Evidence for God from Science

You know, I was going to just stay out of this because jlay is doing a decent job at the apologetics. But I am going assist here.

I've seen some back and forth on objective and subjective viewpoints, and back and forth you guys are making that aspect of discussion far too drawn out and not really anyone elses fault here, but no one has pointed out a few fallacies that pierson has committed. Jlay, you've done a very good job in describing the fallacy, but didn't point out by its name. As a result, it appears to him as a opinion and not something that has been pointed out as fallacious reasoning throughout time for hundreds of years.

Pierson,

First one I noticed is that you said saying something is objective does not make it so. While, I agree with you. Stating the obvious in this regard doesn't make the proposition relative (subjective). You give absolutely no justification for the proposition being subjective.

Saying religion is subjective because there are different cultures or Christianity isn't available where you live is called the Genetic fallacy. When and where you were born does not invalidate truth. That's absurd.

Another thing you've mentioned is in regards to chemical reactions. This is simply a massive equivocation problem. Nevermind the fact that we're not interested in knowing how chemicals react to each other. Chemicals had to BEGIN to EXIST before they even react to each other. Ho.. do you get to life is subjective because chemicals can react and have different values they used to have?

In fact, that doesn't doesn't even help your case. It does quite the opposite. Even if you give every single molecule a simple description on what its describes you can see the intelligence behind it.

For example Hydrogen is noted in the table of elements as H, and it has an atomic weight.
but let's stop there. There's a problem here. I don't understand this. There's this symbol H then Y and followed by D and then there's some more symbols that follow. Here we are though, talking about what this thing called Hydrogen is and how its different from these other things called Oxygen, Nitrogen, and so forth. So what's the problem? Here we are talking about the meaning of such trivial things like molecules and there is some plainly obvious differences on the structure of these molecules and we can see that aren't just anything random. They REQUIRE authorship. A type of metadata that we can clearly see is required so we can see the differences they have rom each other.

Yet, here you are suggesting that the 5 billion characters of our DNA that had to be in EXACT ORDER is not authored? Just chance and necessity?

You also say that there's something wrong with humans. Like we have cancer and so forth.
I have a question. If its WRONG, compared to what? What is RIGHT? You cannot affirm something is RIGHT without affirming that there's a design to begin with.

For example, if you deny any kind of intelligence behind human design or an efficient cause for the universe, then suppose that I was creating these things called "zoopaloids". Since there is no design. No schematic to look at, how can you go "Hey man, these "zooplaloids" could have been better designed"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Did you have higher expectations for human design? I would like to hear it.

Finally, you say that not everything is objective. I would like you to go ahead and present to me everything you think is subjective and the justifications for believing that. Before you do that though, go to the philosophy section of the message boards and take a quick look at the 1st point of my thread I previously mentioned. Thanks.

bippy123 wrote:Pierson, science can tell the how but it cannot tell the why, it was never intended for that, especially the
methodologically materialistic worldview that currently infests science. It is also dominated by how a scientist interprets the evidence and that most of the time is far from objective. Macroevolution is just one fairy tale theory that is treated like it's fact.

Materialism cannot take into account the incredible amount of information that is involved in even one human cell much less a living organism. Information is immaterial, not material.
You ascribe to what is commonly called as scientism, which is the belief that science can find out all truths.
I suggest that you read some of professor Joseph needham's works who warns all societies to be carefull of this narrow-minded worldview. Joseph needham was an atheist.

I would disagree with "most of the time it is far from objective." I know from experience in the lab that when you are ready to submit a paper, you go over that thing checking for flaws and errors many, many times. You talk to others who are experts in similar fields to go over it. You present it at scientific conferences and meetings. Finally, once it's accepted, it is available to other scientists and the general public all over the world. Scientists LOVE to pick apart other scientist's work. If your research is solid, it will stand up to other scientists re-testings. If not, it is detrimental to your career to present fudged numbers or biased papers.

Macroevolution is a fairy tale.... Anyway, I don't know where you got the whole "scientism" thing. I don't recall ever saying it can find out all truths. I said "I don't know how far science will take us." I don't see how that equates to me saying it will find the answer to everything. The first 3 words were "I DONT KNOW." I disagree with the wording that I am someone who "believes" in science. You are confusing belief with trust. I trust science because it has been shown to currently be the best method of determining what is true and what is not. I trust science through what has been presented to me over the years and I HAVE tested in the lab, come out to be true. Science is demonstrable, repeatable and self-correcting. If you have a better method to decipher truth and understand the world around us, you should definitely share this with the rest of the world.

jlay wrote:

That said, it doesn't mean that the lack of meaning or purpose should devoid this chemical reaction from being kind to other chemical reactions or enjoying its short course.

Again, you are smuggling in objective morality. You say, 'kind,' which presumes that kind is better than cruel. How do you justify that subjectivley? I assure you this converstation can go on indefinately. You will either smuggle in objective meanng, or you will conceed. Maybe (and I say this only to illustrate) to me, might versus right is what brings me meaning. Survival of the fittest. Maybe my wiring is to find meaning by supressing your will and enforcing mine. Who are you to say you're right and I'm wrong?

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I do think that the meaning of life is subjective. But not EVERYTHING. Kind better than cruel? I don't see how if that is objective, than the meaning of life is objective. I don't recall ever saying with absolute that the meaning of life is subjective or that you are wrong. Only that I disagree with you when you say it is with certainty. I don't know if it is objective, I don't think anyone can make that claim with absolute certainty because we don't have an answer. I am not claiming to have the answer, unless I'm mistaken, you are.

jlay wrote:

Logic, reason, evidence, etc.. Why can we depend on them? Because they have demonstrated time and time again that they work. Like the study of chemical interactions and their properties, known as chemistry, it works.

I hope you understand that this fails scientifically. Because it depends on another presumption. That our memories and perception of them is also reliable.
How do you measure logic and reason? How much does a memory weigh? What about a thought? Scientifically, I want you to account for them. I know, you can't.

It does not leave you thinking that you know the will of the creator of all existence, which no religion anywhere has ever shown any verifiable evidence for.

There is evidence. Whether you are convinced by it is another story. I find that this is rarely an evidential issue but a volitional issue.

You are referring to logic, reason, memory, etc.. as if they are physical constructs. I don't see where you are going with this.

What sort of evidence? If the evidence is solid enough, I will be convinced. Why don't you just give me your favorite, most convincing one or two.

jlay wrote:

There are plenty of "witnesses" for dragons and mermaids in history. Many books, scrolls, paintings, etc... Witnesses accounts and testimonials are not reliable sources of information

Sure, then just apply that same skepticism to science. You are RELYING on witness accounts and testimonials. Unless you have measured the speed of light, personally. Throw out the history books while you are at it. I guess you think we should lump accounts of mermaids in with Napolean, George Washington, etc.

I don't have to test every single thing scientists say they have already tested. That's absurd. I trust science (see above) because it has demonstrated to be true time and time again. Can we make mistakes? Of course. But the beauty of it is it is self correcting. As for comparing the Bible to other history books, I disagree.

While we can never be absolutely certain of history, a bit like science, evidence accumulates which can give us a great deal of confidence in it. Here’s a sample of what we have of Napoleon (Similar to George Washington and others in history) that we lack for Jesus:
- Consistent likenesses, from life-size statues to portraits for which he posed in person to coins which were minted and used during his lifetime. (You do realize portraits of Jesus in the middle east and other areas portray him as having dark skin)
- Writings by the man himself, starting from a manuscript he wrote at 17 and ending very shortly before his death in exile.
- First-hand accounts by hundreds of people, all of them undisputed real people, of personal dealings with him and his appearances before hundreds of thousands of soldiers and citizens, written within days of the events…rather than accounts mostly written in the third person by a handful of authors so disputed as to be effectively anonymous, of his appearances before hundreds, most of whom were illiterate (the literacy rate in first century Israel/Palestine was about 3%), written years or decades later.

Once you stop looking for absolute certainty, you start to judge these things on their actual merit. One can be far, far more confident in a historical Napoleon than a historical Jesus.

jlay wrote:

"This led me to understand that my beliefs were without rational justification and without evidentiary support. "

And I say my beliefs are with rational justification and evidentiary support. And if you care to look at a text book, it is called the "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict." And if you will pledge to read it thoroughly, I'll pledge to buy it and mail it to you at my expense. Just pmail the address. Then you can know for sure whether you are being rational about your rejection.

That's mighty generous of you. Seeing as it is an 800 pg book, it would take some time to get through. Needless to say, it would take me a while with my schedule. Let me look around online to see if I can find a PDF version, so you don't need to spend the money (or better yet, take what you would have spent and donate it to charity ).

jlay wrote:

The whole concept of Hell is objectionable. In my opinion it is harmful to teach children that certain actions they do can condemn them forever.

Volitional objection. That is equivalent to me saying. The death penalty is objectionable. Therefore it is harmful for me to teach children that certain actions can land them in jail or face the death penalty.

I don't equivalate the two at all. Individuals aren't put to death because they believe in the wrong deity or lack there of. Not to mention there is no evidence that hell is a real place rather than a product of human imagination.

jlay wrote:

Would you be scared of the Boogey Man if the first time you heard about him was when you were 18?

If the Bible is true, then we should heed its warnings. If the Boogey man is real, we should be scared of him.

And just like the Boogey Man, there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that the bible is indeed true.

jlay wrote:

Yes, and you can demonstrate it by approaching anybody and simply lying and claiming your lie as objectively true.

And do you realize the implications to your worldview?????????

I don't ever recall saying that I know with absolute certainty there is not a God. Like I said before, I hold the default position, the "null hypothesis." If there is no evidence that something exists, I have no reason to believe that it does.

jlay wrote:

I disagree that death would rob the meaning of life. The fact that I exist at all is miraculous.

Miraculous? Whose side are you arguing for here?
Let's see, life has meaning? check. Death robs life? Check. But death doesn't rob that? Got it.

I used miraculous in the sense that it is very improbable that I should be here at all. Death robs me of this brief experience, that is true. When I said death wouldn't rob the meaning of life, I was referring to now, in the moment. Not after I'm dead. If the meaning of life is subjective to every person, obviously after you are dead, it's gone. I wasn't arguing against that.

jlay wrote:

That makes life very precious.

No sir, that is begging the question. You presume that picking up the child has meaning. You presume the child has meaning. Again, you smuggle in objective meaning. I agree the experience with the child IS precious. But, in your sense, precious is just another word for meaning, and we are right back where we started.

You are using the word "meaning" as a blanket term. I wouldn't agree that the meaning of life and the precious experience of picking up your child are one in the same (although they may intertwine). Considering once my child is too big to pick up, I no longer have any meaning to my life.

jlay wrote:

Science of the gaps"? No... When I say we haven't found the answer, that's it. How is saying "I don't know" = "filling in the gaps"... That's ridiculous. Claiming to KNOW an answer when you do not is "filling in the gaps".

Uh, exactly. You are presuming that science will fill in the gaps at some future time. Because I could make that same statement about God. "Science hasn't found God, but we don't know what science will find in the future."

Science has continuously been filling in the gaps. Are you saying they will not fill in more gaps in the future? That's silly. I never said they would fill in all the gaps. Again, the first few words I used were "I. DONT. KNOW." I don't know how many gaps they will or will not fill. I don't see how this is equivalent to knowing the answers and filling in the gaps.

jlay wrote:

I still find it odd why the individuals who actually study how the world and universe work (chemists, biologists, physicists) are more atheistic than the general public.

Can you prove this, scientifically? Seriously though, this is a popularity fallacy. How many scientist believe something doesn't make it true. Truth is not determined by vote. Maybe you ought to reconsider that you abandoned Christianity because of rational justification and evidentiary belief. (There are actually some good studies on this phenomenon you mention, but I doubt you would like the conculsions.)

You are absolutely right. Just because something is popular doesn't make it true, I never said it was. I just said it was odd and something to think about (seeing as they spend their whole lives examining evidence, seeking truth). I read the justification on this website, and even with the couple sources they used (I'm sure being the most modest), scientist do have a higher disbelief in the supernatural that the general public.

jlay wrote:

So yes, believing in lies can harm yourself and those around you. Such as suicide bombers, the strict moral enforcers of dogma. False beliefs can lead to all manner of disastrous outcomes.

Harm? This presumes life has inherent value. I can give you a plethora of examples where lying can benefit. True beliefs can lead to disastrous outcomes. No beliefs can as well.

That's true. I was simply addressing the comment you made asking "What's the harm in believing in a pet dragon, god, etc.." (falsehoods).

jlay wrote:

That doesn't even take into account hypothetical theories about multiverses or an oscillating big bang/big crunch universe. Of course the proper usage of the anthropic principle tells us that while it may be statistically improbable, its isn't statistically impossible given that we have at least one example of life in the universe occurring.

OK, how much evidence do we have of these? How about ZERO. There is absolutely no evidence for mulitverses, none. So, be consistent in your skepticism man.

How much evidence do I have for these? Zero. Correct. The difference is, I never said that I believed them to be true did I? Multiverses, big bag/crunch (I should have used the word hypothesis) are natural explanations. We have no evidence of anything supernatural or godlike. This goes back to the pet dragon scenario. Which is a more likely possibility (not saying they are right or that I believe them to be 100% true), a pet dragon ran through my yard, or there is some other, more natural explanation for my yard being destroyed? This doesn't rule out the dragon as a possibility, it could have been a dragon. But it's highly unlikely and has requires high standard of evidence. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

jlay wrote:

I could invent any type of mythical creature to account for this, and write a book to go along with it.

Not while remaining rational. By examining our universe we have knowledge. If the universe has a cause, then it must be timeless, immaterial, and transcendent. What is the nature of our universe? Time, space, and matter. Anything outside our NATURAL universe that brought the universe into existence is by definition, supernatural. Beyond nature. If an intelligent being did that, then every miracle in the bible is plausible. So, you can't create 'any type' of myth to explain that.

You are already assuming that the universe "came into existence" and has a beginning. We don't know this. How do you know we are not part of a multiverse that has always existed (again, not saying I believe this is 100% true).

Anyway so... God is only in this special category, where only this "thing" that is like your god can defy these natural rules (which apply to everything else). I have a metaphysical, timeless, transcendent... why don't we say, pepperoni pizza. Would this not satisfy your criteria? I'm curious how "intelligence" got thrown into the mix. I'm sure you wouldn't be satisfied with an unintelligent God, which makes my pizza seem absurd, seeing as it doesn't have agency. The point is, the logic that you are using, even if it ends up working, can only bring us to a place where there's got to be something or another that isn't physical or isn't in this universe.

jlay wrote:I want to ask you a bottom line question, and I want you to sincerely ponder if before you answer. If you could know for certain that Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

In a heartbeat. I think I mentioned this earlier.

jlay wrote:

We were able to recreate

I love it. We were able to reCREATE. Intelligent beings, with a purpose were able to what?........

*Sigh*. We are able to reCREATE rainbows. Before we understood the properties of light and their place on the visible spectrum, we could just as easily said this has an intelligent designer. I mean, look at the experiment! What other explanation could there be!?

I guess I should have phrased it "we are able to simulate conditions present at the beginning of the Earth, which produces organic material."

neo-x wrote:

Where did these molecules come from? Depends on how far you want to go back. Exploding stars many, many years ago account for the various elements we are made of. As for the atoms at the "beginning" (if you can say there was one), I don't know. NOBODY DOES.

Lol...u have no idea how many times I have seen people resort to this.

I don't see the issue with someone claiming they don't know the answer to something. Where as I do see a problem with someone claiming to know with absolute certainty something they do not.

neo-x wrote:

ust because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can make up any answer you so choose and claim it's true, or even a likely possibility.

Can you say the same about multiverse and macro-evolution? I'd like you to try and see how it turns out.

There are plenty of things wrong with human beings and various animals. (cancer, birthing complications due to pelvic opening, the list goes on and on).

Wrong? compared to what?

Intelligently designed? Compared to what?

I wouldn't say that back issues and pregnancy complications due to our pelvic bone would classify it as "intelligently designed." Shouldn't human beings be incapable of coming up with a better design than an intelligent God?

neo-x wrote:

"You live life denying God – then he will deny you." What kind of loving God holds a grudge like that? God creates the human race with critical thinking skills. They fail to see any significant evidence of a creator and so, stop believing in him. God punishes those people.... I'm sorry, but that is NOT a God I would be happy to worship.

Emotional appeal is irrelevant. God is not only loving, he is just too. Hell was not created for man. It was for Satan. Man himself chooses to go there. You wouldn't drag a person in your home if you don't know him and he doesn't want to come inside. You'd leave him outside if you are a fair man. Same thing in God's case. He wouldn't drag you in, if you don't wanna come inside.

If he is loving and just, would it not matter if I believed in him or not? I'm a good person, I am kind to my fellow man, I've devoted my whole life in the pursuit to help people and improve their quality of life, yet I do not believe in a God because that's where my rational mind has led me. Would a loving and just God then choose to not to let me into Heaven (thus doomed to Hell?)

What sort of religion throws out the best?
What sort of religion rewards only those who fear 'hell'?

John 3:16?

neo-x wrote:

I could invent any type of mythical creature to account for this, and write a book to go along with it

Try it.

Its been done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel ... ti_Monster

neo-x wrote:

Some things are objective (like your examples in the scientific process) some are not. I never said everything was subjective, but I do think this topic is. Chemical reactions don't have meanings. They just happen. So lets just say it's only wishful thinking, similar to belief in afterlife, that assigns meaning to life. That said, it doesn't mean that the lack of meaning or purpose should devoid this chemical reaction from being kind to other chemical reactions or enjoying its short course. Is a rainbow suddenly less meaningless when you know it's a refraction of light in water droplets? Is love any less real to the person when they understand it's a biological condition? Is cancer any more painful to the patient and any less a scourge on your body when you know it rises as a genetic defect and not from some divine punishment?

....

If humans are special; if you or your child are indeed more special than the life of a fly, then may I ask what would be your source of objectivity? Objectivity can not be your chemical reactions being kind, that is arbitrary and violates the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be objective and human preference at the same time. Doesn't add up. Your assigning meaning to your child is no more different than someone falling in love with a tree (no offense intended). YOu can say its absurd of me to evaluate you as such but at the core, given if there is no objectivity outside of human choice-no god, then it is all a glamor-less 0-1-0-1, random chemical formations having preferences, that's all. Nothing more.

You cant buy your way out of this. If something is objective it has to be above the human preference, choice or logic. If not than there is no objectivity and everything is subjective. Even thinking that only some things are objective and some subjective - is indeed a subjective choice of yours.

I know everyone is engaged with you in conversation, so take your time, if you must.

I'll go back to my previous points. Somethings are objective, some are not. I don't know if the meaning of life is objective or not. I don't think anyone can make that claim. You seem to be doing it, so I ask you, what is this objective meaning of life.

You are also assuming life has meaning to begin with (I guess I am too, personally). But I pointed out earlier, even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter (to me anyway).

Going back to the question of "so what?" Just because we might feel uncomfortable admitting that our life does not serve an eternal purpose, it does not mean that a god necessarily exists. At most, this argument becomes a variation on Pascal's Wager.

This argument fails when we bring predestination and free will into the picture. Firstly, if meaning is predestined, then either God is unjust and does not give atheists the same facility to meaning, or is impotent, and can't. Secondly, free will and "designed" meaning cannot exist together, as they are mutually exclusive.

It seems as if the majority of this argument is based on an objective definition of the word meaning. In which case I will agree with Jlay that this can go on indefinitely and I really don't see the point in arguing it further.

domokunrox wrote: First one I noticed is that you said saying something is objective does not make it so. While, I agree with you. Stating the obvious in this regard doesn't make the proposition relative (subjective). You give absolutely no justification for the proposition being subjective.

Agreed, but I don't ever recall saying with absolute certainty that the meaning of life is subjective. (If I did, I'll admit I was in the wrong). Only that I disagreed with the person who claimed with certainty that it was objective.

domokunrox wrote:Saying religion is subjective because there are different cultures or Christianity isn't available where you live is called the Genetic fallacy. When and where you were born does not invalidate truth. That's absurd.

Agreed again. And again, I don't remember saying that religion was subjective, but questioned if it was truly objective, as someone was claiming. If it was objective, like mathematics, then it wouldn't matter where you were born or raised. Everyone comes up with the same answers.

domokunrox wrote:Another thing you've mentioned is in regards to chemical reactions. This is simply a massive equivocation problem. Nevermind the fact that we're not interested in knowing how chemicals react to each other. Chemicals had to BEGIN to EXIST before they even react to each other. Ho.. do you get to life is subjective because chemicals can react and have different values they used to have?

In fact, that doesn't doesn't even help your case. It does quite the opposite. Even if you give every single molecule a simple description on what its describes you can see the intelligence behind it.

For example Hydrogen is noted in the table of elements as H, and it has an atomic weight.
but let's stop there. There's a problem here. I don't understand this. There's this symbol H then Y and followed by D and then there's some more symbols that follow. Here we are though, talking about what this thing called Hydrogen is and how its different from these other things called Oxygen, Nitrogen, and so forth. So what's the problem? Here we are talking about the meaning of such trivial things like molecules and there is some plainly obvious differences on the structure of these molecules and we can see that aren't just anything random. They REQUIRE authorship. A type of metadata that we can clearly see is required so we can see the differences they have rom each other.

Yet, here you are suggesting that the 5 billion characters of our DNA that had to be in EXACT ORDER is not authored? Just chance and necessity?

I fail to see how you equate the differences in chemical elements to requiring authorship... In regards to your comment about DNA, it is well explained in intro Biology courses. Let's see if I can sum it up for you real quick.

A lot of DNA in our body is non-coding, which means that it does not code for a particular protein or RNA. This was previously called "junk DNA". Some of these non-coding region DO have some very interesting uses. They contained sequences that seem to regulate the coding portions. These regions are called regulatory regions or promoters. One gene can have more than one promoter region. Scientists have also proposed a very interesting hypothesis about the large amount of non-coding DNA in our genome. They suggest that the non-coding DNA could act as a buffer and absorb the harmful mutations. DNA is prone to mutations. If the mutations occur in the coding region, the organism might not be able to survive. By having large gene deserts, the genome is increasing the probability that non-coding regions will be hit more than the important regions. These "deserts" are still being studied, and we are finding more about them as we continue looking. But, I fail to see how this is evidence for a God....

No potential example of a supposed irreducibly complex system can, even in theory, demonstrate that it did not evolve from less complex components. One can only demonstrate how a system can be reduced, or claim ignorance as to how it can be. Irreducible complexity is therefore an argument from ignorance and, more specifically, a God of the gaps argument.

domokunrox wrote:You also say that there's something wrong with humans. Like we have cancer and so forth.
I have a question. If its WRONG, compared to what? What is RIGHT? You cannot affirm something is RIGHT without affirming that there's a design to begin with.

For example, if you deny any kind of intelligence behind human design or an efficient cause for the universe, then suppose that I was creating these things called "zoopaloids". Since there is no design. No schematic to look at, how can you go "Hey man, these "zooplaloids" could have been better designed"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Did you have higher expectations for human design? I would like to hear it.

Finally, you say that not everything is objective. I would like you to go ahead and present to me everything you think is subjective and the justifications for believing that. Before you do that though, go to the philosophy section of the message boards and take a quick look at the 1st point of my thread I previously mentioned. Thanks.

Addressed above.

Again pierson scientific findings are subject to the interpretations and the worldview of the scientists who are interpreting the data. We have seen this many times, and I saw it when you didn't bother to respond to my assertion that macroevolution is a fairy tale and not real science. It is inductive at best as the fossil record shows, maybe scientists can argue amongst each other within the differing views of the current paradigm but if they dare to present anything out of the box they tend the get moved or lose their jobs. As a former believer in evolution I stand by my statement that macroevolution is a fairytale and has never been observed (except in pure faith).

I have yet to see any evidence for what scientists tell us is just about considered as fact. We call that the Darwin of the gaps, science of the gaps or evolution of the gaps, pick one as they all seem to fit it like a glove.

Scientism was coined by professor Joseph , an atheist, and as I stated before science doesnt take into account miracles, historical evidences and the personal experiences, as I stated when I did bring up the shroud of Turin and how the scientific and historical evidences point towards the divinity of Jesus. Just because something can't be repeated in the lab doesn't mean that it is true or that it's good evidence. You can say you don't know all you want but all that does is make you an agnostic as least. if some scientists had their way we would eliminate history altogether as well as eyewitness evidence, but basic common sense tells most people that science is a very narrow view.

As far as hell is concerned if it really exists and Christianity is the truth we owe it to our kids to teach it to them. I k ow I was taught about it when I was a kid and it didn't scare me away from church. As kids we were taught "from attrition comes contrition". We obeyed as kids out of fear because we couldn't fully comprehend Gods love yet. As an adult I understand Gods love for us in a more mature way. To me life without Gods infinite love or his objective moral standards
is absurd and objectively meaningless. To someone without God in their life what would it matter if they went out on a killing spree , lived a life of luxury or loved their family. They would all end up the same way(nothingness).

I once had a conversation with a friend I used to know many years back who was a nihilist. This was the first time I ever encountered a nihilist so I asked him what the difference was between him and an atheist. He said nihilist are honest and know that if this is all there is then life has no meaning while atheists pretend to attach objective meaning to life.made sense to me, so i told him God bless and left the conversation.

Like I said there many different evidences for God from relics (the shroud) and inductive scientific and philosophical arguments to historical evidences and I'm sure you haven't looked and thoroughly investigated each one.
Remember if you are wrong that you won't have a chance to make up for it. If as we Christians believe that he'll is a reality (the spiritual separation from God) then you owe it to yourself and your kid to search with all haste.
If you are wrong all of the lab classes and no amount of Joe nickels in the world will be able to help.

Pierson,

Let's focus here. You have told us that life is not certainly objective, but also that it is not certainly subjective. I ask you, what are you certain about? I might have been the first one here in this thread who made a claim to what life means. So far, you've only told us you're just ignorant. Are you sure about that? Here you are denying our claims to life having an objective meaning, yet in the same paragraph saying there's something WRONG in our argument.

I mention this in the philosophy thread. In order to DETECT error, you must KNOW TRUTH. Knowledge has criteria. Knowledge is 1) a belief that is 2) true and 3) has warrant for being believed.

The philosophers already figured out the smoke and mirrors of your position. The reality of it is that, truth will crumble your worldview right down to even destroying the foundation.
You cannot deny it without affirming it.

If you say there is no objective meaning to life. Is that objectively true?
You say yes, then you defeated yourself. Objectively, life is subjective. Consequently, not subjective afterall.
If you say no, you remain consistent with your view BUT here is what you're trying to tell us and you don't have the spine to do it. The meaning of life is subjective, except for the statement I just made. In that case, you defeated yourself again, cause you just made an objective claim to life's meaning.

If however, you are saying that the meaning of life cannot be known.
How would you know that? Objectively, life has meaning, but you can't know it. How would you know that? To remain consistent, you have to remain skeptical of knowing how you know that you know that you know that you know that you know that you know, etc, etc, etc to infinity. This is an infinite fallacy. Infinity doesn't exist.

It is only in these 2 ways, Pierson that you can deny that life has objective meaning. Given that I just proved their fallacious nature here. We can conclude that life meaning is objective. It is as follows:

Life was just an accident. It has no meaning, and subsequently no purpose. To give life meaning or purpose is the noble lie.

Or life was not an accident, and it was purposely intended to exist. Purpose requires intelligence. Intelligence requires a mind. Life's purpose is to discover why they exist. Intuitively they were brought into existence by an intelligent mind.

This whole objective/subjective argument can be applied to any and all propositional values. Religion, etc.

As far, as the argument for element authorship. You say you cannot see the intelligence behind it.

So, let's just do a simple exercise. Given that by scientific proofs the universe and all physical reality cannot be actually infinite in the past but MUST have a beginning. This is proven in the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem. Its hard to imagine this, but let's say say you were able to observe of existence. How it comes into being by a bang or whatever actually doesn't matter. What began to exist, again just doesn't matter for now. Just be content in the fact that its a physical object that came into existence from a non physical reality.

I ask you, if the universe just began its existence with absolutely nothing intelligent behind it, can you give me the proof of other objects coming into existence with no intelligence behind it. Can you give me data on objects just coming into existence? Where does this happen? When did these objects come into existence?

I eagerly await the data.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I do think that the meaning of life is subjective. But not EVERYTHING. Kind better than cruel? I don't see how if that is objective, than the meaning of life is objective. I don't recall ever saying with absolute that the meaning of life is subjective or that you are wrong. Only that I disagree with you when you say it is with certainty. I don't know if it is objective, I don't think anyone can make that claim with absolute certainty because we don't have an answer. I am not claiming to have the answer, unless I'm mistaken, you are.

If you claim kind is BETTER than cruel then you live as life has objective value. So, when I say meaning, I am speaking of inherent value.

I don't have to test every single thing scientists say they have already tested. That's absurd. I trust science (see above) because it has demonstrated to be true time and time again. Can we make mistakes? Of course. But the beauty of it is it is self correcting. As for comparing the Bible to other history books, I disagree.

Oh contrare. The scientific community is often found to be wrong. In fact, part of the scientific method is trying to prove things wrong. Further, you've also slipped back into treating science as an entity. It isn't. How does one trust 'science?' When you say things like that, it sounds like a religious statement.

Why poopoo the Bible as a history book? The academic world doesn't. Do have anything other than prejudice to base this?

While we can never be absolutely certain of history, a bit like science, evidence accumulates which can give us a great deal of confidence in it. Here’s a sample of what we have of Napoleon (Similar to George Washington and others in history) that we lack for Jesus:
- Consistent likenesses, from life-size statues to portraits for which he posed in person to coins which were minted and used during his lifetime. (You do realize portraits of Jesus in the middle east and other areas portray him as having dark skin)
- Writings by the man himself, starting from a manuscript he wrote at 17 and ending very shortly before his death in exile.
- First-hand accounts by hundreds of people, all of them undisputed real people, of personal dealings with him and his appearances before hundreds of thousands of soldiers and citizens, written within days of the events…rather than accounts mostly written in the third person by a handful of authors so disputed as to be effectively anonymous, of his appearances before hundreds, most of whom were illiterate (the literacy rate in first century Israel/Palestine was about 3%), written years or decades later.

Wow, you sound like someone arguing for the veracity of the Bible. You should take me up on my offer of the book, which you haven't BTW. It addresses this in detail.

One can be far, far more confident in a historical Napoleon than a historical Jesus.

Can you prove that scientifically? Prejudicial conjecture.

That's mighty generous of you. Seeing as it is an 800 pg book, it would take some time to get through. Needless to say, it would take me a while with my schedule. Let me look around online to see if I can find a PDF version, so you don't need to spend the money (or better yet, take what you would have spent and donate it to charity ).

My charitble giving won't suffer. If it's accurate then it would be a worthy 800 pg endeavor. In fact, it would be the most important question to answer.

And just like the Boogey Man, there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that the bible is indeed true.

There most certainly is. Thh Bible has been proven TRUE in a myriad of areas, and that is a fact. Historically and archeologically. That is not the issue you have. It is with the issue of God and things such as Hell. And the reality of a God whose moral ethic stands opposed to how you would prefer to live your life. The offer still stands???

I don't ever recall saying that I know with absolute certainty there is not a God. Like I said before, I hold the default position, the "null hypothesis." If there is no evidence that something exists, I have no reason to believe that it does.

You exist. I assume you are typing on a keyboard or other method of imput to communicate to me. I don't ever have to see the keyboard or you to draw this conclusion. I see the evidence of the keyboard and you. So there you are. You have a funcitioning mind, a functioning cardio-vascular system. A functioning visual system. Please account for function in a material universe. Function is a wonderful thing. We have unlimited examples that a mind preceeds function. Whether a garden hose, or a super computer. I can test, observe and repeat over and over and conclude that to end up with a functioning TV remote (or insert any other device), the remote must first be conceived of. Then the immaterial concept can be designed and brought into reality and material existance. Scientifically speaking, why would I ignore this causal reality? Yet, your eye, mind, and beating heart are just the result of goo to you. Your faith in science is impressive. I don't know that I can have a faith like that.

Science has continuously been filling in the gaps. Are you saying they will not fill in more gaps in the future? That's silly. I never said they would fill in all the gaps. Again, the first few words I used were "I. DONT. KNOW." I don't know how many gaps they will or will not fill. I don't see how this is equivalent to knowing the answers and filling in the gaps.

But you aren't being consistent. You don't feel that way when it comes to God. As science fills in gaps, guess what, we discover new gaps. Science is limited and we have to appreciate the limits of testable, observable, and repeatable.

You are already assuming that the universe "came into existence" and has a beginning. We don't know this. How do you know we are not part of a multiverse that has always existed (again, not saying I believe this is 100% true).

I thought you trusted science? Either you do or you don't. I suspect you do when it's convenient for your position.
2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, radiation afterglow, galaxy seeds, and theory of relativity.
BTW, a multiverse, as the scientist critical of it have already argued, doesn't eliminate a beginning. It just pushes the problem back. Infinite regress has major problems. If you trust the scientist who study such things.
It's not science, it's science fiction.

I guess I should have phrased it "we are able to simulate conditions present at the beginning of the Earth, which produces organic material."

There were substantial other problems with the Urey-Miller experiments.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... le/51.html First. no one can travel back in time. They must presume. We can observe a rainbow today. And we aren't recreating a rainbow. We are really creating a rainbow. It is a cosmic leap to compare light refraction to life originating out of non-living material.
2ndly, even if the experiment was representative it in no way answers why we have function today. Wishful thinking. Is that scientific?

bippy123 wrote:Again pierson scientific findings are subject to the interpretations and the worldview of the scientists who are interpreting the data. We have seen this many times, and I saw it when you didn't bother to respond to my assertion that macroevolution is a fairy tale and not real science. It is inductive at best as the fossil record shows, maybe scientists can argue amongst each other within the differing views of the current paradigm but if they dare to present anything out of the box they tend the get moved or lose their jobs. As a former believer in evolution I stand by my statement that macroevolution is a fairytale and has never been observed (except in pure faith).

I have yet to see any evidence for what scientists tell us is just about considered as fact. We call that the Darwin of the gaps, science of the gaps or evolution of the gaps, pick one as they all seem to fit it like a glove.

Scientism was coined by professor Joseph , an atheist, and as I stated before science doesnt take into account miracles, historical evidences and the personal experiences, as I stated when I did bring up the shroud of Turin and how the scientific and historical evidences point towards the divinity of Jesus. Just because something can't be repeated in the lab doesn't mean that it is true or that it's good evidence. You can say you don't know all you want but all that does is make you an agnostic as least. if some scientists had their way we would eliminate history altogether as well as eyewitness evidence, but basic common sense tells most people that science is a very narrow view.

I figured I wouldn't have to try to "defend" evolution. Seeing as you are making the extraordinary claim here, why don't you present your case AGAINST evolution. I don't see how stating it is a fairy tale discredits it. Afterwards, feel free to write it down, get it peer reviewed, and collect your Nobel prize...

In science, to the extent that the terms are used at all:

Micro-evolution generally means change within a species.
Macro-evolution generally means change between species.

The word species typically refers to a group of individuals that can interbreed with each other. So, for example, the huge variety of dog breeds that have resulted from hundreds of years of human influence would be an example of micro-evolution, since different breeds of dog can still interbreed (though it may be physically awkward in some cases). However, since dogs and foxes, for example, cannot interbreed, the split of the two species from a common ancestor was an example of macro-evolution.

Does this mean that speciation (a split of one species into two) cannot be directly observed? Certainly not. Speciation has been observed under laboratory conditions: scientists have successfully induced the evolution of new species that cannot breed with the original strains.

You go back to the shroud again. No one has yet proven anything divinely inspired, or supernatural. So if you are claiming you have evidence for this, it would revolutionize science.

If some scientists had there way... There are many "fringe" groups out there. I have yet to hear any scientist (and I'm around them a lot) say they would get rid of history altogether... As I mentioned above, the evidence for certain historical events may be scarce, but it's still there.

Science is a narrow view. I'll repeat myself once more. If you have a better way to decipher truth and understand the universe than the scientific method. This is information you should not hold back from the rest of the human civilization.

bippy123 wrote:As far as hell is concerned if it really exists and Christianity is the truth we owe it to our kids to teach it to them. I k ow I was taught about it when I was a kid and it didn't scare me away from church. As kids we were taught "from attrition comes contrition". We obeyed as kids out of fear because we couldn't fully comprehend Gods love yet. As an adult I understand Gods love for us in a more mature way. To me life without Gods infinite love or his objective moral standards
is absurd and objectively meaningless. To someone without God in their life what would it matter if they went out on a killing spree , lived a life of luxury or loved their family. They would all end up the same way(nothingness).

I once had a conversation with a friend I used to know many years back who was a nihilist. This was the first time I ever encountered a nihilist so I asked him what the difference was between him and an atheist. He said nihilist are honest and know that if this is all there is then life has no meaning while atheists pretend to attach objective meaning to life.made sense to me, so i told him God bless and left the conversation.

Pierson5 wrote:I'll go back to my previous points. Somethings are objective, some are not. I don't know if the meaning of life is objective or not. I don't think anyone can make that claim. You seem to be doing it, so I ask you, what is this objective meaning of life.

You are also assuming life has meaning to begin with (I guess I am too, personally). But I pointed out earlier, even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter (to me anyway).

Going back to the question of "so what?" Just because we might feel uncomfortable admitting that our life does not serve an eternal purpose, it does not mean that a god necessarily exists. At most, this argument becomes a variation on Pascal's Wager.

This argument fails when we bring predestination and free will into the picture. Firstly, if meaning is predestined, then either God is unjust and does not give atheists the same facility to meaning, or is impotent, and can't. Secondly, free will and "designed" meaning cannot exist together, as they are mutually exclusive.

It seems as if the majority of this argument is based on an objective definition of the word meaning. In which case I will agree with Jlay that this can go on indefinitely and I really don't see the point in arguing it further.

bippy123 wrote:Like I said there many different evidences for God from relics (the shroud) and inductive scientific and philosophical arguments to historical evidences and I'm sure you haven't looked and thoroughly investigated each one.
Remember if you are wrong that you won't have a chance to make up for it. If as we Christians believe that he'll is a reality (the spiritual separation from God) then you owe it to yourself and your kid to search with all haste.
If you are wrong all of the lab classes and no amount of Joe nickels in the world will be able to help.

Ah yes, the age old "What if you're wrong" and pascal's wager. I'll ask you this. Have you looked at ALL the evidence for every religion (10's of thousands) to conclude with certainty that you have it correct? Of course not. You mentioned earlier you weren't familiar with "Our Lady of Guadalupe."

Even if one assumes that the wager applies to the Christian god, would he really accept the kind of faith it promotes? The wager doesn't promote true, deep faith; it promotes a fake faith. The person simply pretends to be convinced because they're afraid of the punishment for not believing.

An analogy to this would be a child that professes belief in Santa Claus out of fear that they will not otherwise receive presents, knowing full well that the presents left under the tree are really from his or her parents. Moreover, can we truly choose what we believe?... If the reward for believing in the existence of unicorns was a ton of gold, would you believe? Or would you simply say you believe.

domokunrox wrote:Pierson,

As far, as the argument for element authorship. You say you cannot see the intelligence behind it.

So, let's just do a simple exercise. Given that by scientific proofs the universe and all physical reality cannot be actually infinite in the past but MUST have a beginning. This is proven in the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem. Its hard to imagine this, but let's say say you were able to observe of existence. How it comes into being by a bang or whatever actually doesn't matter. What began to exist, again just doesn't matter for now. Just be content in the fact that its a physical object that came into existence from a non physical reality.

I ask you, if the universe just began its existence with absolutely nothing intelligent behind it, can you give me the proof of other objects coming into existence with no intelligence behind it. Can you give me data on objects just coming into existence? Where does this happen? When did these objects come into existence?

I eagerly await the data.

For the objective vs. subjective and the meaning of life. See above.

We can trace the big bang to almost the instant it began. But no further. I'm curious as to how you can claim to know the properties of something we do not know anything about (prior to big bang). But whatever, I'll humor you. How does this lead to a God?

As long as were observing material things. Can you give me proof of things coming into existence with supernatural causes? etc.. etc.. This is another argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know how something got here, or the causes behind it doesn't equal proof for a supernatural entity.

jlay wrote:

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I do think that the meaning of life is subjective. But not EVERYTHING. Kind better than cruel? I don't see how if that is objective, than th...

If you claim kind is BETTER than cruel then you live as life has objective value. So, when I say meaning, I am speaking of inherent value.

This is going nowhere, see above.

jlay wrote:

I don't have to test every single thing scientists say they have already tested. That's absurd. I trust science (see above) because it has demonstrated to be true time and time again. Can we make mistakes? Of course. But the beauty of it is it is self correcting. As for comparing the Bible to other history books, I disagree.

Oh contrare. The scientific community is often found to be wrong. In fact, part of the scientific method is trying to prove things wrong. Further, you've also slipped back into treating science as an entity. It isn't. How does one trust 'science?' When you say things like that, it sounds like a religious statement.

Why poopoo the Bible as a history book? The academic world doesn't. Do have anything other than prejudice to base this?

The scientific community is wrong on occasion. That's true. But no reason to discredit it completely. As I said before, it is a self correcting method. It does end up finding the truth eventually, even if it does get a couple things wrong. And you know what I mean when I said I trust science. I trust the method, I trust the community. I don't see your appeal to this play off of words thing.

You made a statement comparing Napoleon and George Washington to Jesus. I addressed that statement. The academic world accepts the Bible as a history book? I'll address this at the end of my comments.

jlay wrote:

While we can never be absolutely certain of history, a bit like science, evidence accumulates which can give us a great deal of confidence in it. Here’s a sample of what we have of Napoleon (Similar to George Washington and others in history) that we lack for Jesus:
- Consistent likenesses, from life-size statues to portraits for which he posed in person to coins which were minted and used during his lifetime. (You do realize portraits of Jesus in the middle east and other areas portray him as having dark skin)
- Writings by the man himself, starting from a manuscript he wrote at 17 and ending very shortly before his death in exile.
- First-hand accounts by hundreds of people, all of them undisputed real people, of personal dealings with him and his appearances before hundreds of thousands of soldiers and citizens, written within days of the events…rather than accounts mostly written in the third person by a handful of authors so disputed as to be effectively anonymous, of his appearances before hundreds, most of whom were illiterate (the literacy rate in first century Israel/Palestine was about 3%), written years or decades later.

Wow, you sound like someone arguing for the veracity of the Bible. You should take me up on my offer of the book, which you haven't BTW. It addresses this in detail.

One can be far, far more confident in a historical Napoleon than a historical Jesus.

Can you prove that scientifically? Prejudicial conjecture.

I'm still looking for the book online (my main online Library got shut down ). I found a couple of his books, but not that one yet. I'll let you know.

Can I prove it scientifically? Did you not see the argument I gave to you? There is evidence of one and not of the other (apparently I may be wrong about that). I'll address this at the end of the comment as well.

jlay wrote:

I don't ever recall saying that I know with absolute certainty there is not a God. Like I said before, I hold the default position, the "null hypothesis." If there is no evidence that something exists, I have no reason to believe that it does.

You exist. I assume you are typing on a keyboard or other method of imput to communicate to me. I don't ever have to see the keyboard or you to draw this conclusion. I see the evidence of the keyboard and you. So there you are. You have a funcitioning mind, a functioning cardio-vascular system. A functioning visual system. Please account for function in a material universe. Function is a wonderful thing. We have unlimited examples that a mind preceeds function. Whether a garden hose, or a super computer. I can test, observe and repeat over and over and conclude that to end up with a functioning TV remote (or insert any other device), the remote must first be conceived of. Then the immaterial concept can be designed and brought into reality and material existance. Scientifically speaking, why would I ignore this causal reality? Yet, your eye, mind, and beating heart are just the result of goo to you. Your faith in science is impressive. I don't know that I can have a faith like that.

I can demonstrate I am real to you. I can buy a plane ticket and meet you in person (I wouldn't, but I can). As for the account for function. I think this is leading to consciousness.

This is another argument from ignorance. Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. And since we are barely beginning to understand what consciousness is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet.

In fact, preliminary explanations for the origin of consciousness have been proposed, although they are too complicated to try to summarize here (see Dennett 1991 and Minsky 1985). Much more experimentation and refinement is needed before we have a full-fledged theory of the origin of consciousness, but we have more than enough to know that such a theory is possible.

A factor that likely contributes to the claim of consciousness's inexplicably is the fact that many people do not want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, since a natural consciousness does not fit easily with a divine soul. This threatens people's desire for a divine origin and immortality (but see Dennett 1991, 430, for immortality of a naturalistic consciousness). An examination of this point alone could fill a book.
There is much evidence, from genetic predispositions of behavior and personality, from brain injury studies, from brain imaging of healthy people -- that consciousness is naturalistic now. A natural origin would not matter much beyond that.

And again, I have to repeat myself. I do not have a "belief" or "faith" in science. You are confusing these with TRUST. Feel free to look back at what I posted earlier on this subject.

jlay wrote:

Science has continuously been filling in the gaps. Are you saying they will not fill in more gaps in the future? That's silly. I never said they would fill in all the gaps. Again, the first few words I used were "I. DONT. KNOW." I don't know how many gaps they will or will not fill. I don't see how this is equivalent to knowing the answers and filling in the gaps.

But you aren't being consistent. You don't feel that way when it comes to God. As science fills in gaps, guess what, we discover new gaps. Science is limited and we have to appreciate the limits of testable, observable, and repeatable.

What do you mean I don't feel that way when it comes to God? When people don't have an answer for something, and stick God in the equation to account for it, no, I disagree with that. When science says, I don't know, lets try and fill in the gap. They try. If they don't find the answer, they don't claim to know it. They stick with "I don't know" and "It needs further testing." As science fills in gaps, it discovers new ones. What's your point? If you have a better method of finding out the truth, by all means, feel free to share with the rest of the world.

jlay wrote:

You are already assuming that the universe "came into existence" and has a beginning. We don't know this. How do you know we are not part of a multiverse that has always existed (again, not saying I believe this is 100% true).

I thought you trusted science? Either you do or you don't. I suspect you do when it's convenient for your position.
2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, radiation afterglow, galaxy seeds, and theory of relativity.
BTW, a multiverse, as the scientist critical of it have already argued, doesn't eliminate a beginning. It just pushes the problem back. Infinite regress has major problems. If you trust the scientist who study such things.
It's not science, it's science fiction.

I do trust science. Doesn't mean I'm aware of everything that has been studied. Let's assume you are correct then. Let's throw out the multiverse hypothesis. What about the big bang/crunch scenario? Has that been discredited too (I am genuinely curious, if you have a source, fantastic). If not, why do you dismiss that one? Either way, none of what you are saying comes back to evidence of a God...

jlay wrote:

I guess I should have phrased it "we are able to simulate conditions present at the beginning of the Earth, which produces organic material."

There were substantial other problems with the Urey-Miller experiments.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... le/51.html First. no one can travel back in time. They must presume. We can observe a rainbow today. And we aren't recreating a rainbow. We are really creating a rainbow. It is a cosmic leap to compare light refraction to life originating out of non-living material.
2ndly, even if the experiment was representative it in no way answers why we have function today. Wishful thinking. Is that scientific?

I addressed the "function/consciousness" above. Argument from ignorance.

2nd. To address what I was mentioning above. What do you believe exactly? From all the evidence you have examined. Did Jesus exist? Even if we conclude he did in fact physically exist, is he the son of a God, was he born of a Virgin, did he perform miracles, did he raise from the dead? Do you believe this God of yours has any impact on the physical world we currently live in? Does he answer prayers? What about the Bible, do you believe it is all true? Or only some of it?

3rd. You asked me, so I thought I should ask you too. If you could be absolute certain that there is no God. Would you still remain a Christian?

Again peirson your assuming we must come to him through pascals wager. I just finished saying what my bible study teacher told us, that attrition leads one to contrition. With some people this is the only thing that catches their attention when they just pass off their spiritual journey that they should have taken aomg time ago, but obviously your a different case. You are not lazy, you actually will not accept any evidence for God. You are totally biased and set against any evidence against God. This is more than atheism, in fact this is called anti-theism.

I think I'm still waiting for evidence for macroevolution which you seemed to pass on. It's ok if you admit that what scientists are trying to pass off as science in every biology classroom in the world is actually a fairytale philosophy with no scientific evidence to back it up, but then again when a person is married to their worldview I guess they must tow the party line. The scientific method was born out of a Christian worldview and maybe when the materialistic paradigm passes we will finally progress to what science was created by God for , the truth .

Macroeveolution = a myth that should have died out a long time ago being passed on us as science.

bippy123 wrote:Again peirson your assuming we must come to him through pascals wager. I just finished saying what my bible study teacher told us, that attrition leads one to contrition. With some people this is the only thing that catches their attention when they just pass off their spiritual journey that they should have taken aomg time ago, but obviously your a different case. You are not lazy, you actually will not accept any evidence for God. You are totally biased and set against any evidence against God. This is more than atheism, in fact this is called anti-theism.

I think I'm still waiting for evidence for macroevolution which you seemed to pass on. It's ok if you admit that what scientists are trying to pass off as science in every biology classroom in the world is actually a fairytale philosophy with no scientific evidence to back it up, but then again when a person is married to their worldview I guess they must tow the party line. The scientific method was born out of a Christian worldview and maybe when the materialistic paradigm passes we will finally progress to what science was created by God for , the truth .

Macroeveolution = a myth that should have died out a long time ago being passed on us as science.

Nobody has presented me with solid evidence for God. Simple as that. I've gotten a book suggestion and a shroud website. We already discussed the shroud and what it entails. You decided not to discuss it anymore after I made a point. As for the book, I'm looking into it. You make a lot of wild accusations, but rarely end up providing evidence for them. I seem to be the only one providing any evidence here... And the burden of proof isn't even on me!

I told you macro-evolution has been done in the lab with different strains of E. Coli. But if you REALLY want the summery here you go...

"In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and “that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species.” Many traits were observed changing over time. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of “micro-evolutionary” changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the “micro-evolutionary” line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. Here we have a clear example of macro-evolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions."

You guys are the ones making extravagant claims here. Not I. The burden of proof is on you. You claim I am wrong, and there is some kind of conspiracy teaching macro evolution. You are going against the scientific community. You claim, fairy tail this, you aren't accepting the evidence, etc... etc... All I have gotten is arguments from ignorance. How do you explain X? How do you explain Y? This is complex, etc.. This isn't evidence, its ignorance (not that there is anything wrong with that, I'll be the first to admit I'm quite ignorant on a number of subjects). The difference between you and me is, when I don't know something, I don't account it as evidence for a God. I simply state, I don't know.

As for married to their world view and not accepting evidence. I could say the exact same thing to you.

Also, chemistry arose from alchemy. Once we're done with this "materialistic paradigm" maybe we can get back to that too huh?

P.S. Even if macro-evolution was proven to be false, does that prove a God exists?

Pierson5 wrote: "In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and “that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species.” Many traits were observed changing over time. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of “micro-evolutionary” changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the “micro-evolutionary” line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. Here we have a clear example of macro-evolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions."

http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-i ... ing-e-coli

Vespetta wrote:http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-i ... ing-e-coli

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Hope you like reading.

Pierson5 wrote:Even if macro-evolution was proven to be false, does that prove a God exists?

peirson im sorry to tell you that making an assertion without reading the critques (like u did with the shroud of turin) really sets you back in a true quest for the truth. Here we go again with the talk origin links again which are hardely a scientifically unbiased site are they? but you allready knew this, its too bad you didnt figure out that some of us would prepare ourselves. Ill bid you farewell tonight with a quote from evolutionary biologist Stephen Gould who had some very very nice things to say about darwinian evolution.

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

Ill say it yet again, and maybe if I say it enough times it will begin to sink through Macroevolution is a fairy tale for grownups:)

Good night folks, im still trying to see if I could find that elusive walking with dinosaurs dvd so i could use itas a frisbie hehe
The imaginative but uneducational walking with mammals should have been thrown in the gutter as soon as they gave ambulocetas webbed feet lol

lets go back to lenskis experiment shall we, and when i knock this one out we will be left with that good ole fruit fly experiment and you and i both know how thta experiment turns out:)

Guys there are many more tidbits in this article to debunk the lenski experi,ment handily but ill leave it to you guys to go through it. This isnt even close to macroevolution. Pierson, I used to be like you. I believed evolution for 42 years without questioning it as i was a theistic evolutionist, but like i said macroevolution isnt based on science. its based on dotgmatic assertions and trying to froce the evidence into their methodologican philosophical materialistic religious beliefs. Shall we go next into the final frontere of the fruit fly experiment or shall we conclude this here. To call this experiment macroevolution is a stretch beyond science fiction, at least science fiction contains some elements of science with imaginative forsight. Thi sis simply a fairy tale given to the public and saying if you dont believe macroevolution is true your dumb, no matter how bad the evidence is against it you must believe. Notice I didnt even bring the fossil evidence into this which has allready proven macroevolution a dismal failure.



http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/ri ... 51051.html


Looking at Table 3 of Behe's QRB paper, not a single example of an adaptive mutation in Lenski's LTEE entailed a gain of a new molecular function. In fact, over the course of his entire paper, Behe goes further and explains that most of our known examples of molecular adaptations in bacteria entail "loss-of-function" mutations. Somehow, Venema doesn't discuss any of these findings.

E coli. Could Uptake and Metabolize Citrate Before Lenski's LTEE

Later, when referring to a different stage of the LTEE, Venema claims that a new function did arise in Lenski's E. coli bacteria during the experiments: the ability of E. coli to metabolize citrate. Venema claims that "One of the defining features of E. Coli is that it is unable to use citrate as a food source," but after a series of mutations "bacteria that use citrate dominate the population." According to Venema, these experiments show "Complex, specified information can indeed arise through natural mechanisms."

Yet Venema leaves out important details, creating an inaccurate impression. As we'll discuss below, normal E. coli already have machinery to uptake and metabolize citrate, so the general fact that Lenski's bacteria showed this ability is really quite unremarkable.

Unfortunately, Venema's readers on the BioLogos will never hear that. They also won't learn that Michael Behe has written extensively about Lenski's research, showing that the machinery for E. coli to uptake and metabolize citrate already existed in these bacteria. This isn't an entirely new biochemical pathway. Venema fails to note that normal E. coli already have the ability to uptake and metabolize citrate. They just can't normally uptake it under oxic conditions; Lenski's bacteria evolved the ability to uptake it under oxic conditions used in the experiment. Then the E. coli used their normal metabolic pathways to use citrate as a food source. Behe made this point while commenting on these claims soon after they were first published in 2008:

Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it's not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a "citrate permease" which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell's membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, "The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions." (1)

(Michael Behe, Amazon Blog, "Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli" (June 6, 2008).)

Likewise, Behe's recent 2010 paper in Quarterly Review of Biology provided an extensive critique of claims that Lenski's LTEE showed the evolution of a new pathway that could metabolize citrate. Venema doesn't cite or mention Behe's QRB paper, but it too explains that E. coli already had the ability to metabolize citrate. Behe explains:

Recently, Lenski's group reported the isolation of a mutant E. coli that had evolved a Cit+ phenotype. That is, the strain could grow under aerobic conditions in a culture of citrate (Blount et al. 2008). Wild E. coli cannot grow under such conditions, as it lacks a citrate permease to import the metabolite under oxic conditions. (It should be noted that, once inside the cell, however, E. coli has the enzymatic capacity to metabolize citrate.) The phenotype, whose underlying molecular changes have not yet been reported, conferred an enormous growth advantage because the culture media contained excess citrate but only limited glucose, which the ancestral bacteria metabolized.

(Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)

Thus, Behe explains that the precise genetic mechanisms that allowed E. coli to uptake citrate under oxic conditions are not known. But Behe goes further and points out that the citrate-metabolizing E. coli strains really aren't anything new, and that previous investigations suggest that the ability of the E. coli to uptake citrate under oxic conditions might result from molecular loss-of-function:

As Blount et al. (2008) discussed, several other laboratories had, in the past, also identified mutant E. coli strains with such a phenotype. In one such case, the underlying mutation was not identified (Hall 1982); however, in another case, high-level constitutive expression on a multicopy plasmid of a citrate transporter gene, citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was responsible for eliciting the phenotype (Pos et al. 1998). If the phenotype of the Lenski Cit+ strain is caused by the loss of the activity of a normal genetic regulatory element, such as a repressor binding site or other FCT, it will, of course, be a loss-of-FCT mutation, despite its highly adaptive effects in the presence of citrate. If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation.


(Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)

Thus, previous research suggests that the adaptation which allowed these E. coli to uptake citrate under oxic conditions might be caused "by the loss of the activity of a normal genetic regulatory element." Here's what is likely going on here:• Under normal conditions, E. coli can metabolize citrate; after all metabolizing citrate is an important step in the Krebs cycle, a pathway used by virtually all living organisms when creating energy.

• But under oxic conditions, E. coli lack the ability to transport citrate through the cell membrane into the cell. E. coli can do this under reducing conditions, but under oxic conditions E. coli can't normally uptake citrate.

• If Lenski's citrate-using E. coli are like previous E. coli which were discovered uptaking citrate under oxic conditions, then it seems likely that the bacteria underwent a mutation that knocked out the regulation mechanism of a citrate-transport gene, causing over-expression, allowing the E. coli to uptake citrate under oxic conditions.
In other words, the machinery for both transporting and metabolizing citrate was already present in these bacteria. But a series of knockout mutations broke the regulation of pre-existing citrate transport mechanisms, causing over-expression of a citrate transport gene, allowing citrate to be transported under both oxic and anaerobic conditions. If this is the case, then clearly this example of Darwinian "evolution" entails the loss of a molecular function, not the gain of a new one. And there was no wholesale acquisition of the ability to metabolize or, as Venema put it, "use" citrate



So as far as we can tell, these changes entailed the origin of no new functional genes or proteins but might have resulted from a broken regulatory mechanism. We have not seen that natural selection and random mutation can produce functional, information-rich genes and proteins, and Venema is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Contra Venema, this example hardly shows the Darwinian evolution of a "new function," especially since E. coli already had the ability to uptake and metabolize citrate. Venema claims that CSI has arisen, but if we don't even know what mechanisms were involved in this change, how does he know that it is new CSI?


The sort of loss-of-function examples seen in the LTEE will never show that natural selection can increase high CSI. To understand why, imagine the following hypothetical situation.

Consider an imaginary order of insects, the Evolutionoptera. Let's say there are 1 million species of Evolutionoptera, but ecologists find that the extinction rate among Evolutionoptera is 1000 species per millennium. The speciation rate (the rate at which new species arise) during the same period is 1 new species per 1000 years. At these rates, every thousand years 1000 species of Evolutionoptera will die off, while one new species will develop--a net loss of 999 species. If these processes continue, in 1,000,001 years there will be no species of Evolutionoptera left on earth.

If Behe is correct, then Darwinian evolution at the molecular level faces a similar problem. If, all other things being equal, a loss or modification of function adaptation is generally 100-1000 times more likely than gain of function adaptations, then eventually an evolving population might run out of molecular functions to lose or modify. Neo-Darwinian evolution cannot forever rely on examples of loss or modification-of-function mutations to explain molecular evolution. At some point, there must be a gain of function.

Vaguely Appealing to Vast Probablistic Resources Won't Work



Vaguely Appealing to Vast Probablistic Resources Won't Work

Venema closes his post on the LTEE by saying: "what the IDM claims is impossible, these 'tiny and lowly' organisms have simply been doing -- and it only took 15 years in a single lab in Michigan. Imagine what could happen over 3,500,000,000 years over millions of square miles of the earth's surface."

But vague appeals to vast eons of time and huge population sizes are unconvincing. You just have to do the math. As David Abel reminds us:

Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." ... One chance in 10200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible. With funding resources rapidly drying up, science needs a foundational principle by which to falsify a myriad of theoretical possibilities that are not worthy of serious scientific consideration and modeling.

(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).)

Sorry for the double post guys

Pierson,

You are all over the place, friend. You keep saying we're arguing from ignorance. It is YOU who is arguing from ignorance because you refuse to do such simple tasks to demonstrate TRUTH CLAIMS. We're not doing any such thing as arguing from ignorance. My arguments do no such thing. A subjective truth isn't really subjective at all, but rather objective. However, logically, that's impossible. Again, its impossible for Christianity, islam, buddism, taoism, etc, to ALL BE RIGHT. Its just as mistaken as 2+2= x. Where X is any number. You are arguing from infinity. You want to know how I know that? Because if you make deductions from an infinite absurdity you can get ANY answer. And when you can get ANY ANSWER, you make claims that there is a PLURAL TRUTH. However, Infinities DO NOT EXIST.

If you want to claim there is no objective truth, you have to PROVE a PHYSICAL INFINITE REALITY EXISTS.
This physical object MUST EXIST in order to prove your subjective reality as objectively true.
<---------------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------->
Infinite sym-----Universe start-------------Today-----------------Infinite sym


However, this infinite physical absurdity DOESN'T EXIST. The BGV theorem prove EXACTLY THAT.
Physical reality HAS A BEGINNING EXACTLY LIKE THIS.
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
Universe start------Today------------------Universe end

I am going to demonstrate the deduction YOU REFUSE to do. This has nothing to do with MATERIAL CAUSE. It has to do with EFFICIENT CAUSE. Efficient cause is not material cause. You've committed a equivocation error.

If we use the symbol Y to represent the universe in this simple demonstration. By the BGV proof, it has been proven that.
That Y (the physical universe) CANNOT COME INTO EXISTENCE by Y (the physical universe)
That would be saying Y came first, then Y began to exist.

However, the BGV theorem PROVES what happened since the above is impossible.
X (non physical reality) CAUSED Y (the physical universe) to BEGIN to exist.

Its DUALISTIC.
Agency ----->Cause----->result

Atheism is a Monism view
Eastern philosophy is a Monism view
Eastern theism is a Monism view

bippy123 wrote:peirson im sorry to tell you that making an assertion without reading the critques (like u did with the shroud of turin) really sets you back in a true quest for the truth. Here we go again with the talk origin links again which are hardely a scientifically unbiased site are they?

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

Because the shroud site you linked to me isn't biased at all (I addressed my concern with this earlier). Even so, I DID take a look at a few articles (unlike you, who just dismisses it without taking a look). I was unimpressed and ASKED you for your favorites and most convincing, seeing as you knew so much about it.

I had a feeling someone would object to the website, which is why I didn't bring it out until someone posted the link to creation.com, which has references from places like: Creationism Journal. Instead of pointing that out, I simply replied with a website of my own not directly from a scientific journal (but does site references to them. I think you would agree that PUBMED, JSTOR, ASM, PNAS, are reliable sources of information, are they not? ). Also, saying it's biased is slightly off. They have the creationist arguments in the extensive links section (took about 5 seconds to find). A minor examination would also show that most of the TalkOrigins articles provide links to creationist sites and arguments. I rarely find that creationists provide links or clear references to scientific sources in their websites.

You are quoting from: Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182

In the snippet on the side of the text: "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

And following that:

"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183

Have fun taking things out of context though

There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well. We had more in warehouses than there was floor space to display.

bippy123 wrote:Notice I didnt even bring the fossil evidence into this which has allready proven macroevolution a dismal failure.

Could you at least try to provide sources for claims like these? These are Nobel prize winning claims you are making. You did site some sources for your other arguments, which is great though. And they are interesting reads.

You make a long argument dismissing the validity of the experiment I provided. Even if you are correct, so what? I go back to my main point:

Pierson5 wrote:Even if macro-evolution was proven to be false, does that prove a God exists?

domokunrox wrote:Pierson,
You are all over the place, friend. You keep saying we're arguing from ignorance. It is YOU who is arguing from ignorance because you refuse to do such simple tasks to demonstrate TRUTH CLAIMS.

I don't recall ever making claims to truth. Especially on the subjects we are discussing now. I cannot make claims to truth to questions nobody has answers to.

domokunrox wrote:We're not doing any such thing as arguing from ignorance. My arguments do no such thing. A subjective truth isn't really subjective at all, but rather objective. However, logically, that's impossible. Again, its impossible for Christianity, islam, buddism, taoism, etc, to ALL BE RIGHT. Its just as mistaken as 2+2= x. Where X is any number. You are arguing from infinity. You want to know how I know that? Because if you make deductions from an infinite absurdity you can get ANY answer. And when you can get ANY ANSWER, you make claims that there is a PLURAL TRUTH. However, Infinities DO NOT EXIST.

I never said it was possible for all religions to be right. I asked how do you know you have the right one. Also if there is just one objective religion, then shouldn't everyone believe the same thing, regardless of where they were brought up or raised? (I compared this to mathematics, everyone gets the same answer, regardless of where they live. THAT is something that is objective and demonstrable)

domokunrox wrote:I am going to demonstrate the deduction YOU REFUSE to do. This has nothing to do with MATERIAL CAUSE. It has to do with EFFICIENT CAUSE. Efficient cause is not material cause. You've committed a equivocation error.

Atheism is a Monism view
Eastern philosophy is a Monism view
Eastern theism is a Monism view

You make an interesting point and I'll have to look into the BGV thereom. This is the first I've heard of it and it sounds intriguing. I've only taken a few physics classes, so let me ponder that and get back to you

Pierson I think I provided the quotes to behe, and you can't say that he didn't pass muster because they are peer reviewed. Once you understand that macroevolution is an impossibility you start to wonder how in the world could these KINDS of animals just pop up fully formed. Macroevolution is a fairy tale yet you defended it as if it were scientific fact. Your eyes are starting to open my friend.

Once you understand that DNA is a language and more then just the chemicals that physically compromise it you will understand that a language needs a mind behind it. All of our intuitive knowledge and experience tells us this . This was the final straw that made me leave the poorly argued philosophy of macroevolution for the much better argued intuitive philosophy of intelligent design.

The fact that you have thrown your hands up and said "this doesn't prove God exists" I would have to say that this is just one of many breadcrumbs that should intuitively lead you towards God's existence. There are many others but to remain a dogmatic atheist just doesn't make sense. This is why seeking God must be a research into the totality of evidences, even the evidences that go beyond science. I just showed you how the majority scientific community passed of macroevolution to you as science. If you had previously believed this, couldn't you be wrong about God too.

Ask yourself why did the scientific community betray you? Could it be that they are afraid that the evidence will lead towards the very being that they hate? Namely God?

If your an open minded person that is honest with yourself you will come to the conclusion that you were a bit hasty in leaving Christianity .