+1
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
+1
The design I perceive is simply that the things appear to be designed. I have not said that the appeared design cannot come from anything other than an intelligent designer.
So you are incorrect in your perceptions.
You are making broad sweeping statements and generalizations, that do not apply to me.
I am not a creationist as I understand the term. Your understanding might be different.
All that has been constantly observed is without a theory. No theory has been observed, as a theory is a mental construct only.
Theories are proposed, and they are based on some things we observe and know, and they are formulated on some guessed proposition, i.e. random ignorant chance underlying the observations of the changes in biological organisms over time. Biological organisms have their nature. A nature to be born, live for some period of time, then die. A nature to attempt to change in order to adapt to the environment, etc.
Why do biological organisms have their nature? No one knows why, they just take it as their nature.
So why do biological organisms mutate? Various explanations have been offered up, but without any real proof as to why exactly. Scientists cannot consistently apply some external environmental impact on all or biological organisms to get them to mutate and change their genetic structure sufficient to develop a new species. By now, with all the experiments on rats, we have not produced a new species that has evolved from a rat.
So it is unknown actually why at any particular time when or why a biological species may mutate, whether the mutation is caused from an external or internal source.
What does that boil down to? A fundamental element of the process of evolution, a key to the theory of evolution is not known how evolution actually works, or why it works, or when it works.
So assume that is it just mindless unguided random chance that is the cause of the mutation. Okay, that is one possibility.
What is another possibility? That mindful, guided, and planned with purpose mutation occurs.
What is another possibility? That mindless, applied, and programmed process of mutation occurs...by the nature of a self generated program.
Can the first assumption be proved? No actually it cannot. A lack of information is not knowledge. It is a guess.
Can the second assumption be proved? No as well, for the same reason the first assumption can't be proved.
Can the third assumption be proved? No as well, for the same reason the first assumption can't be proved.
Does choosing he first assumption make the theory true and factual? Unknown, because all we can know is the process we observe.
Does choosing the second or third assumption make the theory true and factual? Unknown, because all we can know is the process we observe.
Would choosing the second or third assumption change the processes we observe? No. Would it change the theory that biological processes change over time? No. Would it change the concept of natural selection? No.
They if the second or third proposition were to replace the first proposition, what would actually change? Nothing in real biology would change at all.
So why do we teach children in public schools that the first assumption is fact, and that the second or third assumption is not fact, when in fact we don't have a way to establish fact of the first, second or third assumption?
Your real issue is with Christianity and their dogmatism, not with a simple assumption of design.
As you think if design were offered up equally, that would make the Christian view of Creationism valid...which logically of course it does not.
It is a shame your blind hatred of Christianity and your world view has limited your capacity to think outside of the Christianity box...
So you are incorrect in your perceptions.
You are making broad sweeping statements and generalizations, that do not apply to me.
I am not a creationist as I understand the term. Your understanding might be different.
All that has been constantly observed is without a theory. No theory has been observed, as a theory is a mental construct only.
Theories are proposed, and they are based on some things we observe and know, and they are formulated on some guessed proposition, i.e. random ignorant chance underlying the observations of the changes in biological organisms over time. Biological organisms have their nature. A nature to be born, live for some period of time, then die. A nature to attempt to change in order to adapt to the environment, etc.
Why do biological organisms have their nature? No one knows why, they just take it as their nature.
So why do biological organisms mutate? Various explanations have been offered up, but without any real proof as to why exactly. Scientists cannot consistently apply some external environmental impact on all or biological organisms to get them to mutate and change their genetic structure sufficient to develop a new species. By now, with all the experiments on rats, we have not produced a new species that has evolved from a rat.
So it is unknown actually why at any particular time when or why a biological species may mutate, whether the mutation is caused from an external or internal source.
What does that boil down to? A fundamental element of the process of evolution, a key to the theory of evolution is not known how evolution actually works, or why it works, or when it works.
So assume that is it just mindless unguided random chance that is the cause of the mutation. Okay, that is one possibility.
What is another possibility? That mindful, guided, and planned with purpose mutation occurs.
What is another possibility? That mindless, applied, and programmed process of mutation occurs...by the nature of a self generated program.
Can the first assumption be proved? No actually it cannot. A lack of information is not knowledge. It is a guess.
Can the second assumption be proved? No as well, for the same reason the first assumption can't be proved.
Can the third assumption be proved? No as well, for the same reason the first assumption can't be proved.
Does choosing he first assumption make the theory true and factual? Unknown, because all we can know is the process we observe.
Does choosing the second or third assumption make the theory true and factual? Unknown, because all we can know is the process we observe.
Would choosing the second or third assumption change the processes we observe? No. Would it change the theory that biological processes change over time? No. Would it change the concept of natural selection? No.
They if the second or third proposition were to replace the first proposition, what would actually change? Nothing in real biology would change at all.
So why do we teach children in public schools that the first assumption is fact, and that the second or third assumption is not fact, when in fact we don't have a way to establish fact of the first, second or third assumption?
Your real issue is with Christianity and their dogmatism, not with a simple assumption of design.
As you think if design were offered up equally, that would make the Christian view of Creationism valid...which logically of course it does not.
It is a shame your blind hatred of Christianity and your world view has limited your capacity to think outside of the Christianity box...
"Living organisms are different from inanimate objects because they a. react to environmental stimuli. b. exhibit massive complexity. c. possess molecules of deoxyribonucleic acid."
http://www.reference.com/topic/Living-Organisms-Are-Different-from-Inanimate-Objects-Because-They
"What is it ID'ers have against inanimate organisms that reproduce, mutate and are subject to natural selection simply showing the results of all that in designs and as a matter of fact?
Why wouldn't that evolutionary process involve its own determination in outcome of shape pattern and design?"
Inanimate organisms?
Having a bad day, are you?
Please give some examples of inanimate organisms. No dead things, please....only living things, as inanimate is defined as:
in·an·i·mate
   /ɪnˈænəmɪt/ Show Spelled[in-an-uh-mit] Show IPA
âadjective
1.
not animate; lifeless.
http://www.reference.com/topic/Living-Organisms-Are-Different-from-Inanimate-Objects-Because-They
"What is it ID'ers have against inanimate organisms that reproduce, mutate and are subject to natural selection simply showing the results of all that in designs and as a matter of fact?
Why wouldn't that evolutionary process involve its own determination in outcome of shape pattern and design?"
Inanimate organisms?
Having a bad day, are you?
Please give some examples of inanimate organisms. No dead things, please....only living things, as inanimate is defined as:
in·an·i·mate
   /ɪnˈænəmɪt/ Show Spelled[in-an-uh-mit] Show IPA
âadjective
1.
not animate; lifeless.
Not my opinion below, just one person's opinion, an animate organism...still waiting for that list of inanimate organisms...maybe stu will say vampires and zombies, as they are technically dead (inanimate) yet animated organisms.
Posted 10 September 2006 - 01:17 PM
Hey all....it's nice to find this forum. I hope I'm not being too offensive by suggesting that Neo-darwinism is little more than a brilliant hoax. I would like to present my case here and see what others think.
--------------------------------------------------------
The theory of evolution crashes under the reality of simple common sense. Common sense says that life cannot go from the simple to the complex from a series of conservative or degenerative mechanisms. Mutations are shown to be conservative, in that they almost always lose information. Likewise, natural selection is also a conservative -- if not degenerative -- wishful-thinking, after-the-fact phenomenon. Actually, to me, NS is just a tautology that tries to explain the origin of life via "appearance through disappearance." This makes no sense. For example, there are millions of cars on the road -- many of which which break down and die...never to get on the road again. But does this explain the origin of cars? I say no. Common sense says no. Physical reality say no....but evolutionists say yes....and they have convinced millions into believing the same thing. I don't buy it, though.
But that's not all. Somehow, evolutionists have tricked people into believing that natural selection is a pure non-random mechanism. Very occasionally this might this may be true. But common says that whichever animal within a population lives long enough to be able to breed is a mostly a matter of luck.
Have you ever seen a large school of fish or a flock of seagulls? They all look and act the exact same! Darwinists insist that there's slight differences, but who could really tell one apart from the other?
And itâs not just birds and fishâ¦..squirrels, rabbits, worms, deer, crickets, ants, sparrows, snakes, Etcâ¦..theyâre all basically the same! In otherwords, populations of animals are made up of individuals that are strikingly similar. Thus, common sense says that being âtoughâ or âfastâ or âsmartâ has nothing what-so-ever to do with who goes on to reproduce -- because they're all more or less the same. In fact, what seems to be more important is being LUCKY. For example letâs look at frogs. If a frog happens to make a home in a stream or river that is not currently inhabited by snakes, then he is more likely to go on to breed because heâs less likely to be eaten. And itâs like that everywhere. If a seal frequents a particular area that happens to be a place where sharks donât roam then heâs also more likely to breed. Ultimately, it's all about luck.
And luck can work its magic in a million ways. I mean isnât it just basically the luck of the draw if a worm happens to be plucked out of the ground by a bird? And Isnât it just a matter of luck when an owl spots a field mouse and nabs him? And isnât it a matter of just luck if a particular fish gets plucked out of the water by a pelican? And isnât it just a matter of luck if a bear swipes a salmon out of the river? And isnât it just a matter of luck if a fly lands in a Venus flytrap? And isn't it just a matter of luck if a locust gets snatched out of the air by a bird? And isnât it just a matter of luck if an animal finds himself in an area that gets no rainâ¦.thus causing him to die of thirst?
Ultimately â in the real world â being âFITâ has nothing to do with it. And that's because most animals in a given population have the same basic "fitness." In the real world, it usually boils down to dumb luck because almost all animals in a given population are the exact same. Luck, infact, could insure that only the unfit/stupid/weak/clumsy/ugly/sick/deformed could survive. And this says nothing to the fact that traits are not tied to randomly occuring genetic mutations -- or that indiviudual nucleotides never break apart.
Ironically, my evolutionist friends have the gall to call these lucky events non-random!
Personally, I believe that natural selection is only a non-random phenomenon on the level of the population -- not on the level of the individual. For instance, if a population of animals experiences an enviornmental shift, NS may, in fact, wipe out most -- or all -- of a given population. This in effect would leave only other types of creatures who are able to withstand such a change. For example, in my garden I have 2 types of flowers.....If we have an unsusally hot, sunny summer, the green-leafed begonias are likely to wilt and die....where my lantanas are likely to thrive. It's a population phenomenon. --not an individual phenomenon.
And speaking of selectionâ¦â¦think about sexual selection for minute.
How exactly is it that evolutionistsâ sexual selection hypothesis could be correct when there are just as many females in the animal kingdom as males? Besides that, are you telling me that only the absolute fittest will breed?
Butterflies,turtles,squirrels,birds,fish,ants,bats ,crickets,mice,rabbitsâ¦..you really think that thereâs much âsexual selectionâ going on here? You really think the males/females of these populations honestly care who they breed with? I donât. I think almost all the members of these populations will breed because breeding in an inherent drive in every population.
And even animals like deer who like to quarrel over mates.....are you telling me that only the strongest of the deer will ever breed? The fact is these mating games that the males play are generally just rituals. Rarely does an animal actually die as a result of a struggle for a mate. In fact, the loser will almost certainly go on to breed with some other femaleâ¦.and thus have offspring regardless. There are plenty of females to go around.
Posted 10 September 2006 - 01:17 PM
Hey all....it's nice to find this forum. I hope I'm not being too offensive by suggesting that Neo-darwinism is little more than a brilliant hoax. I would like to present my case here and see what others think.
--------------------------------------------------------
The theory of evolution crashes under the reality of simple common sense. Common sense says that life cannot go from the simple to the complex from a series of conservative or degenerative mechanisms. Mutations are shown to be conservative, in that they almost always lose information. Likewise, natural selection is also a conservative -- if not degenerative -- wishful-thinking, after-the-fact phenomenon. Actually, to me, NS is just a tautology that tries to explain the origin of life via "appearance through disappearance." This makes no sense. For example, there are millions of cars on the road -- many of which which break down and die...never to get on the road again. But does this explain the origin of cars? I say no. Common sense says no. Physical reality say no....but evolutionists say yes....and they have convinced millions into believing the same thing. I don't buy it, though.
But that's not all. Somehow, evolutionists have tricked people into believing that natural selection is a pure non-random mechanism. Very occasionally this might this may be true. But common says that whichever animal within a population lives long enough to be able to breed is a mostly a matter of luck.
Have you ever seen a large school of fish or a flock of seagulls? They all look and act the exact same! Darwinists insist that there's slight differences, but who could really tell one apart from the other?
And itâs not just birds and fishâ¦..squirrels, rabbits, worms, deer, crickets, ants, sparrows, snakes, Etcâ¦..theyâre all basically the same! In otherwords, populations of animals are made up of individuals that are strikingly similar. Thus, common sense says that being âtoughâ or âfastâ or âsmartâ has nothing what-so-ever to do with who goes on to reproduce -- because they're all more or less the same. In fact, what seems to be more important is being LUCKY. For example letâs look at frogs. If a frog happens to make a home in a stream or river that is not currently inhabited by snakes, then he is more likely to go on to breed because heâs less likely to be eaten. And itâs like that everywhere. If a seal frequents a particular area that happens to be a place where sharks donât roam then heâs also more likely to breed. Ultimately, it's all about luck.
And luck can work its magic in a million ways. I mean isnât it just basically the luck of the draw if a worm happens to be plucked out of the ground by a bird? And Isnât it just a matter of luck when an owl spots a field mouse and nabs him? And isnât it a matter of just luck if a particular fish gets plucked out of the water by a pelican? And isnât it just a matter of luck if a bear swipes a salmon out of the river? And isnât it just a matter of luck if a fly lands in a Venus flytrap? And isn't it just a matter of luck if a locust gets snatched out of the air by a bird? And isnât it just a matter of luck if an animal finds himself in an area that gets no rainâ¦.thus causing him to die of thirst?
Ultimately â in the real world â being âFITâ has nothing to do with it. And that's because most animals in a given population have the same basic "fitness." In the real world, it usually boils down to dumb luck because almost all animals in a given population are the exact same. Luck, infact, could insure that only the unfit/stupid/weak/clumsy/ugly/sick/deformed could survive. And this says nothing to the fact that traits are not tied to randomly occuring genetic mutations -- or that indiviudual nucleotides never break apart.
Ironically, my evolutionist friends have the gall to call these lucky events non-random!
Personally, I believe that natural selection is only a non-random phenomenon on the level of the population -- not on the level of the individual. For instance, if a population of animals experiences an enviornmental shift, NS may, in fact, wipe out most -- or all -- of a given population. This in effect would leave only other types of creatures who are able to withstand such a change. For example, in my garden I have 2 types of flowers.....If we have an unsusally hot, sunny summer, the green-leafed begonias are likely to wilt and die....where my lantanas are likely to thrive. It's a population phenomenon. --not an individual phenomenon.
And speaking of selectionâ¦â¦think about sexual selection for minute.
How exactly is it that evolutionistsâ sexual selection hypothesis could be correct when there are just as many females in the animal kingdom as males? Besides that, are you telling me that only the absolute fittest will breed?
Butterflies,turtles,squirrels,birds,fish,ants,bats ,crickets,mice,rabbitsâ¦..you really think that thereâs much âsexual selectionâ going on here? You really think the males/females of these populations honestly care who they breed with? I donât. I think almost all the members of these populations will breed because breeding in an inherent drive in every population.
And even animals like deer who like to quarrel over mates.....are you telling me that only the strongest of the deer will ever breed? The fact is these mating games that the males play are generally just rituals. Rarely does an animal actually die as a result of a struggle for a mate. In fact, the loser will almost certainly go on to breed with some other femaleâ¦.and thus have offspring regardless. There are plenty of females to go around.
That's it? Hundreds of pages of your nonsense boils down to no more proof than "things appear to be designed"?!
ROFL!
Did it ever occur to you that your "creationist design perspective" may be a bit biased because all your life all the complexity you've ever seen are man-made objects and technology that you know have been designed AFTER THE FACT?
Did it?
Stu is talking about viruses maybe?
You shouldn't make that ridiculous leap to an "ultimate designer" on pure spec when you realize that your viewpoint been biased to macro designed objects your whole life. How can you trust your instincts in this scenario (which is what optional is doing)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? I am talking about stu and maybe he talks about "inanimate organisms" like viruses. I did not say anything about "ultimate designer".
you guys are having an argument ignorant of the last 50 years of physics.
The August â97 issue of âScienceâ (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled âScience and God: A Warming Trend?â Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic lifeâsuch as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived starsâalso has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universeâand we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measureâwe should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
The August â97 issue of âScienceâ (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled âScience and God: A Warming Trend?â Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic lifeâsuch as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived starsâalso has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universeâand we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measureâwe should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.