I Do Enjoy A Good Nutty Christian Argument Now And Again

31 07 2008

Richard Aberdeen thrust this very friendly and non-confrontational argument onto another blog I’ve been known to frequent.

So, you’re an atheist? Bullshit.

Try to scientifically refute this…

The problem with trusting in Richard Dawkins is, he’s not a real scientist. No real scientist would ever say there is no God, because of three very specific scientific reasons noted below. If Dawkins doesn’t know if there is a God, then he say so; otherwise, he’s plainly just a liar and a fraud:

1) There is no evidence that there is no God, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so.

2) There is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it’s own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process.

3) There is no evidence that anything in motion has ever come to be in motion by itself, without something else first causing it to be put in motion. (Quite obviously, Socrates, Newton and Einstein, who all three believed in God, could argue circles around Dawkins, as can also, any grade school child with half a brain.)

Thus, the entire position of Richard Dawkins is scientifically, fundamentally flawed to the core. There is no such thing as “science” that is not based on evidence.

Nobody knows exactly who or exactly how, the pyramids in Egypt came to be as we can observe them today. Richard Dawkins and every other scientist, archaeologist and human being with half a brain, just assumes that someone designed and built them. This is because, all known evidence and human experience indicates that someone did.

And much more so, all known evidence and human experience by default, indicates there is a Creator or Creators. Thus, the correct scientific position is, there is a Creator or Creators until someone can prove otherwise, just as A squared plus B squared is true regarding isosceles triangles, until someone can prove otherwise and, just as the pyramids of Egypt are a product of design until someone can prove otherwise.

Anyone who pretends there is no Creator is complete liar, an obvious charlatan and a fraud, no matter how many Oxford degrees they may or may not honestly possess.

And you think George Bush is a moron; he’s only a beginner ! ! !

Well he really gave it to us atheists didn’t he? I don’t know what I could possibly say to refute such a well reasoned position. I’m very nearly persuaded but I felt that I needed to ask him a few more questions before I could turn over a new leaf and devote my life to Christ.

Richard,

1) There is also no evidence that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so. Are you asserting the positive belief in his tasty goodness? (In His name, Ramen)

2) If there is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it’s own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process…then can you explain where your amazingly powerful and complex God came from?

3) I was going to repeat your point again here I’m honestly not really sure what you’re talking about. If it makes you feel better I’ll concede that while something obviously happened at the beginning of the universe I for one am willing to admit that we don’t know for sure what it was (yet). But if I may ask, do you mean to suggest to me that people thousands of years ago who thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth already figured it out? Really?!

You ought not be ragging on George Bush’s lack of intelligence too forcefully there my friend.

Super J

I do hope he writes back to fill me in with his God given insights and Christ like patience. I visited his blog as well to invite a reply so here’s hoping he’ll accept my invitation.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

27 responses

31 07 2008
Richard Aberdeen

These tired arguments have already been addressed in various posts, but I will try to address then again for the sake of the responder. I used to be an atheist, I understand where atheists are coming from and I have yet to find one who can provide any evidence that there is no God.

So, I am left wondering, why would someone waste a lot of time and often write several books, coming from the position that there is no God.? It is similar to as if, Newton or Einstein published their various respective theories and didn’t provide any evidence to back them up. If Richard Dawkins is so wise, why doesn’t he spend his time trying to figure out how to solve world hunger or global warming? That would seem to be a lot more valuable way he could spend his days.

And what kind of human rights track record does he have, compared to say Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, King, Chavez, Eleanor Roosevelt, Einstein, Newton, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and so on and on, who all believed in God. Just who is he trying to kid, pretending he is on the side of “science and reason”? Just how wise is he compared to Socrates or Jesus? Can he come up with a better idea for world peace, than to love our neighbor as ourself?

For example, would any scientist have agreed with Newton if he had just stated that objects of different sizes and weights fall at the same rate, if he had not conducted experiments and provided evidence that this is correct? Would any scientist have agreed Einstein, if he had just stated “E-MC2” without providing any further evidence or mathematical formulas? “Just take my word for it, E=MC2” isn’t going to fly with either me or true science, any more than anyone trying to pretend, “there is no God, I can’t provide any evidence this is true, but just take my word for it”, going to fly with either me or any semblance of true science.

That is why I stated that Richard Dawkins is not a real scientist. Any real scientist would state, “based on all known evidence, there is a creator or creators”, because that is what all of the know evidence indicates. Even if it is not true, it is still what all of the KNOWN EVIDENCE indicates. In order for someone to be a “true” scientist, they must go by the evidence; true science allows for speculation and examining every possibility, but true science does not allow for “speculation” to be treated as fact.

I have never argued that you or anyone else must believe in God to satisfy me. I am not a Christian as you assume in very great error, just as you assume in very great error, that because religions are bullshit and because Christians are obviously mainly bullshiters, therefore there is no God. Such an assumption is similar to concluding, that because some modern African-Americans are violent, therefore Martin Luther King, Jr. never existed.

My position has long been, that is what all known evidence dictates. If you don’t want to go by the evidence, that is your problem, not mine.

Now, to address your specific responses (my answers are in capital letters to avoid confusion, not to “shout” back…

Richard,

1) There is also no evidence that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so. Are you asserting the positive belief in his tasty goodness? (In His name, Ramen)

THIS IS AN ENTIRELY INVALID RESPONSE. THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN OBSERVE IN ANY WAY, IS A PRODUCT OF DESIGN; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING EVER CAME INTO BEING ON IT’S OWN, WHILE THERE IS VIRTUALY INFINITE EVIDENCE THAT EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS CAME ABOUT BY SOME EXTERNAL PROCESS OR FORCE ACTING UPON IT.

THUS, THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A CREATOR OR CREATORS. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. YOU ARE PRETENDING THAT AN ARGUMENT THAT IS IN REALITY, 100 TO ZERO, IS SOMEHOW A 50/50 DEBATE. NO TRUE SCIENTISTS WOULD DO THAT AND LIKE I POINTED OUT, SOCRATES (AND A GREAT MANY OTHERS) COULD RUN CIRCLES AROUND YOUR ARGUMENT.

2) If there is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it’s own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process…then can you explain where your amazingly powerful and complex God came from?

IF THERE IS A CREATOR OR CREATORS AND, IF AT LEAST ONE OF THESE CREATORS IS ETERNAL, THEN THERE IS A VALID EXPLANATION FOR THE OBSERVABLE REALITY. IF THERE IS NO CREATOR AND/OR, IF AT LEAST ONE CREATOR IS NOT ETERNAL, THEN THERE IS NO VALID OR RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR ANYTHING.

THIS CONCLUSION IS BASED ON ALL KNOWN EVIDENCE AND HUMAN EXPERIENCE. YOUR CONCLUSION IS PULLED OUT OF THIN AIR AND AS SUCH, IS NO MORE WORTHY THEN THE MOST RUDIMENTARY OF CREATION MYTHS.

3) I was going to repeat your point again here I’m honestly not really sure what you’re talking about. If it makes you feel better I’ll concede that while something obviously happened at the beginning of the universe I for one am willing to admit that we don’t know for sure what it was (yet). But if I may ask, do you mean to suggest to me that people thousands of years ago who thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth already figured it out? Really?!

I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN, EITHER. BUT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN VIRTUALLY EVERY SCIENTIST BELIEVED THE EARTH IS FLAT. WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, I WAS TAUGHT THE STANDARD DARWINIAN MODEL, THAT EVERY LIVING THING EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE PRIMARY SOURCE. THERE IS NOW CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE THIS IS NOT TRUE AND MANY SCIENTISTS NO LONGER BELIEVE IT IS OR, SAY THEY DO NOT KNOW (AS THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID ALL ALONG, BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T KNOW AND TODAY, THEY STILL DO NOT KNOW).

I WAS TAUGHT THAT THE UNIVERSE IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 4 AND 6 BILLION YEARS OLD. THIS FIGURE WAS CONTINUALLY REVISED DURING MY LIFETIME, UNTIL IT SWELLED UP TO OVER 30 BILLION YEARS AND HAS NOW BEEN SUPPOSEDLY ACCURATELY DEFINED AS 18.67 BILLION. OF COURSE, THE CURRENT FIGURE OF 18.67 BILLION DEPENDS ON OUR CURRENT THEORIES OF LIGHT AND GRAVITY BEING CORRECT. SINCE MANY AND PROBABLY MOST PHYSICISTS AND ASTRONOMERS BELIEVE OUR CURRENT THEORIES OF LIGHT AND GRAVITY ARE PROBABLY NOT CORRECT, THEN IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT THE STATED 18.67 BILLION AGE OF THE UNIVERSE IS ALSO NOT CORRECT.

SCIENCE HAS A VERY LONG HISTORY OF CHANGING IT’S MIND, A VERY LONG HISTORY OF BEING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG AND, A RATHER CHECKERED HISTORY INDEED OF CONTRIBUTING TO MAJOR POLLUTION, MAYHEM AND MADNESS, AS WELL AS POSSIBLY DOING SOME GOOD.

A FEW MONTHS AGO ON A SCIENCE TELEVISION PROGRAM, A DARWINIAN BIOLOGIST STATED ON CAMERA (WHICH IS RARE) THAT HE PERSONALLY BELIEVES THAT WITHIN 50 YEARS, DARWINIAN EVOLUTION WILL BE MOSTLY, IF NOT ENTIRELY DISCARDED. THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS ONGOING GROWING EVIDENCE WITHIN THE PAST 20 OR SO YEARS, CLEARY INDICATING IT HAS MAJOR PROBLEMS OF BLIND ASSUMPTION AND INNACURACY, BASED ON THE FARILY RECENT KNOWN EVIDENCE.

NOW, YOU CAN TRUST IN SCIENCE IF YOU WANT, BUT I’VE READ MORE HISTORY THAN ANYBODY I PERSONALLY KNOW, PROBABLY MORE THAN MOST LIVING PEOPLE AND THUS, I REMAIN HIGHLY SKEPTICAL OF MODERN SCIENCE. AND IN PARTICULAR, I REMAIN COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY SKEPTICAL OF ANYONE WHO PRETENDS THERE IS NO GOD.

THAT IS FAR MORE IGNORANT THAT STATING, SINCE THE PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT CANNOT TODAY BE FULLY EXPLAINED, THEN THEY MUST HAVE APPEARED ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT ANY CREATORS.

YOUR COMMENT ABOVE INDICATES YOUR LACK OF CAREFUL THOUGHT, WHEN YOU STATE MAKE A STATEMENT SUCH AS: “your amazingly powerful and complex God”.

IMAGINE HOW POWERFUL AND COMPLEX WE ARE COMPARED TO A MICROSCOPIC ORGANISM LIVING INSIDE OUR INTESTINES. AND YET, CAN SUCH AN ORGANISM ACCURATELY SAY, “THERE IS NO HUMAN BEING”. JUST BECAUSE THE SKY IS VERY BIG AND WE ARE VERY SMALL, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, INDICATE THERE IS NO GOD.

YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN THAT. AFTER ALL, YOU LIVE IN THE AGE OF ADVANCED MICROSCOPES, AS WELL AS SUPER-TELESCOPES.

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD SPEND A LITTLE EFFORT ACTUALLY READING WHAT JESUS ACTUALLY SAID. THEN YOU THINK TWICE BEFORE ASSUMING SOMEONE LIKE ME IS A CHRISTIAN. I CONSIDER THAT AN INSULT, AS I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT HE WOULD AS WELL.

31 07 2008
Richard Aberdeen

I apologize for a few gramatical errors above. I have a lot to do today, wrote the above in a hurry and only took time to respond because the responder at least tried to address my points, instead of just calling me names, as many so-called “intellectuals” have resorted to doing in various forums.

31 07 2008
SuperJesus

Richard,
It is impossible to prove a negative assertion. Just as I cannot prove there are no invisible fairies following me everywhere and I cannot prove that there is not a teapot on the sun I also cannot prove there is no God. As you (and all religious people for that matter) not only insist on presuming the existence of God but go so far as to claim knowledge of his past acts and his current wishes the burden of proof of these claims rests with you. Bear in mind that fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and as yet I have seen no evidence of any kind from you or anyone else. Just claiming it’s the only answer that makes sense or that it’s obvious doesn’t pass scientific rigor. Just because you might not fully understand evolution doesn’t mean it is invalid. The evidence supporting evolution is documented everywhere and after 150 years has not been disproven.

It’s fair of course to point out that evolution does not address the first origins of life itself but there are scientists earnestly studying this despite the proclamations of the faithful who apparently already have all the answers they need.

There are no books refuting the existence of Santa because there are not millions of adults being misled and delusionally believing in his existence. There are not millions of people blindly following whatever is being told to them in the name of the Tooth Fairy without question. Furthermore, there are not millions of people willing to die or kill in the name of the Easter Bunny. The same cannot be said of numerous Gods and that’s why many people write books about religion and the social infection that it is.

Now I wouldn’t be so foolish as to slam every passage of the Bible as wrong. I think many of the philosophies attributed to Jesus are right on the money and I think the Sermon on the Mount alone should be recommended reading for everyone. But just because there are a few good passages doesn’t prove God exists or that some invisible deity had a hand in writing it. If you believe God wrote the Bible then given the number of errors, inconsistencies, and atrocities your God is a vindictive hack of a writer desperately in need of a good fact checker and editor.

So you don’t see any irony in asserting that the universe (because it is so complex) must have a creator, but the required creator (who obviously must be more complex than that which he creates) does not require a creator? Look, I understand the desire to have a valid explanation for the observable universe, but just making up an eternal being so you can close the loop doesn’t prove anything. Sure it might make you feel better thinking you’ve “solved” that big unknown question, but I would argue that it’s perfectly acceptable to admit that we don’t know everything. Once we admit to what we don’t know we can then start the hard work of trying to better understand what really happened. But just making up magic invisible beings doesn’t explain anything.

Science isn’t infallible; science is the systematic process of study and understanding. It’s meant to change as new and better evidence comes to light and disproves the current understanding with ideas that do so better. If science didn’t change then we’re doing something wrong. Of course many people don’t like change, and that’s where religion feels so reassuring. Everything is understood there, nothing changes, nobody has to change or think too hard. Science isn’t comfortable, religion is. Science strives to see the world accurately as it is while religion struggles to pretend the world is as it wishes it was.

Again, I’m sure I have not persuaded you one bit. I wish I knew what to say that you would understand that I mean you no insult or harm, only the gift of critical thought, further knowledge, and boundless curiosity. I am sure I’ve failed but I will always continue to try.

PS: Not to ruin your preconceived notion of him, but Einstein considered religion “childish superstition”

31 07 2008
Barbara

@Richard

Well, you are an interesting individual. Ex-atheist? I’m curious what changed your mind and made you a “believer”? If you don’t mind.

Why are you so vehemently opposed to Richard Dawkins. I wonder how much of his work you are familiar with. You seem very focused on one aspect of his work and seem angry at his willingness to deny gods existence. This is interesting since if you are firm in you beliefs and have conviction that there is a creator I would think that none of these arguments would interest you. BTW, you have also implied that a great deal of scientists whom have made remarkable discoveries are not “real” scientists.

And why do you have issue with atheism, again, why so angry with those whom don’t believe? And why do you believe Richard? Is it the overwhelming evidence of a creator (of which there is none) or is it the overwhelmingly inaccurate version of biblical events that convinced you? Does the term Humanist offend you also, or the many possible combination’s of terms that describe non-believers.

What part of Jesus do you believe in? The philosophical, wholly human side or the spiritual son of god business that would certainly imply you are a “christian” which you deny almost as vehemently as you appose atheism?

And last, but certainly not least, I am curious about your lack of enthusiasm about evolution. So maybe you could explain life for me. You seem not to be a literal biblical text believer, so I am curious where do you think it started? Do you believe in the existence of dinosaurs, of trilobites, of micro and or macro evolution or do you insist on the lack of any evidence of any evolutionary change whatsoever?

As an aside, I really find no issue with belief of a creator any more than I find that I believe in one, but dogmatic is dogmatic. Your insistence that there is one is just as problematic as the insistence that there isn’t since you can give no evidence of such. Your point has somewhat worked against you as you have proven no more in your argument than you say Richard Dawkins has proven in his, and I would dare say even less so.

21 04 2009
Richard Aberdeen

please see my response at bottom–since several people responded, I had to consolidate my responses, but it does address your question.

31 07 2008
Brian

Dawkins has never said that there is no God. He claimed that the existence of God is highly improbable.

This is because he IS a real scientist. You seem to be under the impression that the entire focus of his career has been disproving the existence of God. Although his writings on atheism and religion have brought him widespread popularity, his primary scientific work has been in the field of evolutionary biology.

The entire fulcrum of your argument is a straw man. You are attempting to invalidate his opinions by claiming that he has stated a universal negative as fact. Since he has done no such thing, your argument has no basis.

21 04 2009
Richard Aberdeen

Richard Dawkins wrote a book, that implies by it’s very title, that Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Confuscius, Mencius, Zarasthustra, Muhammad, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Francis Bacon, Newton, Faraday, Thoma Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Edison, Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Darwin, Einstein, Francis Collins and Stephen Hawking, among a very long list of others, are all scientific morons and delusional.

It doesn’t take much of a monkey’s ass to determine who is in fact, the one who is delusional.

You might question why I added Stephen Hawking and Darwin to this list. Both Darwin and Hawking have spent a long time on the so-called “God question”, thus someone who writes a book entitled the “God delusion” is implying that both Darwin and Hawking (and himself) are stupid, wasting otherwise valuable scientific research time on a supposed question of delusion, as is the entire scientific community.

If I didn’t believe there is a God, I would just ignore the idea and move on. This response is not intended to be critical of either Hawking or Darwin, who I believe unlike Richard Dawkins, to both be very good examples of what science is supposed to be all about.

Also, please see general response at bottom…

1 08 2008
Kittie

Einstein did not believe in God. He simply stated that religion and science balanced each other. He also said that religion was childish. Many of us happen to agree. Ditch the Cliffs Notes, Richard.

21 04 2009
Richard Aberdeen

please see my response at bottom–since several people responded, I had to consolidate my responses, but it does address your question. You can also find several quotes from Einstein and his premier biographer in my online book at this link, which very clearly and devinitively demonstrate that Einstein not only believed in God, but like Newton, based his entire scientific inquiry and purpose around his belief in God, as he thus stated himself.
http://freedomtracks.com/500/title.html

2 08 2008
John

Good points on both sides. Passionate too. The bottom line for me is that I tolerate the extremists on both sides, but prefer they not try to foist their beliefs on me. We’re seeing more and more of that today. It’s great to debate, write books and be invited to speaker on the subject, but don’t get pushy. Neither side can claim they know for sure due to a lack of scientific testing and a book that tells us amazing stories.

21 04 2009
Richard Aberdeen

Your response is better than most. The reason I am angry with and attack people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris is because of the very reason you note here, that they try to dismiss, dehumnaize and marginalize everyone who believes in God, including an estimated 40% of all living scientists on a global statistical basis.

I have friends who are atheists who I don’t at all address like these three scientific Neanderthals noted above. That’s because unlike the three above, they don’t go around seeking to marginalize everyone who believes in God on the side of Pat Robertson, as Sam Harris does or, otherwise write books calling someone like me and the rather long list noted above “delusional”.

22 04 2009
SuperJesus

I’ve read a number of Sam Harris’ books and suspect you have not because you greatly misrepresent his position.

You should also back up your claim that 40% of all living scientists believe in God…not that it really matters. Just because there are any number of Scientists who cling to the religious dogma beaten into them since childhood does not rise to the level of evidence does it?

2 08 2008
Jimmy

Aberdeen makes some good points. I’m not really sure exactly what he is advocating except belief in a creator. I think it is futile to try prove or disprove this argument. Dawkins makes it a point to say there is almost certainly no god. It seems Aberdeen is equally careful, acknowledging fallacies of Christianity and other religions. It is fine for someone to believe in a creator, but it becomes a problem when people use that belief as an excuse to force their will on others. My belief is that their may be a creator, but as individuals and a species we should make decisions based on logic, reason, and the best available evidence. I support Dawkin’s efforts because belief in God is handicapping humans. I am not so convinced as he that there is no intelligence or intention behind the creation of universe.

21 04 2009
Richard Aberdeen

I don’t believe that God himself attempts to force his will on anybody, thus anybody who does that in my opinion, is decidedly “ungodly”. This is why I am angry with Richard Dawkins (see reply to John above).

I have no quarrel with the ACLU’s desire to protect the “minority” voice freedom to speak. However, I have a huge quarrel with the ACLU that attempts to silence the voice of myself, as well as several living highly credentialed scientists and almost every known historical scientist, as well as Thomas Jefferson and every single signer of the Declaration.

With that part of the ACLU’s agenda, I have a very signifant ongoing quarrel which will not subside until they either change their position 360 degrees or, until I die, whichever happens first. Noone who has any remote understanding of freedom in general, freedom of speech, the American Experience, the Constitution, the Declaration, the history of science and/or, the history of humanity, would openly seek to deny a student or teacher of equal credentials, the human right to state their fundamental beliefs “on the origin of species”; not in a public sick-ass so-called science class or in any other public taxpayer supported forum.

22 04 2009
SuperJesus

After reading so many long posts of yours I must ask how exactly is the ACLU silencing your voice again?

2 09 2008
Chuck

SJ,

Richard’s comments were a little thin. Make that a lot thin.

However, I commend to you the writing of Ann Coulter, abhorrent as she may be to you, on the subject. (I will not credit her with the originality of the concepts, but rather with making a cogent argument for a Creator, by using them.)

Particularly, I think that her argument regarding the flagellum on certain microbes is particularly useful. In addition to other occupations, I have worked as a Statistical Analyst. The odds of the evolutionary process producing a flagellum, which by the admission of the athiestic portion of the scientific community would require two hundred separate evolutionary steps, are one in 1.61E+60. (To envision this number, take away the decimal, and follow the three numbers by fifty-eight zeros. You’ll need a rather long chalk board. Write small.)

I do not know how many separate evolutionary steps would be required to produce the human eye, any more than those speculating about this would know. However, given it’s complexity, a conservative number would be around five billion.

the odds that evolution could produce such an organism ar eapproximately 1,126 followed by something over four million zeros.

A microbe’s flagellum could, in theory, be produced by the mythical (that is, undemonstrable, and therefore not proven) evolutionary process in a few billion years. Our universe, however, isn’t old enough to have allowed for the development of an organism as complex as the human eye. Further, our solar system is one of the younger ones in our universe.

What I’m saying is, that unless flying spaghetti monstors, or some such, brought already developed critters here from a much older solar system, in a much older universe, I have a hard time internalizing the absence of a Creator. This world is just a little too complex and too ordered to have evolved from chaos, absent an Intelligent Designer.

Just a little food for thought, from an old fart that does believe in Intelligent Design . . .

Best,
Chuck

21 04 2009
Richard Aberdeen

This is an excellent point which I have addressed in other writings. Since high school, I have long been troubled with the ease of how educated scientists can accept what I call the “single-origination” standard Darwinian model, which has long insisted that all species evolved from a single primary source; a theory insisted on long before modern DNA knowledge. There is some modern DNA evidence this is true, while there is considerably more evidence it is not at all true, including methan-based creatures recently discoverd living near ocean vents, which aren’t even carbon-based life forms, as well as a red blood cell-like organism found in India in the 1990’s after a fairly good sized chunck of space rock landed there; it was discovered by scientists investigating that these red blood cell-like organisms can withstand heat far greater than any known similar organisims on earth and thus, some scientists have concluded that this is the first evidnece of extra-terrestrial life.

A fairly recent modern theory of some scientists is that either life itself or the building blocks of life, arrived here from extra-terrestrial space objects and as such, life may have been “seeded” and then eventually, appeared from all over the planet from thousands to zillions of primary sources, rather than from a single origination point. Thus, one of the fundamental tenants of Darwinism could very well be entirely wrong, as I have long suspected.

In order for “single-origniation” theory of Darwinism to be correct, one needs to consider the two recent mass extinctions of 65 and 250 or so million years ago; most visible life has had to sort of start over again not very long ago and have evolved into the grand diversity observable today. Of course, the Darwinist will argue that microscopic organisms survived, but it is a huge leap to accept that, given the theorized 98% of all species wiped out “only” 250 million years ago, that most everything we can observe today without a microscope, including the human eyeball, all evolved in less than 250 million years, that is, for the most part past the microscopic level; and, evolution was greatly set back again, only 65 million years ago.

It just kind of boggles the mind, how much blind faith atheists have in whatever load of crap science and education decides to unload on them, given the significant historical track record of science repeatedly fundamentally changing it’s mind ever few generations or so.

Here is what several different modern scientists on various public television shows have stated over the past three years. These statements below are from video documentaries accepting only the Darwinian view and not even mentioning either a Creator, creation or intelligent design. In other words, these statements all come from practicing scientists with no religious axe to grind–these are not exact quotes but rather, taken from general discussions, observations, points and positions of various scientists on various video presentations:

1. Life may have began in the ocean, maybe on land, under the earth, in or near fresh water, in caves, in clay, may have been carried in on space objects as noted above and one scientist said, life may be able to appear “where ever there is a little wetness”.

2. How life came to be on our planet remains one of modern science’s greatest mysteries.

3. Evolutionary theory as commonly understood today, will likely be mostly, if not entirely discarded within a generation or two.

4. There is no geological or fossil record of the first 800 million years of the earth’s existence and thus, virtually everything known about how life actually came to be on earth, is based on assumption and conjecture, with a great many different competing contradicting theories and ideas.

5. Very recently, some evidence was discovered which brings the entire theory of how birds evolved from dinasaours into serious question.

6. About a third of astronomers believe the universe will expand on indefinitely forever. Another third believe it will contract back in on itself, while the remaining third have a different idea which is kind of complex and I don’t wish to detail here. Nevertheless, I’ve heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson state in a video on YouTube that the first theory noted here is scientific fact, while ignoring the fact that approx. 2/3 of his own collegues don’t agree with him. This is typical of what the public hears on various PBS, history channel and other science programs and in NY and LA Times newspaper articles. What is often presented to the public as scientific fact is really just a personal opinion of one or a small percentage of scientists.

For example, Francis Collins, one of the two leading DNA experts in the world, believes the evidence for deliberate design is overwhelming just in the DNA evidence alone. Anthony Flew, a leading European physicist and former atheist, completely changed his mind after Hubble was put in space, declaring that the evidence for intelligent design is astronomically overwhelming.

Yet, their opinions based on the same known scientific evidence, are never heard on typical PBS and similar videos discussing modern scientific findings and ideas. And likewise, such opinions are not allowed to be taught in a modern public American so-called ‘science’ class, even though Francis Collins is an American citizen with greater scientific credentials than virtually every author and evert teacher of every public school text book.

Who is protecting his Constitutional rights and, who is protecting mine?

22 04 2009
SuperJesus

You should be aware that the theory of evolution by natural selection and genetic mutation offers no explanation whatsoever on the question of origins of life (biogenesis). You can rail all day about seeds from outer space, methan-based creatures, and other things but none of this has any bearing on the validity of evolution.

According to an old Newsweek survey you can quote any of about 700 U.S. earth or life scientists who accept creationism. That sounds pretty impressive until you realize that there are 480,000 U.S. earth or life scientists in total, meaning you are clinging to the words of the 0.15% of scientists that actually accept creationism. That’s 0.0015 in decimal. Good luck with that strong evidence you’re touting there.

6 01 2013
Richard Aberdeen

You might try reading Antony Flew’s last book, where he discusses an actual British experiment caculating the odds of a group of monkeys being able to come up with a single Shakespearean sonnet. The worked out mathematical odds are a number far greater than all of the estimated particles in the entire universe–not double or triple but rather, a number astronomically larger. This is not the odds of their being no Designer behind the universe, which are infinitely greater but rather, they are merely the odds of a group of monkeys, given a enough time, being able to come up with a single Shakespearean sonnet.

The reason I’m hard on people like Richard Dawkins, is because he consistently compares belief in God with the spaghetti monster, which no self-respecting intellectual would ever do, as God by definition is Creator of the universe, while the spagetti monster is not defined as such. The Greeks would no doubt ban Dawkins for life from the Academy for using such gross illogic. Dawkins also consistently says he is “almost certain” there is no God. In order for a legitimate scientist to make such an obviously invented fiction, he is required by the rules of science and evidence, to provide overwhelming evidence against there being a God. Dawkins as far as I am aware, hasn’t provide any evidence at all that the universe or anything else can magically appear and, I seriously doubt that he or anybody else ever will.

8 01 2013
SuperJesus

Why do you believe “God by definition is Creator of the universe”? That is a rather convenient tautology don’t you think? I could as reasonably assert “Zeus, by definition, is the creator of the universe.” My assertion has as much authority as yours…which is to say none.

Also, you should note that by asserting that God created the universe requires that YOU provide the evidence. By example I could assert that there is an invisible unicorn standing right behind you. Of course you should doubt me since I have provided no real proof of such a thing and in no way would it be your job to disprove it, the burdon of proof lies with the person asserting the claim.

2 09 2008
SuperJesus

@Chuck:

Your statistics are invalid because they assume completely random assemblage with no pre-existing structure, which is clearly not how evolution works. Everything we see today is the end product of countless generations over many millions of years, taking a small step each time. At each step, the existing structure is modified— added to, subtracted from, and so on. It is not “back to the drawing board” each time, but rather adjusting, fine-tuning, re-tooling existing plans. The evolutionary process is astonishing — one that we do not yet fully understand — but there is clearly nothing there that represents a violation of any of the fundamental the laws of probability.

Rather than bore you with me trying to explain it I would instead refer you to this article for a more detailed and well written explanation. I’m sure with your training as a Statistical Analyst you will readily appreciate the argument and see the flawed logic being dispensed by Ms. Coulter.

Regards,
Super J.

21 04 2009
Richard Aberdeen

What is not based on pre-existing structures, is the utterly absurd fairie tale notion that the entire universe evolved without the aid of an intelligent designer. There is no known pre-existing structure prior to the universe itself, which is a rather large argument standing in the way of your position regarding much smaller theorized “pre-existing” structures.

And similar, if all of life evolved from a single origination point, where is the pre-existing structure for that?

3 09 2008
Chuck

Good on ya, Super-J! Most arguments I encounter are (a) about as sophisticated as our friend Ricardo, and (b) about as statistically valid as Jimmy The Greek’s wish for a certain horse to win the Preakness.

Jimmy’s experience (as this year’s results illustrate) are basically, win some, lose some, and some get rained out.

Well. So does the argument regarding hemoglobin, taken alone. H and W’s arguments, taken alone, make a cogent case for hemoglobin, but hardly make a cogent case for evolutionary transition.

Which, my friend, is the issue.

Evolutionary transition depends on sequencing of specific happenings. Screw up even so little as one, and take the process back to Ground Zero. (Or, at least to the point where assumptions fucked up – I ain’t willing to define that, given my limits against my friend Albert E., whose assumptions always took him back to the beginning.)

The relevant statistical models for such sequencing demand either (a) absolute proof, or (b) absolute performance. As absolutes in proof are rather rare, we tend to look for (and probably hope for!) absolutes in performance.

Well, sorry about that, but absolutes in models for evolution are rather lacking. As in, there really just, uh, aren’t any.

And this is why I tend to cling to the rather obtuse model of the flagellum – it requires specific performance, rather than trial and error, as any model of evolution must demand – else, evolution can’t work. Period. There just aren’t enough years in the age of our solar system.

Unless, of course, you wish to include the aforementioned spaghetti monsters!

Best,
Chuck

4 09 2008
SuperJesus

Chuck, I doubt there is any information I could provide that you would consider compelling enough that you would begin to allow that evolution is legitimate. Of course that won’t stop me from trying.

Since the piece on fallacious statistical estimates wasn’t specific enough I offer you this piece Ken Miller wrote deconstructing the bacterial flagellum specifically. Dr. Miller, as I’m sure you know, was an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (the court decision from which is a remarkably informative read debunking the ID/Creationist “theories” as well)

All this reading can be tough on the eyes so to be nice I offer you a video from PBS that explains the various eye types and their evolution in 4 minutes. I know, I know, I’m too kind…and of course you’re welcome.

Lastly,here is a link to New Scientist magazine that has linked articles that should be able to address most of your alternate theories and explanations of how an intelligent creator of some sort made everything.

You apparently only skimmed the first article and I doubt you’ll read any of these references either, even though I assure you they do a better job of actually explaining the diversity of life than the utterly useless mantra of “It’s all very confusing so God must have done it”.

I wish you luck and an open mind.

21 04 2009
Richard Aberdeen

I can’t possibly answer everybody’s question, so I have included a response to someone named “Will”, who responded to my blog, which covers a lot of what is addressed above. I will address a couple of things first, however.

Someone above asked me why I believe in God and the answer is other than the overwhelming physical evidence, I have had an awareness for a very long time of God helping me in my daily existence. I don’t have to try hard to believe in God and I am well aware that the source of having awareness of God is in Jesus. You can try other names, but they won’t work, nor will calling on any other name produce any awareness of God. Having an awareness of God does not mean that someone understands God. And, believing in Jesus does not mean someone is a Christian or believes in Christianity or who has blind faith in the infallibility of the Bible. Americans have a very hard time understanding that there might be a vast difference between Jesus and ALL forms of Christianity, mainly because most Americas have never studied the actual words attributed to Jesus in the Bible.

Likewise, as I noted above, many atheist continue to misquote Einstein and others, in spite of the fact that Einstein’s recent biographer went to considerable trouble to clear up much of the mis-information that continues to be spread around about Einstein, including by Richard Dawkins himself. Einstein stated towards the end of his life in 1955, which represents a lifetime conclusion, that what matters in science is to “know the mind of God”. Einstein also referred God in a personal way as “the Lord” and as the creator at a gathering of scientific peers after he was long famous and, he is known to have become quite upset regarding the many people who even in his own lifetime, went around claiming he was an atheist.

Darwin himself stated towards the end of his life, again representing a lifetime conclusion, that he had never been an atheist and was probably best defined as being agnostic, though not entirely. Darwin also stated in the same letter that he believed someone can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist, which is the true of modern DNA expert Francis Collins, who most probably would have gotten along quite well with Darwin, who unlike Richard Dawkins, was a careful scientist who tried to go by the evidence.

You can find all of this and more footnoted in my online book here: http://freedomtracks.com/500/title.html

Now, here is the above noted copy of my response to “Will” on my blog, which answers most of the other responses above:

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO “WILL” WITH HIS RESPONSE LEFT INTACT AND EDITED ONLY FOR SPELLING:

WHAT WILL STATED:
When I say that faeries do not exist, does that make me a liar? No, it means that I am taking a stance based on the evidence that faeries have never been observed, and clearly seem a product of man’s imagination. I cannot be utterly certain they do not exist, but I am so sure they do not that the statement ‘Faeries do not exist’ is a perfectly reasonable one to make!

ABERDEEN’S RESPONSE: This a fallacious argument often used by atheists who don’t understand the difference between faeries and evidence. I’ll try to outline it as simply as I know how, since apparently with atheists, the rules of evidence and the rules of basic Socratic logic don’t apply.

1. Everything that human beings have ever observed being constructed requires a) the pre-existence of intelligence; b) a conception (i.e. design); c) a creator (i.e. builder) of the conception formed as a result of pre-existing intelligence. Thus, ALL of the known observable evidence indicates deliberate intelligent design.

2. Everything in motion as far as human beings have observed, requires an external force to be put in motion; nothing has ever been observed to be in motion by it’s own volition; not ever, not one single time, ever. The seemingly random motion observed in the microscopic world, is confined and operating within a universal reality where parts upon parts on up to the largest known defined universal macro-part of “super-cluster”, are all in motion, theoretically as a result of the “big bang”. But in order for the Big Bang itself to go boom, as was admitted recently by a well-known European physicist and atheist, this requires the pre-existence of universal laws. Which by all known evidence, require the pre-existence of intelligence. And, in order for the known universal reality to exist, it requires pre-existing “stuff”, as well as a pre-existing external force, in order for the Big Bang to go boom and “evolve” into the present observable reality which consists of “stuff” necessary to have existed prior to the Big Bang. In more simple terms, in order for the Big Bang to go “boom”, the pre-existence of intelligence, conception, deliberate design, force and physical substance are all required, as far as human beings know, based on the known observable evidence.

3. Because human beings do not know was is ultimately true, what is commonly called “science and education” is not about what is true as opposed to what is false. Rather, it is about conclusions based on the “weight” of evidence, as opposed to other conclusions based on lesser evidence on down to zero evidence; this same rule applies to history, physical science, behavioral science, mathematics and everything else within the realm of what is commonly referred to as “science and education”. Theoretically, although by no means in actual modern 21st Century reality, true science is “the most likely conclusion based on the known evidence”; anything less than the most likely conclusion does not qualify as “science”, rather it represents an unsupported opinion at best.

A. For example, in many U.S. history textbooks, one can find a biographical note or two on George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, but one does not find mention of every single U.S. citizen. This is an example of applying the historical “weight” of evidence, educators concluding that the lives of these three are of more historical importance to include in a history textbook, while the lives of most U.S. citizens are left out.

B. For example, in many science textbooks, one can find various theories by Newton, Einstein and other renowned scientists, but one does not find every theory known in the history of science in any textbook. This is an example of applying the scientific “weight” of evidence in conjunction with the historical importance of Newton and Einstein theories, arrived at by applying the “weight” of the historical evidence as noted above in example A above.

C. There is a God who is eternal. This is an example of applying the overwhelming “weight” of evidence that physical existence requires intelligence, conception and creation, while there is no evidence at all that anything can exist apart from intelligence, conception and deliberate creation. This is also an example of applying the overwhelming “weight” of evidence that nothing can be in motion apart from an external force setting it in motion.

CORRECT SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL CONCLUSION: There is an eternal God because this is what ALL of the known evidence indicates; the overwhelming “weight” of evidence is on the side of deliberate intelligent design, rather than on the side of atheism, agnosticism and/or random appearing, self-selecting, designerless processes and/or the existence of matter and/or universal laws apart from Supreme Intelligence, for which there is ZERO evidence.

There is no “weight” of evidence and, no evidence whatsoever at all, on either the side of the existence of faeries or on the side of the existence of universal reality and motion, apart from Supreme Intelligence and deliberate design.

Atheists and agnostics, very clearly by definition, do not understand the rules of science, evidence and the rules of basic fundamental Socratic logic. It is WILL who chooses to believe in some Darwinian Boogieman faerie tale of existence, apart from intelligence, conception and deliberate design, for which there is no one shred of known evidence of any kind. If there is not a God who is eternal, then there is no rational explanation at all for the observable reality and thus, there is no such thing as either science or education, nor is there any reason or purpose for morality or fighting for human rights.

WHAT WILL STATED:
Indeed there is much evidence of ‘self selecting’ and ‘unguided’ evolution. It has even been observed in the lab, let alone in countless incidents of ‘micro-evolution’ in nature. The origination of elements is a quantum physics issue, nothing to do with evolution which is a biological process.

ABERDEEN’S RESPONSE:
This is another “faerie” tale trick of atheism, which is not only not supported by the evidence, but rather, it entirely contradicts the overwhelming “weight” of known both macroscopic and microscopic evidence.

This is your myopic interpretation of a portion of the microscopic world, which ignores and excludes the evidence of the known macroscopic universal reality, as well as it ignores intricate parts-within-parts known in the microscopic world as well. It has fairly recently been discovered that electrons and protons do not randomly and haphazardly revolve in motion around the nucleus of atoms as previously long assumed but rather, they travel around in intricately entwined lattice-like patterns, which contributes to the various characteristics found in chemical elements. The microscopic world does not exist independently of itself and thus, in order for what is rather arbitrarily and not very accurately called “evolution” to be unguided and self-selecting, then the entire macroscopic universal reality must likewise, be a result of unguided and self-selecting processes. Which such conclusion quite clearly contradicts all of the known evidence, as outlined in detail in my first response above.

Isolating “quantum physics” from evolutionary theory is similar to trying to isolate automobile engines from the existence of highways. Apparently you don’t understand that reality is what it is and thus, you can’t possibly have a correct scientific theory if it ignores other so-called “scientific disciplines”. You can’t divide reality up into separate categories, anymore than you can separate hydrogen from oxygen and still call it water or, separate Isaac Newton’s or Albert Einstein’s science conclusions from their belief in God. As Einstein himself said, the entire purpose of science is to “know the mind of God” and as a recent Newton biographer stated, if Newton had not believed in God, he most likely would never have been a scientist.

Your response also ignoes the conclusions of world DNA expert Francis Collins, who has stated that modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly indicates deliberate design and not random processes. Collins is only one of a great many modern scientists who believe there is a God, but do not believe in modern creationist and intelligent design theories, as neither do I. The overwhelming evidence for Supreme Intelligent Design does not mean that any of the modern shallow-minded ID and creationist theories are even remotely correct, nor does it mean that someone who believes that the evidence indicates intelligent design agrees with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

WHAT WILL STATED:
Many human traits are reflected in the social behaviors of animals, and it seems that there is a payoff, genetically speaking, for being kind to your family, your clan, and your tribe. Humans have developed language-thought – the ability to reason – which has allowed us to develop these traits into morality and philosophy. Language-thought started as an advantage for hunting and organizing our social structures, but because language allows us to communicate complex ideas, and – critically – pass them down to the next generation, the development of human knowledge and morality (which I believe are interlinked) can be refined at an exponential rate. Perhaps the teachings of Jesus, a sage and loving man operating within the cultural milieu of his times, represented a significant spiritual milestone in this journey:

ABERDEEN’S RESPONSE:
You conveniently leave out the overwhelming historical and modern 21st Century fact that highly educated, supposedly “advanced” human beings continue to design nuclear, biological and worse weaponry, as well as spend mega-billions of dollars on particle-beam accelerators while homeless children die in their own streets. There is overwhelming historical evidence for the existence of sin, while there is no evidence at all that human beings are progressing towards a more enlightened moral reality and in particular, there is no evidence that scientists and educators are progressing morally. After 10,000 years of moral education, human beings if anything, are less moral than we ever have been since the dawn of human civilization. Many historians believe that more people died as a result of war in the 20th Century than in all other previous centuries of recorded civilization combined; as an example, it is estimated that at least 100 million people died as a result of war in the relatively “peaceful” 1990’s alone.

WHAT WILL STATED:
Gospel of Thomas: Jesus said, “If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

ABERDEEN’S RESPONSE:
The gospel of Thomas contradicts the other four more familiar so-called “gospels” in several fundamental ways. The more familiar four, on the other hand, contain minor differences as all history books and newspaper articles by different authors do, but they present a highly consistent picture of a singular Supremely advanced mind, far more intelligent than the entire membership of the modern Mensa Society and the faculties of UCLA, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT combined, by a very long shot. As the gospel of John opens, “In the beginning was Logos…” and thus, it is already way over the head of every modern educator I’ve ever heard speak.

18 03 2012
Richard Aberdeen

Aberdeen responds to the obvious irrational positions if “Super J”

ACCORDING TO SUPER J
1) There is also no evidence that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so. Are you asserting the positive belief in his tasty goodness? (In His name, Ramen)
RESPONSE:
Every self-respecting Greek and other philosopher and anyone who has studied philosophy 1-A knows it is irrational compare God with anything else, including especially the spaghetti monster. Quite obviously, if one eliminates the spaghetti monster, they aren’t left having to explain how such an irrational so-called ‘scientist’ as Richard Dawkins happens to exist or otherwise, why he would bother to get out of bed in the morning.

ACCORDING TO SUPER J
2) If there is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it’s own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process…then can you explain where your amazingly powerful and complex God came from?
RESPONSE
Rational people who go by actual evidence, such as Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Darwin, Einstein and Francis Collins, conclude that the EVIDENCE (not the word “evidence”) demonstrates Eternal Creator. Apparently in addition to knowning less than nothing about basic philosophy, Super J also has no concept of the ffact we live in a created dimension called “time” and, an ETERNAL Creator does not; note the word “eternal” and then, please inform Super J he needs to consult a dictionary, as well as an elementary school book on basic logic, understanding and reason.

SUPER J SAYS
3) I was going to repeat your point again here I’m honestly not really sure what you’re talking about. If it makes you feel better I’ll concede that while something obviously happened at the beginning of the universe I for one am willing to admit that we don’t know for sure what it was (yet). But if I may ask, do you mean to suggest to me that people thousands of years ago who thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth already figured it out? Really?!
RESPONSE:
Anyone who has studied the history of science is aware that scientists habitually get it wrong, rather than right, every few generations completely revising formerly held “rock solid” theories. Such “rock solid” theories currently in jeapardy of being cast on the ash heaps of history, according to several practicing actual scientists include the theory of evolution and current theories of light, gravity, motion, dark matter and dark energy. Of course, we’re certain Super J knows more than such actual practicing scientists and therefore, he can go right on pretending with the spaghetti monster, that science is irrefutable and, nobody created the universe. Legitimate scientists freely admit what occured prior to a theoretical “big bang” is both unknown and unknowable, as well as science currently has no idea at all how, where, when or why life came to be on a planet called Earth.

You ought not be ragging on George Bush’s lack of intelligence too forcefully there my friend.

Super J

I do hope he writes back to fill me in with his God given insights and Christ like patience. I visited his blog as well to invite a reply so here’s hoping he’ll accept my invitation.

19 03 2012
SuperJesus

You should read the comment thread above because I think we already hashed this conversation out over three years ago. Are you just now getting back to it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: