Humanity’s First Unanimous Decision
The human race has unanimously decided to reject and rebel against the True God. Hitler wasn’t any worse of a human than any of us; his sinfulness was just more evident than most of us. Apart from God’s restraining of sin, we would all be little Hitlers. And, apart from Jesus absorbing God’s wrath for those who believe, no one would be spared from Hell.
May 1, 2008 at 1:45 am
Have you reproduced God in a laboratory. No? He doesn’t exist then!
May 1, 2008 at 2:39 am
God never claimed to be “a science” but evolution tends to make that claim without meeting the prerequisites. God says that creation itself testifies of Him. He also says that you have no excuse for not recognizing this (Romans 1:18-20).
Complex architecture isn’t made by accident, nor is a complex world.
May 1, 2008 at 3:40 am
“God never claimed to be “a science” but evolution tends to make that claim without meeting the prerequisites.”
Do you have personal experience of what your god claims or are you going on the anecdotal evidence of others?
Evolution makes no claims - it is not sentient.
“God says that creation itself testifies of Him.”
Do you have personal experience of what your god says or are you going on the anecdotal evidence of others?
“Complex architecture isn’t made by accident, nor is a complex world.”
This fallacy is an argument of the form “A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true.”
May 1, 2008 at 4:34 am
My presupposition is that Scripture is true in what it says. Do I have personal experience of God working in my life? Yes! Will you believe it? No. Why? Because you are so adamant in your rebellion against God that there will be no amount of evidence, whether historical, existential, philosophical, or scientific, that will satisfy your desire to be god of your own life. If the theory of evolution fell apart, you would find something else to rationalize your rejection of God.
So, do you have personal experience of a simple system accidentally changing to a complex system?
May 1, 2008 at 7:45 am
“My presupposition is that Scripture is true in what it says.”
Bully for you. Why presuppose that when talking to someone who thinks they are merely one of many ancient spiritual texts? That would like me presupposing we both agree gods don’t exist.
“Do I have personal experience of God working in my life? Yes! Will you believe it? No. Why? Because you are so adamant in your rebellion against God that there will be no amount of evidence, whether historical, existential, philosophical, or scientific, that will satisfy your desire to be god of your own life.”
You’re having a conversation all on your own now. And you wonder why you have trouble making friends? perhaps you should listen a bit more instead of putting words into toher peoples’ mouths.
Why are you answering different questions to the ones asked?
“So, do you have personal experience of a simple system accidentally changing to a complex system?”
As I said before, I have no idea what you are talking about. I’m not sure you do either.
May 1, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Ok, why presuppose that there is no God and that evolution is true (even though you do not know much about it) when talking to me? At least my beliefs are based on something I have a cursory knowledge of. Both of us have strong presuppositions, not admitting that is just playing games.
I was just making the conversation more efficient by answering the questions for you.
But you conveniently missed my entire point in that paragraph.
I’m sure its a lack of intelligence on my part: I’ll put it in “common sense” terms, have you had personal experience/witnessed any kind of simplistic organism accidentally changing into a complex organism?
If you genuinely would like to know my personal experience in seeing God work in my life and others, I am not ashamed whatsoever to tell you. But God says that until you turn away from sin to Christ, you’ll think I’m an idiot (too late?) because you have not been transformed:
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” -1 Corinthians 2:14
May 1, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“Ok, why presuppose that there is no God…”
A presupposition means that you’re not even going to think about the possibility. I think if you read my blog you can that I have spent a lot of time thinking about the possibility. It’s just the more I think about it, the less likely it appears.
If you check my conversations with Gummby you will see I have been asking him questions about the purpose Christians claim their god provides for our lives. In this case, I am presupposing his god exists.
“have you had personal experience/witnessed any kind of simplistic organism accidentally changing into a complex organism?”*
*The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else’s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It’s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
I have no idea what this process is you are referrig to where something called a “simplistic organism” (never heard of one) tranforms before my very eyes into something called a “complex organism”.
As far as I’m aware, all organisms are pretty complex.
May 1, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Simon,
pre·sup·pose
1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.
That’s actually what it means. We both do this. For argument’s sake we both will presuppose each other’s views but our ultimate presupposition remains the same.
Ok, I think I know what your hang-up is on what I’m saying (simplistic/complex). I’m not articulating it well. Obviously, in your view, organisms did not originally start out complex. A “simple” cell such as bacterium eventually became complex interdependent systems through a multitude of chance accidents. Even though this has not been duplicated in a laboratory, the “sentient evolution being” holds firmly to its likelihood. And I don’t think Darwin thought this was a straw man:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
If the human eye wasn’t as complete as it is today, then it would have been entirely worthless and non-functional. How would such a complex system have a vestigial origin?
May 2, 2008 at 1:50 am
“That’s actually what it means. We both do this. For argument’s sake we both will presuppose each other’s views but our ultimate presupposition remains the same.”
You’re presupposing that I presuppose. No wonder we’re getting nowhere.
“Obviously, in your view, organisms did not originally start out complex.”
Presupposing again. Why obviously? Can I not speak for myself? I’ve looked up unicellular organisms and can’t find scietific-based description including the word “simple”.
As far as I’m aware, unicellular organism are quite complicated, able to evolve very raidly (hence the recent superbugs which have evolved an immunity to antibiotics).
If you’re asking, how does a unicellular organism become a bird or a horse, the FACT is it takes millions of years (how would you propose repeating that in a lab?).
re: Darwin
This quotation has been lifted out of context. According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only “aggregates of pigment-cells…without any nerves … [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness.” Then, in animals a bit more complex, like “star-fish,” there exist “small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] — depressions which are “filled … with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, “like the cornea in the higher animals.” These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a “depression” in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps “focus” the image like a simple “box-camera” may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a “sack-like fold in the skin.”
learn more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
May 2, 2008 at 1:51 am
This quotation has been lifted out of context. According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only “aggregates of pigment-cells…without any nerves … [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness.” Then, in animals a bit more complex, like “star-fish,” there exist “small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] — depressions which are “filled … with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, “like the cornea in the higher animals.” These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a “depression” in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps “focus” the image like a simple “box-camera” may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a “sack-like fold in the skin.”
May 2, 2008 at 2:00 am
Learn more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
May 2, 2008 at 4:27 am
Wow, that is quite a bit out of context. He seems to completely transition after that last sentence I quoted. I stand corrected. I see why it can be quoted without false intentions because he did initially admit to believing it absurd, but I think it could be seen as a little shady that ID guys stop the quote there, leading people to believe those were closing thoughts. It kinda reminds me of the tale thats passed around that Darwin recanted his theory and converted to Christianity on his deathbed. Thanks for the correction Simon.
May 2, 2008 at 4:13 pm
(Akismet decided that your last two posts were spam-worthy so I just got them)
Well, your presupposing that I’m presupposing that you presuppose.
Its completely okay to look past semantics Simon, “simple” doesn’t have to have a scientific meaning…Did a highly complex organism such as a human being jump out of primordial fluid? Is it safe for me to answer for you?….No. A basic form of life has, over time, transitioned to highly complex organisms (in your view?).
Simon says: How convenient that God is the answer to everything.
Clint says: How convenient that an unimaginable period of time is the answer to everything.
May 3, 2008 at 2:18 am
Why is it convenient? And why is the ‘answer to everything’?
Like gravity is required for us to stick to the ground and for planets to go round suns and moons to go round planets - it isn’t convenient, it just is.
Like Newton worked out gravity while thousands of great thinker before him didn’t, Darwin worked out natural selection. Evolution is a fact like gravity.
Its funny that people who have no inclination to understand other scientific theories, and wouldn’t drea of taking on the pros, get all cocky when something seems to contradict their their beflief system.
Why pick on natural selection? When you go to the doctor, why don’t question everything single things he says? When he prescribes a medicine, why don’t you start arguing that it doesn’t really work and its all a conspiracy then?
Why do you only trust science up to the piont where it crosses your belief? If they’re getting evolution wrong, man they must getting everything wrong!
May 3, 2008 at 6:19 am
Oh, I must have missed the headlines, natural selection has been proven as a fact just like gravity? I thought gravity had a “Law” in front of it. “Fact” is a very strong word for something that has not been duplicated in a laboratory and only speculated about. A single-cell organism can’t even be created by humans on purpose…but give it a trillion years, it can be created by accident.
Science is not evil to me (real science, not “wannabe” science). I think it is amazing how intricate and complex our world and universe are. There is a reason for science; to show how amazing the Creator is and to ultimately point to Jesus’ rescuing work on the cross.
May 3, 2008 at 10:29 am
“Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.”
- Theodosius Dobzhansky
“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do…”
Stephen J. Gould
“It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. ”
R. C. Lewontin
“Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves… it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution. ”
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
“Since Darwin’s time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution–that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth’s long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.”
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
“A few words need to be said about the “theory of evolution,” which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, “theory” often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, “theory” means “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved “facthood” as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled “New evidence for evolution;” it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15″
You need to read more.
May 3, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Is it a fact that the supernatural doesn’t exist? If so, can you prove it or can you only prove the unlikelihood of it?
So what you’re saying is that “theory” doesn’t mean “theory” and “fact” doesn’t mean “fact.” Before I start reading more, let’s start with basic vocabulary.