY trials that deemed creationism/ID as Religion.

Did you even look up the Trial? Nova did a special on it, Behe the leading proponent of ID and the leader of the discovery institute, couldn't answer any of the inquiries of the lawyers.

 

[AltF4]

Quicksand:

That is an utterly ridiculous claim, Quicksand. If something is irreducibly complex, then it cannot by definition have had its parts separately developed. Otherwise it would not be irreducibly complex! That is what it means to be irreducibly complex. If you can take it apart and have the pieces be useful, then it would be reducible!

The condition that you stated can by definition never be satisfied.

 

[chucklesXcore]

snex, in response to what you said about me.

please name one established religious scholar whom you have read up on yourself and can present their holes in their arguments. There are some who have holes, but not all. And I am going to look into it. As I have said in my previous posts, I'm not taking this blindly. I'm being open minded about everything I read. I won't believe it just because it was said by a well schooled believer. I infer things for myself thank you. and you are absolutely right, but this is where I feel I take things to heart and pray. And that leads me, but I also use some common sense.

"god loves everyone.....except homosexuals"

kinda a contradiction isn't? this is just an example of what makes me think and I to an extent "pick and choose" what I feel is right. However I DO NOT pass this off as right for everyone. Just for me, I have to take what I feel from the bible as what's right for me at this moment in time. Its all I have to go by as I'm learning about not only religion, but the world too. I'm not so well schooled in much of anything besides music, so I'm trying very hard to be open minded and just learn anything I can that will either support my beliefs or help clear them up for me to some resolve.

 

[snex]

ID is falsified very easily because ID's one and only focus point is whether or not irreducibly complex systems could have been created gradually through Darwinian processes (since we know Darwinian mechanics can certainly result in variation of already existing objects). That having been said, ID is falsified by showing that an irreducibly complex system could evolve naturally.

CLAIM: The flagellum is irreducibly complex. It must be designed since this for it to function, several parts must come about simultaneously, out of the reach of Darwinian process. Therefore, it must have had a designer.

FALSIFICATION: Show that a flagellum (or any other irreducibly complex system of similar intricacy) can evolve without help from an intelligent agent. Once an irreducibly complex system is shown to be able to evolve naturally, then there is no reason that given enough time, all of life's other IC systems couldn't have evolved naturally. ID is effectively falsified.

your experiment would falsify evolution (although, how would you go about proving a system to be "irreducibly complex?" there is no way to sufficiently do so), but it would not falsify ID. an intelligent designer, if one existed, could just be claimed to form any system, irreducibly complex or not. how can you falsify the idea that an intelligent designer formed a non-irreducibly complex system? you cant.

you also cannot simply claim that if evolution cant do it, ID wins by default. science does not work that way. you have presented a false dichotomy. if ID is scientific, it must win on its own merits, not by knocking evolution down. if evolution is false, there could still be some other naturalistic mechanism we just havent thought of yet. your hypothetical experiment only addresses evolution, it says nothing about ID.

think of this as an analogy: you are an ancient greek and all your friends tell you the world is a pyramid, but you say that the world is a flat disc instead. to prove them wrong you point out that if the world were a pyramid, you would all slide down the sides, and that obviously isnt happening. have you thus proven that the world is a flat disc? of course not. youve just DISproven the pyramid idea. YOUR hypothesis must stand on its own merits, not by knocking down another.

please name one established religious scholar whom you have read up on yourself and can present their holes in their arguments. There are some who have holes, but not all. And I am going to look into it. As I have said in my previous posts, I'm not taking this blindly. I'm being open minded about everything I read. I won't believe it just because it was said by a well schooled believer. I infer things for myself thank you. and you are absolutely right, but this is where I feel I take things to heart and pray. And that leads me, but I also use some common sense.

alvin plantinga, william lane craig, alistair mcgrath, josh mcdowell, lee strobel - the list goes on and on. these guys are completely incompetent philosophers who make basic logical and factual errors throughout their theological work. pick any pro-god argument youd like by any one of them and ill point out the errors.

kinda a contradiction isn't? this is just an example of what makes me think and I to an extent "pick and choose" what I feel is right. However I DO NOT pass this off as right for everyone. Just for me, I have to take what I feel from the bible as what's right for me at this moment in time. Its all I have to go by as I'm learning about not only religion, but the world too. I'm not so well schooled in much of anything besides music, so I'm trying very hard to be open minded and just learn anything I can that will either support my beliefs or help clear them up for me to some resolve.

if all youre doing is picking what you feel is right, then youve already outgrown the need for ancient myths and superstition. whats the point of claiming the bible is the word of god if you just use your own morality anyway?

 

[chucklesXcore]

alvin plantinga, william lane craig, alistair mcgrath, josh mcdowell, lee strobel - the list goes on and on. these guys are completely incompetent philosophers who make basic logical and factual errors throughout their theological work. pick any pro-god argument youd like by any one of them and ill point out the errors.


if all youre doing is picking what you feel is right, then youve already outgrown the need for ancient myths and superstition. whats the point of claiming the bible is the word of god if you just use your own morality anyway?

I'll look into a few of em, but I'd just to like to say that they don't represent everyone. And if everyone has been ignorant, I plan to not be an ignorant believer. All I want to do is try to find anything that might honestly support their being a God and would appeal to a person like a non-believer. Please don't tell me "you're wasting your time" or anything along those lines, because chances are you don't know everything about the world. And no, I'm not being condescending by any means. I'm saying you think you are all knowing. I'm saying, there's a lot that people don't know, and if I try to take some time(a lot of it) to actually learn both sides of the deal, I can probably get closer to some resolve, or at least gain some evidence for a side that I end up supporting.

Because I feel the bible is the word of God, but its also written unfortunately by men. Men are corrupt and have added, tweaked, and done whatever the hell they have wanted to do it over time. Thats what I believe.

 

[arrowhead]

Because I feel the bible is the word of God, but its also written unfortunately by men. Men are corrupt and have added, tweaked, and done whatever the hell they have wanted to do it over time. Thats what I believe.

if it's been corrupted by men, it's not the word of god anymore

 

[Quicksand]

No it's not because it's true, most ID advocates push it into schools because they think for whatever reason their theory holds more weight then or just as much as evolution. In reality it can't even hold a candle to the theory.

Can I see proof of your claim that "most ID advocates" use ID to push creationism into schools?

By the way, please stop thinking that ID and evolution are diametrically opposed. They aren't and are compatible.

It's an argument if ignorance to assume since something is so complex a designer had to of made it. Especially since if a designer did make it, he's a horrible engineer.

Says who? Are you an authority of engineering biological organisms? The problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a blind psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are. You only have to go to a modern art gallery to come across designed objects for which the purposes are obscure and abstract from "logical" train of thought. Features that strike us as odd in a design might have been placed by the designer for a variety of reasons, any of which you might assume to be a bad idea are not inherently "imperfect" in the slightest.

ID assumes there's a designer there is no evidence of said designer, it's an argument if ignorance. I brought up that trial because it's one of MANY trials that deemed creationism/ID as Religion.

You assume that ID takes absence of evidence as proof, but it's quite the contrary; ID formulates it's model on what we do know.

Did you even look up the Trial? Nova did a special on it, Behe the leading proponent of ID and the leader of the discovery institute, couldn't answer any of the inquiries of the lawyers.

Since I can't defend Behe, I'll let himself expose the propaganda set forth by anti-theistic (since they're the only ones who seem to carry a militant stance against ID) websites and news sources.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697

It really helps to get a nice viewpoint on a matter when you don't cherry pick hearsay to use as ammunition.

That is an utterly ridiculous claim, Quicksand. If something is irreducibly complex, then it cannot by definition have had its parts separately developed. Otherwise it would not be irreducibly complex! That is what it means to be irreducibly complex. If you can take it apart and have the pieces be useful, then it would be reducible!

The condition that you stated can by definition never be satisfied.

You misunderstand the definition of irreducible complexity.

From Behe, an IC system is one that is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

So just because you can take the wire hammer off of a mousetrap and use it as a toothpick doesn't make it reducible, because the mousetrap missing the hammer can no longer catch mice.

your experiment would falsify evolution (although, how would you go about proving a system to be "irreducibly complex?" there is no way to sufficiently do so), but it would not falsify ID. an intelligent designer, if one existed, could just be claimed to form any system, irreducibly complex or not. how can you falsify the idea that an intelligent designer formed a non-irreducibly complex system? you cant.

That doesn't matter because once it's proven that Darwinian processes can result in irreducibly complex systems, there is no reason (on the scientific level) to take it to the next level and assume that a designer is involved. In this case, Occam's Razor levels ID quite proficiently.

you also cannot simply claim that if evolution cant do it, ID wins by default. science does not work that way. you have presented a false dichotomy. if ID is scientific, it must win on its own merits, not by knocking evolution down. if evolution is false, there could still be some other naturalistic mechanism we just havent thought of yet. your hypothetical experiment only addresses evolution, it says nothing about ID.

There is no false dichotomy because there are only two possibilities:

Either things were designed, or they weren't. To paraphrase Dembski, If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do.

Give this a read to show how ID can be falsified and provide positive evidence while standing on it's own:

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

 

[Aesir]

Can I see proof of your claim that "most ID advocates" use ID to push creationism into schools?

Can't be proven because, there isn't like a poll or anything that would prove such a thing.

By the way, please stop thinking that ID and evolution are diametrically opposed. They aren't and are compatible.

Please stop thinking they aren't, it's intellectually dishonest.

Like I've said before, ID advocates state that since some things in nature are to complex to come about by chance it had to of been designed. Which is a fallacy in it's self, you can't assume one is right just because there is no answer. "You don't disprove this, so it has to be right" is a horrible way to think.

Evolution clearly explains many of those "irreducibly complex" systems ID advocates try to paint as impossible.

Says who? Are you an authority of engineering biological organisms? The problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a blind psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are. You only have to go to a modern art gallery to come across designed objects for which the purposes are obscure and abstract from "logical" train of thought. Features that strike us as odd in a design might have been placed by the designer for a variety of reasons, any of which you might assume to be a bad idea are not inherently "imperfect" in the slightest.

No engineer would build an entertainment complex next to a sewer system. Yet in the Human body we have that, the mouth is inefficient we speak, eat, breath through the same hole. Why? the designer could have designed two holes, that's not asking a whole lot, dolphins and wales have it.

You assume that ID takes absence of evidence as proof, but it's quite the contrary; ID formulates it's model on what we do know.

There is no proof of ID only illogical assumptions, that have been picked apart time and time again.

Since I can't defend Behe, I'll let himself expose the propaganda set forth by anti-theistic (since they're the only ones who seem to carry a militant stance against ID) websites and news sources.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697

It really helps to get a nice viewpoint on a matter when you don't cherry pick hearsay to use as ammunition.

You know whats awesome? How A Roman Catholic Biologist, and a hard right republican Judge both agree ID isn't Science and religion in disguise.

So how is this anti-theistic? they're both theistic, many MANY biologists who are Christians embrace evolution and think ID is a load of ****, because it is.

 

[chucklesXcore]

if it's been corrupted by men, it's not the word of god anymore

even if corrupt, not all of it has been corrupted. It would be far too obvious. There would be even more contradictions then the ones there already are. This may be just my personal opinion, but its still a good guideline for those who believe god exists and the bible was meant to be the word of god. Please note my italics. However, you must be wise and take note of the contradictions if you want to use it as a guideline.

 

[blazedaces]

I've shown this before time and time again because bigots like you continue to doubt evolution and spout this ID nonsense: The Evolution of the Flagellum

All you had to do was search this topic on google and you would have found TONS of sites explaining it. There is no evidence of irreducible complexity in the natural world!

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

even if corrupt, not all of it has been corrupted. It would be far too obvious. There would be even more contradictions then the ones there already are. This may be just my personal opinion, but its still a good guideline for those who believe god exists and the bible was meant to be the word of god. Please note my italics. However, you must be wise and take note of the contradictions if you want to use it as a guideline.

contradictions aren't the only consequences that arise from becoming corrupt.

basically you pick and choose what in the bible you want to believe in and then you add your own ideals. you seem to have your own beliefs and your own set of morals, so why even consider yourself christian?

 

[snex]

I'll look into a few of em, but I'd just to like to say that they don't represent everyone. And if everyone has been ignorant, I plan to not be an ignorant believer. All I want to do is try to find anything that might honestly support their being a God and would appeal to a person like a non-believer. Please don't tell me "you're wasting your time" or anything along those lines, because chances are you don't know everything about the world. And no, I'm not being condescending by any means. I'm saying you think you are all knowing. I'm saying, there's a lot that people don't know, and if I try to take some time(a lot of it) to actually learn both sides of the deal, I can probably get closer to some resolve, or at least gain some evidence for a side that I end up supporting.

its not a waste of time at all. i would bet that all of the atheists here who were once theists did exactly that. and we all came to the same conclusion. funny that, innit? the only thing you need to do is be honest about the evidence.

Because I feel the bible is the word of God, but its also written unfortunately by men. Men are corrupt and have added, tweaked, and done whatever the hell they have wanted to do it over time. Thats what I believe.

and the way you determine which parts are corrupt and which parts are not is... your feelings. seems to me that your faith is in your feelings, not in god or the bible.

That doesn't matter because once it's proven that Darwinian processes can result in irreducibly complex systems, there is no reason (on the scientific level) to take it to the next level and assume that a designer is involved. In this case, Occam's Razor levels ID quite proficiently.

there is no reason on the scientific level to assume a designer right now. lets assume for the sake of argument that darwinian processes CANT make IC structures. ok, so wheres the designer come in? you cant just claim win by default. if you want design to be on the table, you need to show evidence FOR design. it doesnt win just because evolution loses. IT MUST BUILD ITS OWN CASE!

Either things were designed, or they weren't. To paraphrase Dembski, If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do.

how is that a falsification of intelligent design? you dont seem to understand what falsification is. im quite sure that dembski does, so his nonsense can only be attributed to dishonesty. look, it works like this:

assume intelligent design is true (i.e. an intelligent agent is responsible for one or more features of life). what would we observe if this were the case, and what would we observe if this were not the case? you cant simply say "we would observe IC if it were, and fail to observe IC if it werent." because 1) an intelligent agent could still be resposible for one or more features of life even if we didnt observe IC, and 2) an intelligent agent might not be responsible for any of life even if we did observe IC.

either your brain is malfunctioning on this or you are just as dishonest as dembski is.

 

[Quicksand]

Can't be proven because, there isn't like a poll or anything that would prove such a thing.

Okay then, so stop claiming it is since you can't prove it and it obviously isn't the case.

Please stop thinking they aren't, it's intellectually dishonest.

Like I've said before, ID advocates state that since some things in nature are to complex to come about by chance it had to of been designed. Which is a fallacy in it's self, you can't assume one is right just because there is no answer. "You don't disprove this, so it has to be right" is a horrible way to think.

Evolution clearly explains many of those "irreducibly complex" systems ID advocates try to paint as impossible.

So I can't accept that God used evolution to design life?

No engineer would build an entertainment complex next to a sewer system. Yet in the Human body we have that, the mouth is inefficient we speak, eat, breath through the same hole. Why? the designer could have designed two holes, that's not asking a whole lot, dolphins and wales have it.

He could have given us 7 holes. If we were perfect we could shoot fire out of one of them, and if we were perfect we would had have wings so we don't have to use our legs. The designer could have given us two holes, but guess what? He didn't.

How often do people die of infectious bacteria that resides in the intestines after having sex?

How often do people asphyxiate because they can't control their urge to eat, breathe, and speak at the same time?

When you realize that are absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the way we are designed, then the argument from imperfect falls apart.

There is no proof of ID only illogical assumptions, that have been picked apart time and time again.

Like what?

You know whats awesome? How A Roman Catholic Biologist, and a hard right republican Judge both agree ID isn't Science and religion in disguise.

So how is this anti-theistic? they're both theistic, many MANY biologists who are Christians embrace evolution and think ID is a load of ****, because it is.

I didn't say only anti-theistic persons were against ID, I said that those are the websites and news sources that typically report anti ID material. I know I'm making a generalization by saying "all", so sue me.

how is that a falsification of intelligent design? you dont seem to understand what falsification is. im quite sure that dembski does, so his nonsense can only be attributed to dishonesty. look, it works like this:

I never claimed it to be falsification, you claimed I was committing a false dichotomy.

assume intelligent design is true (i.e. an intelligent agent is responsible for one or more features of life). what would we observe if this were the case, and what would we observe if this were not the case? you cant simply say "we would observe IC if it were, and fail to observe IC if it werent." because 1) an intelligent agent could still be resposible for one or more features of life even if we didnt observe IC, and 2) an intelligent agent might not be responsible for any of life even if we did observe IC.

If intelligent design is true, then we will find teleology. Darwinism and Intelligent design provide falsification for each other because they are opposite conclusions drawn from the same question. If we find that naturalistic causes can't result in life, then that means intelligent causation is needed. If we find that naturalistic causes can result in life, then there is absolutely no reason to assume a designer.

either your brain is malfunctioning on this or you are just as dishonest as dembski is.

Either your brain is malfunctioning on this or... oh wait... I guess it is.

 

[blazedaces]

Quicksand, why are you ignoring my post? I'm directly falsifying your so-called falsifiable theory. Do you concede that the theory is false or not?

You're not going to... because it's not falsifiable, but I want to hear your response none-the-less.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

You misunderstand the definition of irreducible complexity.

From Behe, an IC system is one that is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

So just because you can take the wire hammer off of a mousetrap and use it as a toothpick doesn't make it reducible, because the mousetrap missing the hammer can no longer catch mice.

Okay then, by that definition everything is either already an irreducibly complex system, or contains one. Every system can be reduced until a certain point where removing any components will cause the system to cease functioning. And that is the definition of something which is Irreducibly Complex, yes?

Since your definition applies to all systems, it is useless. You cannot make a classification for something which includes all systems and then try to base an inference on that.

If intelligent design is true, then we will find teleology

I know this was directed to Snex, but I couldn't resist. This is where you ultimately fail. A god could very well have designed the world such that it does not have apparent signs of having been designed. There could be no signs of design whatsoever and ID could still be true.

No matter what situation or state the world is currently in. You can make the claim "god designed it that way." Thus ID is unfalsifiable.

Before you respond, Occam's Razor is not a falsifying technique, nor is it logically binding, nor is it even true.

 

[Crimson King]

Alt, if you don't have a problem, would you mind if we changed the focus to "How can anyone NOT believe in evolution?" We had a lengthy debate about this today in class, and I'd love to see the opinions of people on SWF.

 

[snex]

I never claimed it to be falsification, you claimed I was committing a false dichotomy.

If intelligent design is true, then we will find teleology. Darwinism and Intelligent design provide falsification for each other because they are opposite conclusions drawn from the same question. If we find that naturalistic causes can't result in life, then that means intelligent causation is needed. If we find that naturalistic causes can result in life, then there is absolutely no reason to assume a designer.

how do we "find teleology?" whats the scientific process for doing so? how can you falsify the idea that teleology is present in some object?

i find it ironic that right after objecting to being called on your false dichotomy, you go right ahead and make it again. darwinian evolution and intelligent design do not "provide falsification for each other." if evolution is true, design might still also be true. if evolution is false, design still might be false as well. you state that "if we find that naturalistic causes can't result in life..." but how could you possibly ever find this? you would have to know EVERY naturalistic cause and how it can interact with EVERY other naturalistic cause in order to rule them ALL out. that is NOT how science works!

 

[AltF4]

Alt, if you don't have a problem, would you mind if we changed the focus to "How can anyone NOT believe in evolution?" We had a lengthy debate about this today in class, and I'd love to see the opinions of people on SWF.

Hmm... Well, first, I guess, I want to reiterate an important distinction between what here is observation and what is theory.

Evolution is an observation made. It happens. You can reproduce it in a lab, we see it every day. Evolution is just the observation that species change over time. There is no room for debate here. You can go and see it for yourself at public demonstrations given at probably most public universities.

The only question then is how exactly Evolution works. What causes it to do what it does, and by what mechanisms does it operate.

Attempts at answering this question are theories. Natural Selection is such a theory. It claims that evolution occurs through a process of "survival of the fittest" essentially. I'm sure you're all familiar with it.

Another theory that attempts to explain evolution is Intelligent Design. It claims that evolution is not a "natural" process, but is instead guided by an intelligent designer. This, however, is not a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable, because it supposes that something is supernatural. Only natural things can be tested, and even the term "supernatural" has no clear meaning.


It also vitally important to note that the subject of Natural Selection and ID all have to do explicitly with Evolution and Evolution only. A common (and fallacious) claim made is that Evolution does not explain Abiogensis, and is therefore somehow flawed. (Life springing up from non-life) Evolution never attempts nor is intended to explain Abiogenesis, and such a claim is a non-sequitor.

Natural Selection seeks only to give explanation to the observation that species change over time.


So, to directly answer your question: How can anyone not believe in evolution? You would have to be considerably ignorant to not accept evolution. It is an observation that you yourself can literally see with your own two eyes.

One can perhaps not believe in Natural Selection on religious grounds, but then you enter that debate.

 

[Wikipedia]

I love AltF4. And even snex too.

 

[Quicksand]

I've shown this before time and time again because bigots like you continue to doubt evolution and spout this ID nonsense: The Evolution of the Flagellum

All you had to do was search this topic on google and you would have found TONS of sites explaining it. There is no evidence of irreducible complexity in the natural world!

-blazed

I don't feel like watching that video with gay background music. If you want me to respond to it, type it out for me so I can read it.

Okay then, by that definition everything is either already an irreducibly complex system, or contains one. Every system can be reduced until a certain point where removing any components will cause the system to cease functioning. And that is the definition of something which is Irreducibly Complex, yes?

Since your definition applies to all systems, it is useless. You cannot make a classification for something which includes all systems and then try to base an inference on that.

It's not so much a classification as it is a much an analogy to explain that a system requiring several crucial parts needs each part to achieve the systems purpose.

I know this was directed to Snex, but I couldn't resist. This is where you ultimately fail. A god could very well have designed the world such that it does not have apparent signs of having been designed. There could be no signs of design whatsoever and ID could still be true.

No matter what situation or state the world is currently in. You can make the claim "god designed it that way." Thus ID is unfalsifiable.

Before you respond, Occam's Razor is not a falsifying technique, nor is it logically binding, nor is it even true.

In that case, then Darwinism is unfalsifiable, because I can always appeal to the many possibilities and outcomes our physical world allows for.

If I find a rabbit in the Cambrian strata, I can feign towards an odd occurrence of tectonic plate shifting.

If I find that gradual evolution is not suitable for our current complexity, I can say that evolution decided to spike and create complex, intricate lifeforms in an extremely short period of time (oh wait, that already happened).

I know you think that absolute truth only exists in a few microcosms of our reality (and I agree), but that doesn't mean that we can't achieve an acceptance of something beyond a reasonable doubt.

ID is falsified because ID's question is "is there teleology in biology" is destroyed if we discover that naturalism is all that is needed to produce complex biological structures.

how do we "find teleology?" whats the scientific process for doing so? how can you falsify the idea that teleology is present in some object?

You find teleology by showing that teleology is needed to produce.

i find it ironic that right after objecting to being called on your false dichotomy, you go right ahead and make it again.

It's not a false dichotomy because I allow for all other possibilities of "not designed" in the latter part of my statement.

QED.

darwinian evolution and intelligent design do not "provide falsification for each other." if evolution is true, design might still also be true. if evolution is false, design still might be false as well. you state that "if we find that naturalistic causes can't result in life..."

No, because Darwinism by it's understood definition is purely naturalistic without need for causation. Common descent =/ Darwinism.

but how could you possibly ever find this? you would have to know EVERY naturalistic cause and how it can interact with EVERY other naturalistic cause in order to rule them ALL out. that is NOT how science works![

Then as I said above; how is Darwinism immune from the exact same accusations? The door swings both ways.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't feel like watching that video with gay background music. If you want me to respond to it, type it out for me so I can read it.

Try here and here.

The video is a much better explanation though because it uses visual aid to help you understand why these things happened and such. Reading it leaves you with almost as much ignorance on the subject as you have right now.

Either admit that ID is falsified or admit it's not scientific.

-blazed

 

[snex]

I don't feel like watching that video with gay background music. If you want me to respond to it, type it out for me so I can read it.

wow. is this the caliber of debate i should expect from all christians?

If I find a rabbit in the Cambrian strata, I can feign towards an odd occurrence of tectonic plate shifting.

no, you could not do this. tectonic plate shifting can be detected by the patterns in the rock. furthermore, it could not explain a rock that contained both rabbit fossils AND cambrian-only fossils.

If I find that gradual evolution is not suitable for our current complexity, I can say that evolution decided to spike and create complex, intricate lifeforms in an extremely short period of time (oh wait, that already happened).

no, it didnt. the cambrian explosion lasted millions of years.

ID is falsified because ID's question is "is there teleology in biology" is destroyed if we discover that naturalism is all that is needed to produce complex biological structures.

WRONG! you brought up paintings earlier. all paintings painted by painters have teleology. but do all paintings painted by painters REQUIRE teleology? anybody who has seen a jackson pollack painting knows that they do not. his paintings could be reproduced by mindless processes. if ID were to make a guess as to whether his paintings had teleology, it would guess wrong.

You find teleology by showing that teleology is needed to produce.

this doesnt even make sense. how can you go about doing this? give me an experiment i can perform in a laboratory that will unambiguously turn up "teleology" or "no teleology" on some examined object.

It's not a false dichotomy because I allow for all other possibilities of "not designed" in the latter part of my statement.

you cant allow for possibilities that nobody is yet aware of. how can you possibly rule out potential naturalistic explanations that have not even been discovered yet? you cant.

No, because Darwinism by it's understood definition is purely naturalistic without need for causation. Common descent =/ Darwinism.

and thats irrelevant. there could be some other naturalistic answer that nobody has thought of yet. how can you rule that out? you cant.

Then as I said above; how is Darwinism immune from the exact same accusations? The door swings both ways.

because you can perform experiments to test any aspect of evolutionary theory that will either say "yes, evolution" or "no, not evolution." you cannot do this for ID. you seem to think that any answer in the form of "no, not evolution" is an automatic win for ID.

IT.IS.NOT! get this through your thick skull. for ID to be science, the answers to the experiment must be "yes, ID detected" or "no, ID not detected." NOT "evolution detected" or "evolution not detected."

 

[AltF4]

It's not so much a classification as it is a much an analogy to explain that a system requiring several crucial parts needs each part to achieve the systems purpose.

Now you're trying to backtrack on the issue. The reason we're even talking about Irreducible Complexity is because you are asserting that if you found an example of one, that it would falsify Natural Selection.

Irreducible Complexity is meant as a classifier, make no mistake about it. It is by no means an "analogy".

Furthermore, you have yet to even provide a meaningful definition to the term.

In that case, then Darwinism is unfalsifiable, because I can always appeal to the many possibilities and outcomes our physical world allows for.

Firstly, your insistence on using the term "Darwinism" only demonstrates your lack of intellectual honesty in this debate. You use that term as a thinly veiled attack on the well established study of evolution, by making it appear as though the scientists who do study it view Darwin as some sort of authority figure.

Darwin's name is heavily associated with evolution in the colloquial sense, but if you actually knew anything about the science of it, you would know that the current state of things have shifted noticeably since him.

You might as well call all of Physics "Newtonism", despite Isaac Newton not being the only contributor to the field, and the fact that Newton was proven wrong.

(Funny note: My girlfriend's parents' dogs are named "Newton" and "Darwin". I got to name them, but they didn't like "Chomsky" and "Heisenberg" so I settled.)

Secondly, you failed to actually address my point and instead attempted to attack Natural Selection. Your insistence on the false dichotomy of Natural Selection and Intelligent Design is astounding. I take your lack of a real response as conceding the point.


ID is falsified because ID's question is "is there teleology in biology" is destroyed if we discover that naturalism is all that is needed to produce complex biological structures.

 

[chucklesXcore]

contradictions aren't the only consequences that arise from becoming corrupt.

basically you pick and choose what in the bible you want to believe in and then you add your own ideals. you seem to have your own beliefs and your own set of morals, so why even consider yourself christian?

alrite, I've seen the topic has changed so I'll finish up my last replies to these people and get out of here. To this, I have said before I don't consider myself a "true" christian. I am a believer that there is a God, but we don't know anything about him.

its not a waste of time at all. i would bet that all of the atheists here who were once theists did exactly that. and we all came to the same conclusion. funny that, innit? the only thing you need to do is be honest about the evidence. I base this off my feelings and am looking into it.



and the way you determine which parts are corrupt and which parts are not is... your feelings. seems to me that your faith is in your feelings, not in god or the bible.

I am nothing but honest with myself, which is why I'm already aware that following a religion exactly cannot be correct. I'm already seeing Christianity has numerous flaws.

My faith is in what I feel on a spiritual level. Correct. To speak, if I feel something is right then I put my faith in it, if I don't then I dismiss it unless its undeniable evidence. Then I have to suck it up and start questioning myself. But I do have faith in the God that I feel. Not necessarily the bible which I use as a rough guideline.

and out, have fun debating evolution.

 

[Quicksand]

Now you're trying to backtrack on the issue. The reason we're even talking about Irreducible Complexity is because you are asserting that if you found an example of one, that it would falsify Natural Selection.

Irreducible Complexity is meant as a classifier, make no mistake about it. It is by no means an "analogy".

Furthermore, you have yet to even provide a meaningful definition to the term.

We know that natural selection exists to some extent, it just can't result in irreducibly complex systems.

Firstly, your insistence on using the term "Darwinism" only demonstrates your lack of intellectual honesty in this debate. You use that term as a thinly veiled attack on the well established study of evolution, by making it appear as though the scientists who do study it view Darwin as some sort of authority figure.

Darwin's name is heavily associated with evolution in the colloquial sense, but if you actually knew anything about the science of it, you would know that the current state of things have shifted noticeably since him.

You might as well call all of Physics "Newtonism", despite Isaac Newton not being the only contributor to the field, and the fact that Newton was proven wrong.

Lol @ "lack of intellectual honesty". How is me using the term Darwinism (not my term) an attack on evolution? Darwinism is just a term for the naturalistic outlook of the origins of life. There isn't anything negative about it.

Secondly, you failed to actually address my point and instead attempted to attack Natural Selection. Your insistence on the false dichotomy of Natural Selection and Intelligent Design is astounding. I take your lack of a real response as conceding the point.

Where did I attack natural selection, and where did I commit a false dichotomy?

I take your lack of egregiously misunderstanding all of my points as conceding the point.

you cant allow for possibilities that nobody is yet aware of. how can you possibly rule out potential naturalistic explanations that have not even been discovered yet? you cant.

and thats irrelevant. there could be some other naturalistic answer that nobody has thought of yet. how can you rule that out? you cant.

And this is exactly why Darwinism is immune from evidence against it.

no, it didnt. the cambrian explosion lasted millions of years.

Considering it produced fully formed versions of virtually every known phyla today in a few million years (which is lightning fast by evolutionary standards), isn't really even the point. It's more so the fact that there are no evolutionary sequences between them, they all appear simultaneously.

because you can perform experiments to test any aspect of evolutionary theory that will either say "yes, evolution" or "no, not evolution." you cannot do this for ID. you seem to think that any answer in the form of "no, not evolution" is an automatic win for ID.

Such as...?

IT.IS.NOT! get this through your thick skull. for ID to be science, the answers to the experiment must be "yes, ID detected" or "no, ID not detected." NOT "evolution detected" or "evolution not detected."

Then I shall give you a following experiment to perform based on a claim I have made:

I say that a flagellum cannot be produced by a combination of natural selection and mutation, therefore it must have needed causation. Now all you have to do is take a bacteria without a flagellum or destroy the genes that grow the flagellum then go into your lab and grow that bacteria for a really long time and/also subject different groups of that bacterium to different hypothetical environments, then see if it is able to grow anything resembling a flagellum. If the bacteria does, then ID's claim that a flagellum must be designed is falsified.