Evolution is Stupid & Dangerous

I believe that the theory of evolution is stupid and dangerous. I further believe that if you call yourself a Christian, it is your duty to fight the lie of evolution using science and the Bible.Let’s begin with Romans 1:18-25

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse . 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie , and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

YOUR PHILOSOPHY DETERMINES YOUR DESTINY

If God created us in His image with intelligence and a soul, then we have a destiny, love has meaning and we are not animals But, if we are the product of an explosion of prehistoric gasses and the process of millions of years of evolution, we had no designer, life has no meaning, we don’t have souls and we are just like the monkeys in the jungle.

AGAIN, YOUR PHILOSOPHY WILL DETERMINE YOUR DESTINY

If there’s one thing that really makes me angry, it’s the fact that here in America, in our public school system from elementary to university level, we teach the lie of evolution as a fact, and don’t bother talking about creation — and it’s done WITH OUR MONEY!! “Hey kids, you are just animals without souls; the product of millions of years of accidental evolutionary forces.” “You might as well do what comes natural, because you are just a higher form of monkey!” Just like Paul just said in Romans: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Evolution has been discredited over and over, but, like Hitler and Goebells said, “If you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it”!

Tonight I want to give you 3 strong reasons why evolution is stupid, illogical and preposterous.

REASON NUMBER ONE — EVOLUTION MAKES NO SENSE ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

The idea of evolution is totally contrary to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You leave something by itself and it will decay over time, NOT IMPROVE! Chaos does not produce order…..EVER!!! This is silly on its face. When you ask the evolutionist, “How is that possible?”, they whip out their magic wand : ” Millions and Billions of Years ” — That fixes everything, right? Duh! You mean that over millions of years, chaos produces order, things grow and get better, and species somehow give birth to whole other species. Huh? That’s your best substitute for Creator God?

WE MUST ATTACK THIS FOOLISHNESS WITH THE OBVIOUS ARGUMENT OF “DESIGN”

The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both in the things we observe and how they relate to others outside themselves (their existence and co-existence). Thus, the universe must be the product of intelligent design. Intelligent design can only come from an intelligent designer: God. What are the chances that a tornado would blow, through a junkyard full of airplane parts, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave behind a 747 ready for take-off?

Not likely. Oh, but chaos creates order, right? Where’s that magic wand? Millions and billions of years!!

What are the chances that a quintillion monkeys typing for a quintillion years would eventually produce “Hamlet”? No, my friend. Those monkeys would produce a mess. Where’s that magic wand? Millions and billions of years!!

What if I smash my watch with a hammer and leave its parts laying in the desert. What will I find after 1,000 years? A brand new, improved watch? Wrong! Hey, but where’s that magic wand? Millions and billions of years!!

“The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit.” “To suppose that the eye…with so many parts all working together, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” – Charles Darwin in Origins of Species –

Psalm 19 explains the beauty of God’s creation, and God’s answers to Job in the Book of Job also highlight the miracle of the creatures that He created.

God spoke and life appeared. It’s that simple.

REASON NUMBER TWO — I’M SORRY MR. DARWIN, BUT I’M DIFFERENT FROM THE ANIMALS WE HAVE A DESIRE TO KNOW OUR CREATOR AND TO DISCOVER OUR DESTINY THAT IS UNIQUE TO HUMAN BEINGS

Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to an object that satisfies that desire. But there exists in us which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. Therefore there must exist something more than earth, creatures and time which can satisfy that desire. This something is God. Are we thirsty? God gave us Dr. Pepper Are we hungry? God gave us fajitas Do we desire sex? God gave us marriage.

But what do I do with this desire I have, this longing to know why I was created and what my purpose is on earth? Nothing on earth can satisfy that desire! When we have accumulated all that the world offers us, WE STILL ARE LEFT EMPTY — WANTING MORE!! My dog doesn’t lay awake at night asking, “Why am I here?” Cats don’t sit on the porch full of inner angst as to their purpose in life. Monkeys don’t stare at bananas and say, “Is that all there is?”

Michael Douglas , in an interview on the “E” television network, was asked what he lacked in life after experiencing fame and riches. “Peace”, he said, ” I don’t have any peace in my heart .” We must reason by appeal, not compel with this argument. ” Are you really happy with temporal things ?” Atheist Jean-Paul Sartre admitted that ” there comes a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare and Beethoven, `Is that all there is ?’” Hedonist, Utilitarian John Stuart Mill , one of the shallowest (though clever) minds in the history of philosophy said, ” It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied .” Blaise Pascal, a 17th Century Mathematician, described this desire this way: ” There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man .” St. Augustine put it this way, ” Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee .”

GOD HAS SET ETERNITY IN OUR HEARTS!

You have a destiny and a purpose! Almighty God created you for a reason. You are not a monkey or evolved sea ooze; you are an eternal soul created in the image of God!

REASON NUMBER THREE — FINALLY, WHERE IS ATHEISM WHEN IT HURTS?

Atheists love to attack Christians when bad things happen to good people. When the twin towers exploded and disintegrated, the atheists howled, “Where is your God?”; “Why did God allow all those Christians to die?” That’s a good question. After the Oklahoma City tragedy, I watched a memorial service on C-Span with all the families in attendance. Dr. Billy Graham stood up and faced a sea of hurting families holding pictures and stuffed animals and looking for hope. Dr. Graham cleared his throat and said, “Many of you want answers. Why did God allow this? Today I must tell you that I don’t know. I don’t have those answers; only God does. But I will say this: I would rather have Jesus Christ filling me with peace and comfort at a time of tragedy than to be alone . I would rather know His love and feel His strong arms around me than to be in despair. And I would rather have a calm assurance that one day I will see my loved ones again in heaven, than live with a hollow dread.”

ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS CAN ONLY OFFER US INSTINCT, DESPAIR AND EMPTINESS

If they are right, then we are just animals that live by instinct. There are no standards of right or wrong, there is no purpose to life; we are just animals created by accident, and we disappear at death into nothingness. How would you like an evolutionist to comfort you at the funeral of a loved one. “Sorry; they are gone forever, but they were only an animal anyway.” Oh, but if God created me in His image, I have a destiny, a hope and a future! And even if my loved ones die, I will see them again at the feet of Jesus! Hallelujah!!! BUT JIM, WHAT CAN I DO TO FIGHT EVOLUTION? Bertrand Russell, the famous skeptic, said, “Most Christians would rather die than think; in fact, most do.” Would you like to be a “thinking” Christian?

ASK YOUR PROFESSORS THE TOUGH QUESTIONS, STUDY SCIENCE, KNOW YOUR BIBLE AND NEVER GIVE UP

“Sir, do you really believe that we are the result of an explosion of cosmic, mysterious gasses; that we are descendants of monkeys; that we were not created by an intelligent designer? And I need more of an answer than “billions and millions of years” please. Don’t be a lazy, cowardly Christian. Confront this poison from hell head-on!

I recently heard the words of an old Gospel hymn:

Harder yet may be the fight,
Right may often yield to might,
Wickedness awhile may reign,
Satan’s cause may seem to gain,
Oh, but there is a God that rules above,
With hand of power and heart of love,
And if I am right, He’ll fight my battle,
I shall have peace some day.

by Charles Tindley
“Beams of Heaven”, 4th stanza

You may not be as smart as your teachers, BUT GOD WILL FIGHT YOUR BATTLE Godless evolution may seem to reign BUT GOD WILL FIGHT YOUR BATTLE You may be intimidated and scared BUT GOD WILL FIGHT YOUR BATTLE You may not have 3 PHD’s on your wall BUT GOD WILL FIGHT YOUR BATTLE

IF ALMIGHTY GOD BE FOR US, WHO CAN BE AGAINST US?

Pray with me that God will one day help our schools all over America to “know the truth, and that the truth will set them free”! Amen.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, so that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” – John 3:16
———————————————

Return to Jim’ Articles

164 Responses to Evolution is Stupid & Dangerous

  1. ruberad says:

    From your Rom 1 quote:

    19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    (as well as Ps 19, etc.) the Bible makes clear that we can trust what we see in nature. Now I am totally on board with the fact that evolutionists have a (not-too-hidden) agenda to exclude the possiblity God, which biases their “scientific” results. However, I see a large universe, billions of light-years across and expanding; I see that the earth has geologic features (the Grand Canyon, continental drift) that have taken millions/billions of years.

    But never fear, Christian brothers; the latest and most accurate estimate of the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) is NOT enough time for God’s marvelously intricate creation to have arisen by pure chance (and evolution) alone! TRUE, unbiased analysis of the scientific record REQUIRES divine intervention to get to where we are today.

    For some more great reading about the biases of modern science, watch my buddy The Forester’s blog (category “evolution”), in particular his extended discussion Pardon Me for Thinking

  2. I love that “13.7 billion years”. Now, don’t forget the “.7″ Whatever… That’s always their magic wand, “Billions and billions of years”…. I’m not drinking the koolaid.
    Jim

  3. Lupin says:

    Hello,
    I think you should remove the ‘Laws of Physics’ section. The second law of thermodynamics basically says that the entropy of the universe increases as a result of any process. Entropy is a probability thing. Sytems will move to where overall the atoms in the universe occupy more states. What if organisms evolving led to molecules around them occupying more states? What if mobile organisms carried molecules all around the globe? Basically you should talk about a closed system when referring to entropy arguments. Evolution over all time is not a closed system, and therefore does not lend itself to an entropic analysis. Remove the laws of physics section if you would like to refrain from misrepresenting something.
    Lupin

  4. Lupin says:

    Your argument about it being more comforting at bad times when there is a God is unconvincing. It almost encourages one not to believe in God if God is just something to make one feel better when a loved dies.

  5. Lupin says:

    I think reason number two is a strong argument. Although many atheists might argue that there is no urge in them to worship God, I think there is. I do not believe that when you accept the theory of evolution as science that you automatically do not believe in God.

  6. Lupin says:

    Does anyone look at this thing?

  7. Lupin, my dad is dying of cancer, so I’m not as quick to respond right now. I’m either working or at the hospital.

    Do you really think that the earth is getting “better and better”? The second law of thermodynamics teaches us that things get worse over time. Does a junkyard produce new cars over time? If you leave your clothes in the desert, would they become new over time? This is silly on its face. The world is breaking down and deteriorating.

    Oh, wait, your answer is probably “wait longer”….billions more years?…spare me…

  8. Lupin says:

    I’m sorry to hear about your dad.

    The second law of thermodynamics does not teach us that things get “worse” over time. The second law of thermodynamics teaches us statistically that atoms or molecules occupy as many states as possible. What if forming an organism caused atoms or molecules to quickly spread all over the planet? That would increase the entropy of the universe by increasing the number states that those atoms or molecules could occupy. Yes the world is deteriorating, and aren’t organisms helping that happen?

    Your argument about a junkyard not producing cars over time is not applicable when talking about evolution. When talking about evolution we are referring to chemical changes or mutations. Molecules move at speeds close to 500 meters per second. Those pieces of junk in the junkyard stay pretty much still. When atoms or molecules form new molecules they end up more stable. That is the driving force for forming new molecules, and that increase in stability of the molecule causes a release of energy. That release of energy causes an increase in the entropy of the surroundings, which gives an increase in entropy of the universe.

    Think about it. If you simply define entropy as things going from “better” to “worse” then why would there be solids and liquids? Wouldn’t it be more disordered if all solids and liquids were gas molecules? Yes it would, but that is not the case. All molecules are not gasses because defining entropy as “disorder” or going from “better” to “worse” cuts out a lot of the story.

    No my answer is not “wait longer”. Yes it is common sense that a car will not form from a junkyard, but current experimental data is consistent with evolution.

  9. Lupin says:

    I am telling you that reason number one is outright false. Leaving it on the website is lying to people that read this page. Reason number two compels me to not be an atheist (which I am not), but not to reject the scientific theory of evolution. Reason number three compels me to do nothing.

    The scientific theory of evolution is supported by experiments and observations. If you don’t accept it that’s fine, but don’t try to get it out of the classroom, because it’s science.

  10. Reason 1 — Ok, prove that things, over time, improve. Start with my 1990 Honda.

    Reason 2 – If we have thoughts of eternity, destiny and purpose, we are not mere animals. Evolution teaches that all of us are animals.

    Reason 3 – The ultimate end of atheism is evil, because it reduces us to mere animals. Who’s to say that Hitler was wrong? There are no moral absolutes, only despair that leads to death.

    • Dan says:

      Reason 1- Your car will not improve. I will not improve. However, Honda will make, and has made, new models. Your car will go out of date. In 2030 your car will be rare. In 2070 it will be as rare and noteworthy as a Model T to us. Perhaps it will no longer exist. As early car models are pushed out by newer ones, so unfit organisms are pushed out by fitter ones.

      What’s the difference? Two things: cars do not compete as much as organisms do, and cars do not have to get fuel for themselves (like organisms do). So even if your car is an Edsel, it will still survive, because other cars aren’t competing with it for fuel. You keep the car fueled, washed, etc. So it will survive no matter what other cars come about.

      By contrast, organisms do not have that luxury. They need to keep themselves fueled. They need food (and many other things too!). So a competing animal can and will push them out of existence, simply by virtue of their survival and reproduction capacities.

      2. Scientists (which I am not, sadly) can point you to the exact brain locations which operate these ‘features’. Chimps have been observed mourning for their dead relatives.

      Besides, your conclusion is a non sequitor anyway. According to whom? What is your definition of animal? If a genetic hybrid between a chimpanzee and a human was produced (of course, in no way do I advocate that) what would that be? An animal or a human? Our imperfect brain, which cannot comprehend death or infinity, shows many, many signs of evolution from an apelike creature.

      3. The ultimate end of theism is evil, because it declares (not even implies!) that we NEED a Big Brother figure who tells us our absolute morals. We know Hitler was wrong because he killed millions of innocent people. We know that’s wrong because our minds (and good on them!) have evolved to think- know- that killing without reason is wrong. That’s how we know.

      Some atheists are happy, some are miserable. Some theists are happy, some are miserable. What’s your point there?

      You, theist, are afraid. You are afraid of pain. You are afraid to die. I am as well. Everyone is. But the difference is you, theist, still need a mother figure, one who will guide you and make sure you don’t hurt yourself. And when you die, you want your ‘mother’ to make you live forever and be happy. You don’t understand nonexistence. Nor do I. But I am not afraid of it.

      Theists need to grow up. Pathetic children.

      • You fail to take into account that it makes no scientific sense for chaos to produce order. This is your number one mistake. When we discover design and order in the universe, we must also recognize that a designer existed.

        Who’s to say what is evil and what is not evil? Without a moral guide, it is every man for himself. If you say conscience, then I say, where did that come from? What is that voice in the soul that tells you that child molestation is wrong, or that mass murder is wrong? And how do you convice a society, for example, that cannablism is wrong, when it is ok to them? You drown in a sea of moral relativity.

        I struggle with the same doubts you do, but I find atheism wanting when it comes to answers for life’s big questions.

  11. Lupin says:

    Did you read my post about chemicals and entropy?

  12. Lupin says:

    Evolution says nothing about whether or not we have morals, or souls for that matter. Science deals with things of the natural world. You are trying to make science extend to the supernatural and it can not be extended to that topic.

  13. Follow the evolutionary model to its logical conclusion. We are a cosmic accident with no purpose. Enjoy the kool-aid. I won’t be having any.

  14. Lupin says:

    No no no. That is not a logical conclusion. Nothing in the theory of evolution says that there is not a God. Nothing in the theory of evolution says that God could not have created us, or that he could not have guided the whole evolutionary process as it shouldn’t. Evolution is a scientific theory that only deals with explanations based on experiments and observations in the natural world.
    You seem to have no care at all that your ‘physics’ is false and misleading. Why?

  15. You are not following it to its logical conclusion. And I stand by my statement that, if left to themselves, things do not get better, they break down. Come and see my 1990 Honda.

  16. Lupin says:

    No it is not a logical conclusion. Science has no way of testing if God made the earth and the universe. Science has no way of testing if there was an Intelligent designer that started and supervised the whole process, or if there was a brief creation period. The logical conclusion is that science can not, and will not ever be able to test if there is a God.

    Now as for your ‘things do not get better’ statement, think about this. One can calculate that the entropy of the universe decreases if a gas is spread out from one corner of a closed box to throughout the whole box. Now consider molecules possibly contained in pockets throughout the earth. Organism utilize resources and spread those molecules throughout the world, which further disperses chemicals. Thereby the system goes from ordered to more disordered, even thought the organism produced is ordered.

    That was an abstract example that I thought up, but here is a concrete calculated example that happens all the time. When a molecule called a phospholipid is in water at the right concentration the molecules will group and form a lipid bilayer or a micelle. Basically they will form a sphere. It appears to be gaining order and therefore it is becoming ‘better’ over time. But if you consider that the water molecules that were previously encasing the lipid then the process increases the entropy of the universe. It is a spontaneous process. Your statement that ‘things do not get better’ is an oversimplification of the second law of thermodynamics. I think you should at least remove the physics part of your statements. There is no need to falsify information in order to inspire faith in God. You are risking misinforming everyone who views this website.

  17. RubeRad says:

    I haven’t read this whole thread, but it looks like you guys might benefit from a similar back-and-forth that has already occurred in this area.

    Forester wrote Pardon Me for Thinking, and #1 and #2 have to do with entropy and thermodynamics. If you read both of those threads, the (currently) last comment by limejelly asks “Do you understand how a refridgerator works?” At that point, the discussion shifted to limejelly’s place.

    Enjoi!

    r

  18. Lupin says:

    Thanks RubeRad. I read the reference you gave until they all basically agreed that saying that the entropy of the universe always increases disproves evolution is a faulty argument. After that the discussion moved towards probability. My basic objection is that presented in the format above it appears that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, and it does not. There are many cases where the entropy of a system decreases, but the entropy of the universe overall increases because of an increase in entropy of the surroundings.

    So that is why I am asking Albino to remove that section. It misrepresents the model that he is speaking of, and should be fixed.

  19. Watch this presentation

    Read this article

    Man did not come from an explosion of mystery gasses followed by billions of years of evolution, Lupin. God made man from the dirt, breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life, and he became a living being. You will know the truth and the truth will set you free. If you believe your great (exponential) grandpa was a monkey, that’s your business, but don’t speak for my family please.

  20. Lupin says:

    I read that article and watched the presentation you showed me. They made
    the same assumptions that a lot of people make when the say that the second
    law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. The assumptions are the
    following:

    I. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that all things break down over
    time.

    II. Chemicals break down over time.

    These two assumptions are stated in the article you referenced and implied
    in the movie you referenced. Assumption 1 is an oversimplification. The
    second law of thermodynamics is better generalized by Clausius in some
    cases as, “The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.” Entropy is not
    the same as disorder. Disorder is a term that is assigned not by any
    scientific means, but by the human eye. Disorder to one person is not
    disorder to another.

    Assumption 1 and 2 will be discussed simultaneously. When hard water runs through caves it sometimes forms stalactites and stalagmites. They are made of mostly calcium carbonate I think. The structures they form are very ordered. The charges cause them to align in a very specific order. This would seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics, if we defined the second law of thermodynamics as ‘disorder’. Entropy is usually best thought of as statistical. When the calcium carbonate precipitates out of solution the number of states that the water can occupy is increased (because it no longer has to solvate the calcium carbonate). So the entropy of the universe increases because the number of states that the molecules can occupy increases. Basically, here we have an example where it is not good to define entropy as disorder, and chemicals form over time.

    I am not telling you what to believe. I am telling you that this website, or at least the websites you are directing me to are purposely twisting science in order to ‘prove’ that there is a God. The truth is that science will never prove or disprove whether or not if there is a God, or whether or not if he created this earth. I have absolutely no problem with you or your family believing that God created this earth, I believe it too. I am arguing that the theory of evolution is indeed science. The evidence supports the theory of evolution. Some people have to reconcile that with their beliefs by:

    a) attacking evolution or

    b) saying that God directed evolution.

    I believe the video you showed me used method (b). They talked at the end of the video about how the universe is winding down and someone or something must have wound it up, and then said that was God. Science deals with natural explanations, not divine. There is no reason to feel that you have to reconcile the science and your spiritual beliefs. The theory of evolution should be taught in science classes because scientific evidence is consistent with it.

  21. Lupin Kent says:

    I think it’s important to clarify that I am not trying to ‘win’ the argument of whether or not there is one God that created the earth. I am arguing about whether or not we should encourage students to completely reject the theory of evolution as science. People are continuously trying to credit science for more than what it is, which is models based on experimental observations. Remove this article from the website, or at least remove any of the references to science on this article.

  22. dk says:

    Do you believe in antibiotics? Do you believe they work? If you do, then you believe in evolution.

    Why are there so many types of antibiotics? Why do bacteria that were once sensitive to penicillin 50 years ago require different antibiotics today to kill them?

    Evolution.

    Survival of the species and natural selection. Those bacteria with chance mutuations that confer resistance to penicillin survived, reproduced and dominated the species, eventually outcompeting and outnumbering the sensitive species. This process accelerated even faster with widespread use of antibiotics. Why do doctors tell you to complete the course of antibiotics and not stop prematurely? Why is there hesitance to use antibiotics without discretion? To avoid accelerating this process of natural selection.

    The reproducible and observable process above is nothing more than evolution in a microcosm. The evolutionary forces clearly evident in bacteria apply to ALL living things.

    Choose to believe in God, but to deny evolution is to deny the very nature of life.

  23. Let me rephrase for you, then, dk. MACRO evolution is stupid and dangerous. A dog will NEVER give birth to a cat and two colliding gasses will never produce the human eyeball. Creation itself testifies of a Creator.

  24. soda says:

    lol albino are you serious? of course a dog will NEVER give birth to a cat…and two colliding gasses will of course not create an eyeball. what the hell are you smoking?
    evolution has nothing to do with colliding gasses or dogs giving birth to cats.

  25. Macro evolution leaves no room for a Creator. The “Big Bang” theory is the most popular explanation for the formation of the universe, and it, indeed is a collision of gasses (but where did the gasses come from?). Because of so many missing links, evolutionists have been reduced to whole species evolving into other species. That is where a failure to believe in God leads you.

  26. soda says:

    yes, the universe was formed by gasses colliding…however albino wasn’t talking about the creation of the universe. “‘reduced to whole species evolving into other species’”
    yes, ‘whole’ species evolve into other species.

    do you consider flying squirrels a ‘whole species’?

  27. Soda, You have faith to believe in gas (and where did the gas come from?)…I’ll take God.

  28. soda says:

    i believe that the planets and our sun were formed by gas.

    (where did your god come from?)

    …I’ll take reality.

  29. Bruce S. says:

    i believe that the planets and our sun were formed by gas.

    Soda, this makes for a great story. But with all due respect, until you include in your story where the gas comes from, all you’ve got is science fiction. But seriously Soda, this part of your story

    the universe was formed by gasses colliding

    is going to ruin your sales. Were these gases within the universe when this formation of the universe took place, or were they outside the universe at this point? Nobody is going to buy your idea regardless of what answer you give there.

    While you’re at it, include a chapter explaining where the immaterial (the non-material part of the universe) comes from. Any story to be believable has to answer this question.

    As for us explaining where God comes from, you can forget it. Were we able to do that, you would be quite justified in denying such a God.

    My advice to you is to dump your idea of god that you don’t believe in.

  30. Echo_ohcE says:

    Ah, Anselm, Anselm, wherefore art thou, Anselm?

  31. soda says:

    Bruce S. , The matter and ‘immaterial’ (i guess you mean like dark matter) came from the big bang. What was before the big bang? no idea. doesn’t mean to stop believing in science and turn to ignorance.

    I think the main reason people don’t believe the theory of evolution is that they feel that it attacks their god.

    Kent Hovind is funny.

  32. Bruce S. says:

    I believe in science as much as the next guy. (And thanks for calling me ignorant – what a great way to foster conversation).

    What I don’t believe in is science fiction. Until you account for the immaterial you’ve got science fiction. Now, there’s nothing wrong with science fiction. A lot of cool guys have made a lot of money off of it, providing entertainment for millions of people.

    I can’t believe you think of the word ‘matter’ (dark or otherwise) when you see the word immaterial.

    By immaterial think of, for starters, the will. Why is it that you don’t see bicycles ride off on their own will power? Why is it you don’t see any hammers building houses of their own accord?

    Steven Wright is funny.

  33. soda says:

    immaterial, according to the dictionary means “not consisting of matter”. or at least the online one does. lol yes i was too lazy to look it up before, but it has nothing to do what you are saying.

    you dont see bicycles riding because they have no reason to.

    lol yes, he is funny

  34. Bruce S. says:

    Soda, asking why is it that you don’t see bicycles ride off on their own will power was a rhetorical question. Meaning, I wasn’t looking for an answer but was trying to convey the idea behind the existence of immateriality.

    So, in your story, how do you account for immateriality?

  35. Echo_ohcE says:

    That’s a good question.

  36. Gregg says:

    Bruce,
    While I am not endorsing evolution, most scientist believe the majority of the stuff we consider “immaterial” (assuming we are using a Platonic dualism as a templet) thoughts, will, emotions, etc. a have a material basis. They are chemical reactions in the brain. Take for example the emotions certain colors produce. Red, blue, green, yellow all these colors generate specific emotions in test subjects that scientist have been able to monitor. So Soda could very easily account for the existence of the immaterial things you have asked for. This does mean that God is a chemical reaction in our minds. (an conclusion Olson Scott Card made) it merely means you two are discussion something that neither can verify. We hold to God because we believe He interacts with us, He is who He states He is. While I hold to this truth, I also acknowledge that we Christians cannot “prove” He exists.
    Both Christians and evolutionist have the same flawed argument. We cannot know what was before….
    It is much easier for me to believe before there was anything God was, more logical too It also requires less faith then the evolutionist has. They have to hold to the existence of a non- sentient beings existence before there was anything. That is the universes building blocks prior to the foundation of the universe.
    You are right to bring that up as their weakness, but I also think Soda is equally valid in pointing out we have the same weakness: That is we cannot- aside from faith, point to the existence of God.
    I believe in a Creator. I believe the universe points to His existence. I believe that nature testifies to Him. But do you catch the link to these three statements? “I believe.” Can I prove nature testifies to Him? Not emperically. Can I prove there is a Creator? Not aside from faith.
    So there are my thought.
    Have a great day.
    Gregg

  37. RubeRad says:

    So Soda could very easily account for the existence of the immaterial things you have asked for. This does mean that God is a chemical reaction in our minds.

    The next question is then, why do any of us have any ability to communicate and understand — why do the chemical reactions in any of our minds have any correlation with each other?

    (an conclusion Olson Scott Card made)

    So is Orson Scott Card no longer a Mormon?

  38. Gregg says:

    Rube,
    Card is a humanist sci fi writer, I have not heard anything about him being a Mormon. I am not much of a Card fan so I can’t address his biographical information. His books are distinctly anti-god so I find it hard that he would be a Mormon.. Oh and sorry for the gramatical error. “An conclusion” should read “A conclusion” I type faster then I think apparently! Or faster then my chemical reactions creating connections which my brain translates into cognitive processes leading to positive stimulii for actions can
    re: ability to communicate. Sure, there are all kinds of mind frying things evolutionist have to account for. Which by the way, I do not think they can, the scope of my posting was merely to state there is acceptable foresensic evidence for many things immaterial.
    There are definately things, like intelligence, that are not so easily dismissed by the chemestry argument.
    What are your thoughts on this point Rube?
    Gregg

  39. danielbalc says:

    I think that soda is a 14 year old kid with no clue as to what Darwinian evolution actually teaches. I think his response to the “immaterial” question should have immediately ended all debate because it’s like debating with a monkey. Come to think of it. maybe soda thinks monkey’s should be classified as “people”.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270078,00.html

    The “science” of evolution is what leads to this kind of absurdity. It’s not difficult to realize if something is right or wrong when you look at the results.

    Evolution = Monkeys that are nice and fun to play with should be considered people.

    yeah, that’s scientific.

  40. Matt S says:

    I just sleep better at night believing I came from a Creator, not exploding gases and monkeys.

  41. Pablo Honey says:

    Great link Daniel. People are freaking insane. Even the head of the animal rights group wouldn’t touch this mess with a 10 foot pole. I think these guys share more than 99.4% of their DNA with chimps.

  42. soda says:

    “not exploding gases and monkeys.”

    we didn’t come from monkeys.

    “Come to think of it. maybe soda thinks monkey’s should be classified as “people”.”

    why would i think that?

    btw do any of you believe the earth is something like 6000 years old?

    if not, then why aren’t there human fossils lying in the same strata (i think thats the right word) as dinosaurs?

    why doesn’t the fossil record show random animals everywhere if god made all of the animals at about the same time?

  43. Alex says:

    In my view an athiest is someone who must CONVINCE himself/herself (in his/her own mind) that there is no Creator. They have to fight against what they actually believe. Nothing more than a rebellious teenager.

  44. Soda,

    You don’t believe in God, right? So you must believe that the earth with all of its vegitation and animal life, as well as human beings are the result of two gasses colliding, i.e., “Big Bang”. The only other choice is that we are the result of intelligent design by creatures from another universe, which is the science fiction that Bruce mentioned.

    IF you believe in the gasses starting this whole party, AND you swallow macro evolution, then you MUST believe that our ancestors are indeed apes.

    Just put all your cards on the table, so we can show you how much faith you must have to believe all this nonsense.

    By the way, you are right about Kent Hovind, Apparently he has been discredited and is now serving about a billion years in prison for never paying the IRS a penny. I have removed the link to his website.

  45. soda says:

    Alex, i try to keep an open mind but I can’t bring myself to believe one of the hundreds of myths that have little or no factual basis.

    Albino, do you believe that ‘micro-evolution’ exists?

    If god made all of the animals more or less at the same time, why shouldn’t the fossil show random types of animals fossilized in many different layers of rock?

    Planets and stars form by gasses.

    How do you explain that the cosmic microwave background is exactly what the theory of the big bang predicts?

  46. Gregg says:

    Soda,
    you realize that scientist cannot claim any theory s fact, right? Scientist cannot be objective when they are within the system. It is impossible for a scientist to make any declaration about the universe without being in the system. As such they are guitly of the same thing you cannot bring yourself to believe. They assert a myth because they cannot give you any facts independent. At very best an evolutionist can be a cynic, they cannot hold to any cosmogony as knowable.

    You have a faith system and from where I stand you have an admirable faith because your faith requires you to believe in the impossible. It is possible to believe that there is an all powerful creator who- at the very least, started the process of the universe. It is less logical to believe that nothing generated something.

    You are on a good track by thinking this stuff through, and understand that we will never be able to give you all the information you seek, but keep searching for as Mulder says, “The truth is out there”
    Gregg

  47. Echo_ohcE says:

    Soda,

    While it is true that the vast majority of people who claim the name of Christian believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and have a deep rooted hatred and suspicion of science – yet not all Christians do.

    In fact, some of us think that evolutionists have a lot to teach us about biology, and that much of what they have to say is at the very least thought provoking and even helpful.

    But Christians are absolutely united in their rejection of evolutionists as theological sages. If evolution were completely true, God is not even in the least bit disproved. Granted, if people don’t want to believe in God, then evolution does tend to make them feel better about that fact, but evolution doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist.

    It is absolutely irresponsible for atheists to try to claim that evolution disproves God, every bit as much as it is irresponsible for Christians to reject clear scientific evidence for an earth that is older than 6,000 years because they’ve grown attached to the idea of a young earth. Both are completely fallacious.

    If you do the math in the genealogies of Genesis, adopting the 6,000 year old view, you’ll find that Abraham and Noah lived at the same time. If you know much about the Bible at all, this is just plain silly, because by the time Abraham comes around, Genesis is talking of the flood as if it were in the way, way, way ancient past.

    Soda, my point is that people who insist that the Bible teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old don’t understand the Bible very well.

    Conversely, people who think that evolution disproves God don’t understand God very well either. I’m not saying that I totally believe evolution. I’m not a scientist. But it seems to me that it has some helpful answers to some difficult questions. Nonetheless, God can certainly and easily be there behind the scenes conducting the whole process the whole time, like the conductor of an orchestra. Saying that evolution disproves God is like saying that hearing the sound of an orchestra playing proves that there is no conductor. Huh? That argument doesn’t even make sense.

    So look, I don’t think evolution is “stupid and dangerous”. I think it has some problems, and I don’t think human beings evolved from animals. I think the Bible is clear that that was a special act of creation. But I have no problem seeing a 4 billion year old earth, or that some form of evolution takes place. I think ultimately God is responsible for bringing about life on our planet, and this is what the Bible says again and again.

    God’s hand is behind everything that comes to pass. The Bible teaches this. Our very next breath only occurs because God has given the green light for it to take place, even declared that it will take place. When you have a concept of God that is as rich as the Bible’s, there is literally no such thing as disproving it. And in my mind, it makes no sense not to believe it.

    Don’t you see a harmony and symmetry and beauty to life? How could God not exist? Do we really think this is all an accident? If we do, we have forgotten how marvelous the universe is. Just spend some time contemplating these things. I don’t know how anyone can deny God. I guess at the end of the day, people don’t want to believe that God exists, because then they’d have to admit that they are sinners and that they have been waging war against him their whole lives, and hated him from birth.

    But it’s ok to admit that, because it’s true. It’s always ok to admit those things that are true. Always. And besides, God has made a way for our sin to no longer be a problem. That’s what Jesus suffered and died for, to reconcile us to God. So we don’t have to pretend like we haven’t offended God, even though we know we have, and God surely knows we have. We can admit it freely, though with humility, because Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins on the cross. We can’t add anything to it.

    Most people insist that God doesn’t exist because admitting that he does would be too painful for them. But God is good. Most people think that Christianity is a set of rules you have to follow, and if you don’t follow them perfectly, which no normal person could, you end up in hell anyway, so what’s the point?

    Christianity is not a set of rules. Christianity is the worshiping of our God, our Creator. There is something in all of us that longs to do this. But there is also something that makes us turn and run in the other direction: sin. Sin comes in all shapes and sizes. But Christ covers them all.

    Since we are sinners, we deserve to be condemned. But Jesus was condemned in our place. And just like in our country, once you’ve gone to jail for your crime, no one can send you back, so too God will not hold us guilty for the sins that he already punished Jesus for. That’s what happened on the cross. It should have been us up there, suspended between heaven and earth, rejected by God and man, and yet it wasn’t us. It was the Son of God, who is God. God himself submitted himself to this punishment, to prove his love for us, that he might be able to say to us, “You are forgiven, and you are my son.” Justice must be served, but God wanted to have mercy on us. But justice must be served. Jesus got our justice, we got God’s mercy.

    So there is nothing to fear in admitting God’s existence. You don’t have to give up science and become anti-intellectual. Sure, there are some behaviors you want to avoid, but when you believe in Jesus, your heart changes. Sin no longer has the same appeal it used to.

    Here’s an illustration. I hate strawberries. I never eat them. If you tell me that I can’t eat strawberries, I’m not exactly going to be mad about it.

    In the same way, Christians begin to lose their taste for sin. Sure, they are told not to sin, but they begin – slowly but surely – to not even want to anymore. But we all still do. Nonetheless, the commands are no burden, anymore than if I couldn’t eat strawberries, yuck!

    But regardless, when we sin, once again we return to the cross and find that we are forgiven.

    Christians still sin. They do. But they don’t have to hide it, or try to hide it. They can confess their sins to God and seek his forgiveness, and they find it.

    Soda, you can run, but you can’t hide. You will stand before God one day, as we all will. Wouldn’t it be so much better if you were not condemned, and became an heir of God’s estate? Wouldn’t you rather inherit all things than eternal darkness and misery and insanity? I would.

    You can admit that God exists. It’s ok. We don’t have to hide our sin. We can admit that God exists, and that we have offended him. It’s ok. God has solved that problem in Jesus Christ.

    And while some say that you have to do a number of things in order to obtain this solution (say 15 hail Mary’s, 12 Our Fathers), the truth is, you don’t have to do anything to obtain it.

    If you want to be saved, you don’t have to put lots of money in the offering plate, you don’t have to kneel in prayer until you develop arthritus in your knees, you don’t have to throw out all your DVD’s and CD’s, you don’t have to stop enjoying alcohol or tobacco, you don’t have to do anything.

    You can know that you are saved if you believe that what I have said to you is true. That’s it. You don’t get saved because you believe, you believe because you have been saved, because your eyes have been opened to the truth, and now there’s no going back, Neo. But that’s ok. You wouldn’t want to go back if you could.

    Just believe it, because it’s true. That’s all. It is true. God has promised that it is true. He has sworn an oath that it is true. You may believe it. And believe me, life will make a whole lot more sense, and will be a lot more enjoyable.

    Echo_ohcE

  48. soda says:

    gregg,

    “Soda, you realize that scientist cannot claim any theory s fact, right?”

    Evolution has been observed, it is a fact.

    But how does evolution occur? That is the theory.

  49. Gregg says:

    Soda,
    My posting was talking about the cosmogogy question, evolution. From an evolutionary position I am in agreement with Echo. Its existence or lack thereof does nothing for the existence, or lack thereof of God.

    You run into logic trouble when you make claims about the whole based on the observations of the parts. Imagine if a blind man grabbedhold of an elephants tusks and tried to explain the entire elephant based on what he felt. The elephant would be hard, sleek, and pointy. This is the problem with trying to claim the Big Bang we cannot know the cosmogogical question- we just cant.

    Your faith system says all the material in the universe was before the universe was. Mine says before the universe was God was.

    And Soda, the argument can be presented back to you. God has been observed, therefore He is fact.

    Thanks for the discussion
    Gregg

  50. soda says:

    “What are the chances that a quintillion monkeys typing for a quintillion years would eventually produce “Hamlet”? No, my friend. Those monkeys would produce a mess. Where’s that magic wand? Millions and billions of years!!”

    Eventually they would actually type it.

    “What if I smash my watch with a hammer and leave its parts laying in the desert. What will I find after 1,000 years? A brand new, improved watch? Wrong! Hey, but where’s that magic wand? Millions and billions of years!!”

    A watch isn’t alive.

    ” “The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit.” “To suppose that the eye…with so many parts all working together, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” – Charles Darwin in Origins of Species – ”

    out of context?

    “The idea of evolution is totally contrary to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You leave something by itself and it will decay over time, NOT IMPROVE! Chaos does not produce order…..EVER!!!”

    I have no idea why you say it is contrary to the first.
    If anything your god is by creating the earth.

    The second law doesn’t say that if you leave something by itself it will decay over time. It says that heat doesn’t flow from something cold to something hot. If you touch an icecube, your body heat goes into the icecube, the icecubes heat doesn’t go into you. The earth isn’t a closed system anyways, the sun is warming it.

  51. Um…wrongo on the monkeys typing Hamlet. But your answer does tell me something about your handle on logic.

    The design argument is your most difficult hurdle. And the human eye is much more complex than a watch. Think about it.

    Chaos does not produce order.

    Go back to the drawing board my evolutionist friend.

  52. Echo_ohcE says:

    I don’t know why evolutionists aren’t pantheists. There’s got to be something guiding it all, some unseen “force” at the very least. I just don’t get atheism. Makes no sense.

  53. soda says:

    Albino, grab 5 dice and throw them down. eventually you will get all 3′s. Grab 50 dice and throw them down. Eventually you will get all 3′s. Sure, it could take a few thousand years. maybe even a million! But in the end, this has nothing to do with evolution.

    Yes, the human eye is more complex than a watch. It doesn’t mean that in one generation suddenly a baby had a 100% perfect eye. The eye could have formed with a few light-sensitive cells and then gotten more complex.

    Chaos doesn’t produce order….how do snowflakes form? From some images on google i looked up snowflakes sure look orderly to me…and what did they come from? Yes, water forming more complex structures.

  54. danielbalc says:

    “Albino, grab 5 dice and throw them down. eventually you will get all 3’s. Grab 50 dice and throw them down. Eventually you will get all 3’s. Sure, it could take a few thousand years. maybe even a million! But in the end, this has nothing to do with evolution.”

    The supposition that “eventually you will get all 3′s” is exactly your problem soda. you state that as an absolute definite fact. But it’s not. It’s not even close to a fact. You MAY get all 3′s, but the odds are highly stacked against it. In fact the odds are incalculable, even when you add in your thousands and millions and billions of years. Thus trying to convince yourself that evolution is a “fact” requires just as much “faith” as a Christian has. Only your faith is in time and chance. Our faith is in the only thing outside of time and chance.

  55. Gregg says:

    Well said Daniel

  56. Bruce S. says:

    A watch isn’t alive.

    Soda, I think this response of yours here about the watch not being alive indicates that you are not really following this thread very well. The watch re-assembling itself is just an analogy to help understand the problem. The problem is precisely that these gases (which in your account were either in the universe or outside the universe – you’re not sure which) weren’t alive either. Now somehow by this mysterious assembling process there now is something that is alive.

    I also am waiting for your answer about the existence of the immaterial and how you account for it. Gregg’s answer was unsolicited. He missed the point that I wasn’t ignorantly asking for help in filling out my understanding but was rhetorically trying to get you to fill out your story – to get it past the science fiction stage.

    Also, I do wish you would stop using the word ‘god’. You have no idea what you are doing when you use it. In fact, it’s not a word at all, it’s a name – one that you have no business messing with. Also, even for you to use the word ‘alive’ is wrong. You have as yet offered no explanation for what aliveness is or where such a thing as ‘being’ or ‘alive’ has come from.

    I hope that this doesn’t sound condescending. I am only trying to be precise. And you as a scientist must understand why you need precision.

  57. soda says:

    The gasses formed together by gravity. Gravity pulled the gasses together, forming our planets, and the sun, among other things. This explains it better:

    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/COMPLETE/learn/star_and_planet_formation.html

    The random chances of evolution are when a mutation occurs, changing the organism very slightly. Mutations either harm the animal or kill it, and usually don’t help the organism instantly. However all of these mutations going on in a population of animals or plants or whatever cause diversity, such as different races of people.

    ‘Being’ as in a living organism? It started with the first cell. (or maby virus, if you include them to be a ‘being’.)

    “The idea of evolution is totally contrary to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. ”

    ‘immaterial’ as in light? sound? forces of nature? Im not sure.

    albino:
    “The idea of evolution is totally contrary to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics”

    I have no idea why you think evolution goes against the first law of thermodynamics or the second.

    “ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS CAN ONLY OFFER US INSTINCT, DESPAIR AND EMPTINESS”

    That is not only completely ad hominem, but it also has nothing to do with evolution, as does your entire second argument.

    “To suppose that the eye…with so many parts all working together, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case;” and so on
    -Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

  58. classnotes says:

    ‘immaterial’ as in light? sound? forces of nature? Im not sure.

    Well, obviously light is made up of photons which is a material, and sound is made up of fluctuations in air pressure, which is material. Notice above that I already gave a clear example of the immaterial – the “will”. Something which it appears that bicycles don’t have but “gently electrified bags of meat” (i.e. humans) do appear to have. Or do they? How do you account for the existence of the immaterial?

  59. Bruce S. says:

    Sorry. The “classnotes” entry was really me.

  60. soda says:

    How do i account for the ‘will’? Well, I don’t think that there is a thing as ‘free will’. What do you do is determined by your brain, which uses chemicals to give you feelings of happiness, sadness, and anger, and of course a lot of other things. But what about imagination? Without imagination people would not be wearing any clothes, not be using tools or anything. I think that all animals have an imagination (some more than others). Such as if you put a mouse in one of those mazes, it has to think ‘hmm what should i do’ and if that choice doesn’t work it has to think of something else.

    I don’t know if i answered your question or not. (i probably missed it entirely)

  61. Echo_ohcE says:

    You did miss it entirely. You were asked to explain the existence of that which is immaterial, not to argue that man is really just a dumb animal.

    Let me see if I can help you understand the question.

    Do souls exist? If so, how come? How did they come to be? They are IMMATERIAL, so your MATERIAL explanation of evolution offers no explanation for that.

    Do ideas exist? If so, how come?

    I think you get the idea. Please don’t even think about saying that there is no such thing as that which is immaterial. That would really be absurd.

    Philosophically speaking, you have a number of choices, such as saying that ideas only exist in minds, or that they exist independent of minds. Where do numbers exist? If they don’t exist, how can we conceive of them? If they exist only in minds, how come there is continuity from one mind to the next?

    How does the collision of gases have anything to do with IDEAS? How did ideas come about?

    Now, before you answer, you should probably admit something to yourself. You should admit to yourself that you’ve never considered that question before. Do the intelligent thing and think about it first before you answer. Don’t just spit something out to make the question go away. Think about it a little before you answer.

    Echo

  62. Echo_ohcE says:

    If you don’t like talking about souls or ideas, talk about universals or forms. I don’t care.

  63. Echo_ohcE says:

    Ah, but you probably don’t know what I mean by “universals” do you? Ok, I’ll help you.

    Two red things exhibit the same property: redness. Where does this redness exist, and how come two things can share this property? You can answer in at least two ways.

    1. The Platonic way: Universals exist. Redness is a universal that transcends the universe, existing in Platonic heaven, and all red things are instances (or instantiations, to be more technical) of Redness. All red things instantiate, reflect, participate in the one universal, Redness.

    2. The Aristotelian way: Universals exist only in particulars. There is no such thing as transcendant universals. Redness exists in red things. Redness is the sum total of all red things throughout the entire course of history of the universe.

    3. The stupid view: there are no universals. This view is asserted by any and all who aren’t interested in philosophy, or solving this problem. This problem is over 2000 years old, and the best minds the world has had to offer have spent themselves on it.

    I’m not asking you to solve the problem by proving one of these views. I’m saying that in order to be coherent, you should probably choose one of these views, make it your own, and from there explain how universals came to exist in the first place. Gas collisions do not suffice, unless you tell an elaborate story.

    Perhaps once you have thought about it a while, you’ll find out why so many philosophers have been reluctant to give up on the idea of God. There’s just too much explanatory power in such a concept.

    Echo_ohcE

  64. RubeRad says:

    Card is a humanist sci fi writer, I have not heard anything about him being a Mormon.

    Card is definitely a Mormon

    There are definitely things, like intelligence, that are not so easily dismissed by the chemistry argument. What are your thoughts on this point Rube?

    I think it’s pretty hard to conclusively prove that our intelligence could not be the product of “just chemistry”. If the chemistry is complex enough (or if a computer program were sophisticated enough), who’s to say that something like our intelligence might not be possible? But we are very very far from understanding how the brain works, and the real point is this: the more complex you have to make a Gently Electrified Bag of Meat (GEBOM) to get it to be intelligent, the less likely it is to arise by chance. As it is, I don’t think the scientifically agreed-upon age of the universe (13.x billion years) is long enough to evolve mindless animals (“eat eat eat sleep screw eat eat…”), much less humans.

    I keep not finishing this series on my blog, but the point I’m driving to in the end is that I think it comes down to morality. I think it is possible to be a consistent atheist. Like any other worldview, you have to take a lot of things on faith (unintelligent, undesigned evolution), and you have to deny any morality that is not derived from the self: self-fulfillment, self-gratification, self-preservation, etc. Ultimately there is no right or wrong, because we’re all just a bunch of GEBOMs wandering around, interacting with each other. What’s one or two (or all) GEBOMs more or less? There may be pain or pleasure, but really it’s just chemical reactions, so it doesn’t really matter.

  65. soda says:

    Well my view on the redness thing is that anything that is red is because the atoms (or molecules or whatever else that make it up) appear red.

    How did all the universals come in to play? Well, when the big bang started to expand and create (or just go into) the universe, all of the physics and universals came to exist. What was before the big bang? Who knows.

    Do souls exist? No, just your brain.

    Ideas? Well, they didn’t start with humans. Probably (i don’t really know if this is right) but the first animals had ideas to find ways to not get killed and find ways to get more food. Ideas expanded from there. Do I really know what I am talking about? Nope.

  66. Gregg says:

    Rube,
    Thanks for the Card update. I have to admit, I am amazed he holds to faith. The Enders Game trilogy paints believers as being controlled and it is very negative to all things faith. I guess you can’t judge an author by his book, eh?

    I agree with you as world views go, it is possibly to be a consistent atheist. I have only known one of two, but it is possible. Interesting point on the ethics and morality. Have you read much of Kohlberg? He is a developmental psychologist who specialized in moral development (his work- if I remember right, is tied with Piaget) He has several stages of moral development starting with things like might makes right, self gratification, and self as the loci of moral choice. More advanced stages include seeing the good of society as the basis for morality.

    Why bring this up? It might be possible for a consistent atheist to hold to a higher morality then self gratification. They would need faith all the more. faith in a system of justice, fairness or something greater then as you put it eat, eat, eat, sleep, screw, eat!

    By the way, I reall like the GEBOM. It makes me laugh. Thanks

    Soda,
    You may want to rethink your redness answer. Echo has a very valid point he is making through Plato and, based on your answer, it would appear that you have not thought much about it.

    Gregg

  67. Matt S says:

    Well,

    I think Soda’s last line of his most recent comment puts an end to this thread.

    You can’t turn an orange into an apple, as hard as you may try.

  68. Very good atheist vs. Christian debate Nightline tonight. You can see a lot of the video here

  69. soda says:

    Albino, those are some good debates, but isn’t one of those guys the ‘banana is the atheist nightmare’ guy?

    Also, you should remove

    ‘The idea of evolution is totally contrary to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. ‘

    because evolution does not conflict with the second law, and I have no idea how you thought it defied the first law.

  70. RubeRad says:

    The Enders Game trilogy paints believers as being controlled and it is very negative to all things faith.

    I don’t recall any perspective on faith from those books. Maybe time for a re-read! BTW, if you think it’s only a trilogy, you should check out Ender’s Shadow, a retelling of Ender’s Game through Bean’s eyes.

    Have you read much of Kohlberg?

    Never heard of him. Interesting to note that he places “Might Makes Right” first, because I am also planning a sequel to this old post of mine. It seems to me that Might Makes Right is at the foundation of an atheist ethical worldview. Maybe other stuff can be built on top of it, but in the end you can only arrive at an arbitrary ethical system peculiar to the preferences of the Might that establishes the Right at any particular time.

  71. Gregg says:

    Rube,
    It has been a very long time since I read the Enders Game series. (I have read the rest of time, just forgot!) Re: the anti religious motif, I believe it was Speaker of the Dead, which had the genius prohpet girl who was genetically controlled by OCD? That is the biggest refernce that I remember towards religion.

  72. Echo_ohcE says:

    Soda,

    I don’t think you have established the credibility necessary to authoritatively declare what Albino can and cannot say with regard to the so-called laws of thermodynamics. And certainly the fact that you don’t understand why he’s making the claim is the farthest thing from a legitimate cause for you to say that he should not make such claims.

    Your answer regarding “redness” is not what I asked. Let me clarify.

    I’m not, in any wise, asking WHY things appear red. That there is such a thing as universals, and it doesn’t explain WHY things appear red. It explains why there is a UNITY in red things. It explains why more than ONE THING can have the same property or characteristic. It explains why everything in the universe isn’t perfectly unique. There can be no other explanation than universals. If you think that there might be, then I might ask you to interact with over 2,000 years of philosophy first. Perhaps the problem can be solved, but I think you might need to orient yourself to the problem before you propose a solution. At any rate, the solution is not found in atoms appearing red. Not even remotely.

    And again, the big bang cannot possibly explain universals. Chemical reactions don’t give rise to universals. Particulars (things) are INSTANCES of universals. Chemical reactions don’t give rise to Redness, they give rise to red THINGS. There can be no red things unless there is first Redness.

    Thus, again, Plato asserted that universals were transcendent. That means that they transcend space and time. That means they are eternal. Chemical reactions, especially the big bang, cannot possibly give an answer to this question.

    Fundamentally, the big bang asserts that at some point, the universe (time and space) BEGAN. Universals did not BEGIN. They always were. They are eternal, at least in Plato’s view.

    Now, a possible objection here would be that since universals are transcendent, they are not part of the universe, and therefore science has no role to play in explaining them, but that is the role of philosophy, since science can only make sense out of sensory data, and that data can by definition only refer to things in the universe, things in time and space.

    I would find this objection quite reasonable. It actually is NOT the role of science to explain how universals came about. That is the role of philosophy. The big bang theory couldn’t possibly explain how universals came about, since universals aren’t part of the universe, and science can only describe the universe, since we can only come into contact with the universe; we can only observe the UNIVERSE.

    Of course, if you find yourself convinced by this argument, then you will realize that if something is not part of the universe, then science cannot possibly have anything to say about it, neither predicating its existence or lack thereof. There is no way for science to know.

    But if science can have nothing to say about anything beyond the universe, then how can SCIENCE either prove or disprove God’s existence?

    God is not part of the universe. He is the Creator of it. Science can only observe and describe the universe. WHATEVER we say about evolution, it cannot POSSIBLY have anything to say about God’s existence or lack thereof. Science cannot observe what is not part of the universe, and as such cannot explain what is outside of the universe. It cannot explain universals.

    As such, science cannot say whether or not there are souls. Science cannot say whether animals have ideas or not, or where ideas come from.

    But you probably don’t believe me that universals are eternal. Ok, I’ll prove it to you, and no one will be able to object.

    Florida is south of New York. “South of” is a relation. It is a phrase that refers to a relation. Now, we have given that relation a particular name in modern English, and that name is “south of”. But did we, by naming that relation, invent that relation? No, that cannot be, because other languages have given different names to that same relation. We don’t invent that relation, we discover it. It is a spatial relation, relative to our perspective of the earth.

    So on that grounds, can we say that before the earth existed, there was no relation that we now call “south of”? Perhaps. But there was always space. And as long as space has existed, it was always possible for two things to be in it and have some spatial relation to each other. “South of” is just one way of describing a spatial relation. It is a spatial relation relative to a particular perspective.

    So when did space begin? How could space have a beginning? Your big bang theory doesn’t represent the beginning of space and time itself, but only of things that exist IN space and time. The universe isn’t only the planets and stars that are IN the universe. The universe is composed of those things, but it is composed of more than just the matter in the universe. The universe, strictly speaking, is space and time. Matter exists IN the universe, but the universe itself is more than just the matter in it. Matter exists in space and time. But all of this is the universe.

    But your big bang theory only accounts for the beginning of the matter that we now encounter in the universe: planets and stars. It by no means accounts for the beginning of time and space, nor even of the beginning of matter itself, because the big bang starts with a super-dense microdot of matter that explodes and becomes planets and stars.

    But this by no means explains how time and space began. Time and space must be eternal then, as far as we know. It makes no sense to the scientific mind that time and space should have a beginning. That’s just unthinkable, is it not? But if that’s true, then spatial relations, since they were possible so long as space existed, are likewise eternal. The same goes for temporal relations, such as “before” or “after”. These relations are eternal. Sure, we have named them in English, but that is only after discovering them. They are eternal. The only thing that changes is the perspective from which they are viewed. We are on the earth, so we view spatial relations from that perspective. If we lived on some other planet, we would have a different perspective, so spatial relations would be relative to something different. But spatial relations themselves are eternal. How we view them changes.

    So spatial relations, another type of universal, are clearly seen to be eternal. Temporal relations are eternal too. One event is always before another event. The death of Socrates is always before the resurrection of Christ. That has always been true and will always be true. The temporal relation “before” is as old as temporality, which is itself eternal, unless of course you think time has a beginning? But if it does, it must be before the big bang, because the big bang happened IN TIME, and IN SPACE. That is where and when the big bang happened. So time and space, and frankly even matter, predate the big bang.

    So I guess Soda, you are trying to make evolution say a lot more than it really CAN say. You are fallaciously ascribing explanatory power to evolution that it does not and indeed cannot properly ever have. And in fact, you must clearly see that science is limited in its ability to explain the universe, apart from merely describing it. Science can only observe the universe. It cannot say anything about how the universe began to exist, except perhaps in its current form.

    Science can give us no answer as to how time and space came about, or where matter came from, or what universals actually are. No scientist has ever seen a universal. No scientist has ever stepped outside of space and time. These things cannot be observed, and thus is not properly the domain of science.

    What? Are you going to step outside the universe and tell me what you see from this perspective? Impossible.

    Stop trying to answer questions that you cannot answer. Recognize your limitations, and the limitations of science.

    Echo_ohcE

    PS I knew that philosophy degree was good for something.

  73. 818 says:

    up a little late huh echo?

  74. Echo_ohcE says:

    Yeah, 4 in the afternoon…pretty late. ???

    And actually, that’s Texas time, and I’m not in Texas.

    Should I interpret your comment to mean that anything philosophical must be the product of people who have too much time on their hands, or who are up too late obsessing about things that normal people don’t bother thinking about?

  75. joe says:

    you should publish this in a magazine

  76. This article was published in Youth With a Mission’s summer magazine a few years ago. Every summer I would submit an article for their magazine which is given to all summer missionaries.

  77. joe says:

    “The idea of evolution is totally contrary to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You leave something by itself and it will decay over time, NOT IMPROVE! Chaos does not produce order…..EVER!!!”

    It is in no way contrary to the first law, your just making things up.

    It is not contrary to the second law, earth receives energy from the sun, otherwise life (as we know it) would be impossible, not just evolution.

    The second law isn’t about really about chaos anyways, it is about energy spreading out.

  78. You need to read all the posts that preceded you.

  79. joe says:

    I did now, you couldn’t defend yourself when lupin disagreed with you.

    Here is a post by you:

    “Reason 1 — Ok, prove that things, over time, improve. Start with my 1990 Honda.

    Reason 2 – If we have thoughts of eternity, destiny and purpose, we are not mere animals. Evolution teaches that all of us are animals.

    Reason 3 – The ultimate end of atheism is evil, because it reduces us to mere animals. Who’s to say that Hitler was wrong? There are no moral absolutes, only despair that leads to death.”

    Things do not naturally improve. Everything needs energy to ‘improve’. If nothing improves, how does a baby grow up to be an adult?

    “Evolution teaches that all of us are animals.” So therefore it is false?

    Lol i like this one: “…only despair that leads to death.” Happiness also leads to death.

  80. Joe — Macro evolution teaches that things are getting better. They are not. Things break down.

    If you are over 22, you are starting to die.

    “despair that leads to death” — I’m talking about eternal death.

    I stand by my statements. The burden of proof is on you to prove how order springs from chaos, and where the original energy/gas came from.

  81. Joe says:

    “Joe — Macro evolution teaches that things are getting better. They are not. Things break down.

    If you are over 22, you are starting to die.”

    Yet at 22 people still grow taller (I think).

    So i wonder, how do babies grow into adults if things never get better, but always break down? Could it have something to do with energy?

  82. Whoops. Another chink in Darwin’s armor here

  83. Joe says:

    Joe — Macro evolution teaches that things are getting better. They are not. Things break down.”

    Micro evolution also ‘teaches that things are getting better’, but you believe micro evolution, right?

  84. Some changes and adaptations within the same species, yes. But not whole species produces whole other species, no

  85. Joe says:

    Adaptations improve the species, so they ‘get better’. Earlier you said

    “You leave something by itself and it will decay over time, NOT IMPROVE!”

  86. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Hello,

    First off, I must say that there are numerous faults in your argument. I am a firm believer in Evolution, and although I do believe in God, (I am a Hindu), I only believe in a personal God, not a God that created the entire universe and Earth in 6 days.

    You said in your opening paragraphs that you will fight the theory of Evolution with science and later, you brought up the argument that the theory of Evolution defies the first and second laws of thermodynamics. This is utterly untrue and your steps of logic in claiming so are flawed. You claim that things do not improve over time, but degrade. This is certainly true of things like a brick or a bunt cake. However, I am sure you will agree that humans are neither. What evolution means when it says that species “improve”, is that mutations in the DNA code over millions and billions of years, yes I said it, provide accidental adaptations that in some way allow a specific organism to cope better with their environment. For example, the mutation of the DNA code in certain parts of Africa allow the people affected by the mutation to become resistant to malaria. Unexpectedly, and accidentally, a gene in an individual underwent some flaw in its chemical reaction, as a process of generations and generations of copying during the passing on of traits from parents, and developed a mutation. This new mutated DNA code then led to the production of new mutated proteins, through transcription and translation, which then were able to neutralize malaria in red blood cells at the basic chemical level. Now, this one person grows up and gets married and has two little children. To one or even both of these children, the mutated gene is passed on from the parent during the creation of the zygote from the egg and sperm. Now, one or both of these children grow up and pass on the gene to their children, and the number of people with the mutated gene grows exponentially, and the number of people resistant to malaria grows exponentially. At the same time, those without the mutated gene die and their family line ends, and they cannot reproduce any more progeny. Slowly, over the course of a hundred years, the majority, if not all, of the population is resistant to malaria. Eventually, over the course of a thousand years, almost everyone is resistant to malaria. This slow process is what we call evolution.

    Now, you may note that becoming resistant to malaria is not the same evolution as what science claims. It is not the same as a monkey evolving into a man. However, this view is also flawed, and in fact, these two processes are the same. Consider this: One hundred thousand years ago, a group of tree dwelling monkies, australiopithecines, in central Africa, decides to come down from the trees and forage for food on the ground, because all the fruit in the tree is gone. This way, on the ground, the group can replenish their food stocks and continue to thrive. Also, to be able to see over the tall grass of the savannah, which they now cannot do due to their position, they try to slowly stand on two legs for a short period of time. However clumsy this may be, because these animals are not meant to be on two legs, it allows them to see predators and danger from a distance. Such behavior is observed today in meerkats, which will stand up for short periods of time to check for predators like dingos. In this process, a key step has been taken that will cause these monkies to evolve into man. One day, a baby is born which has the deformation of the hip called hip dysplacia. Wherever this deformation came from, maybe from God, or even more likely, from a mutation in the baby’s DNA code, it causes the baby to have trouble walking on four feet. Instead, this baby is most comfortable walking on two feet. We will call this baby Eve, not the same Eve in the Bible, but just a monkey baby we name Eve. Now, Eve is adapted to walking on two legs and is able to see predators a lot better than her peers, who mostly still walk on four legs and only spend short times on two. Eve is able to bypass every predator attack because she can see the predator coming over the tall grass, but her peers are not able to and slowly, almost all of them are killed and eaten. When Eve grows up, she mates with another monkey and her mutated gene is passed. Slowly but surely, like the malaria case, almost all of the population of monkies now stand only on two legs.

    This frees up their hands, with which they can do many new things that they couldn’t do before. Better hands evolve by accident, and the trait is passed on through the whole population over time. Eventually, a mutation causes a monkey to develop a larger head, which can then encompass a larger brain, which also accidentally shows up in a creature over time. Eventually, after the course of hundreds of thousands of years, the monkey has evolved into a species we now call man, a creature that can use its hands for creating things like rocket ships and use its large brain to comprehend such things. The term “millions and billions of years” is not just a magic wand for evolutionists, it is a way of explaining the evolutionary process, a process that is much more credible than the concept of God creating the world in 6 friggin’ days.

    By the way, radiocarbon dating and the concrete laws of mathematics, like 1+1 = 2, date the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old, and such dating also calculates that the earth must have been created slowly over time, not in 6 days. Surely, if you understand the base concepts of physics, as you imply in your first argument, you will agree with this.

    Now that we have established the concept of evolution and “improving”, let us move on. You say that the chances of a tornado blowing through a pile of airplane parts and assembling a 747 is astronomically low. Indeed, this is true. But a monkey, from which we evolved, is not a pile of parts of any kind. It is a organized life form with an organized genetic code. Over time, mutations in the genetic code of such an organism cause it to change and “evolve” into an organism that is best suited to its environment. Also, such a monkey is not analogous to a smashed watch, and is instead analogous to an organized living watch. Again, mutations in the organism cause it and its peers to evolve slowly into something better suited to its environment. Also, the quintillion monkeys typing is not an example of the flaws of evolution. The manuscript they type is simply the products of their current state, and it will be a bunch of crap for no matter how long they type. But, if mutations in the monkeys’ codes over millions of years cause them to change into an organism, say, a human being named Shakespeare, he will surely be able to concoct a brilliant manuscript by himself in less than two years. Indeed, this is what happened! Surely, you are familiar with Romeo and Juliet or Macbeth.

    Now let us adress your flawed arguments over desire. Water came before organisms, as you can agree. Then, organisms evolved, in the same process explained above, to be able to use water for energy and to fuel the cells in the body. THAT is why humans become thirsty, and THAT is why we drink water. God didn’t give water to us for the purpose of quenching our thirst. We evolved to be able to use water to quench our thirst. God has nothing to do with it. A god that created everything in nature is simply an idea for naive, and excuse me, stupid, people that do not or cannot understand, and do not or cannot comprehend the science behind it. And don’t argue that God created water, because then you have just proved my point. Similarly, we are hungry because food like fajitas gives us energy from the carbohydrates inside it that fuel our cells as well. And I am sorry, I don’t think God created fajitas either. In fact, it was created by some spanish man hundreds of years ago in an attempt to attract more customers to his shops. And damn right, he succeeded. I love fajitas. Finally, we crave sex as human beings because it is the only way to reproduce and create more offspring so that our species can live on. And again, marriage is a social custom brought into existance in ancient Egypt some 5 thousand years ago, not by God.

    You say that if evolution is true, then you don’t have a future in life and no hopes. I simply laugh at this. That claim is a way to intimidate people into believing in God, and cannot be proved correct or incorrect. Of course, you can say that “God is in my heart and he tells me that he exists and he tells me that in faith I will be saved and he tells me that I am not an animal.” And then you claim that because he does all these things in your heart, he must exist. Fine. That’s fair enough. But to this, I can respond that Science is in my heart, and it tells me that the idea of a universal God is rubbish and evolution exists. Damn, it looks like I just elevated the proof of evolution all the way up to the same level as the proof of God. Oh Snap!

    Also, you give the example of Dr. Graham after 9/11. He says “Many of you want answers. Why did God allow this? Today I must tell you I don’t know…I would rather know His love and feel His arms around me than be in despair.” Dr. Graham, in saying this, completely failed to answer the question of why God allowed 9/11. At least science can explain things and why they occur. Also, don’t say that “one doesn’t need to know and faith is enough” because, again, that is a way to deal with things you don’t understand. That is the way to be naive and lazy instead of actually trying to figure out the answer.

    Also, evolutionists are not cold people that would call your loved one an animal at his or her funeral. They are human too, and I’m sure you’ll agree that they like people just as much, or even more than Christians or Catholics. Hey, evolutionists didn’t kill hundreds of thousands of people in the name of their beliefs. In fact, I don’t think there has ever been an evolutionist Crusade like the Christian one. Whatever happened to the “Thou shalt not kill!” thing? Now that’s a question.

    In conclusion, I must say that for you to be professing the idea of a universal God is simply rubbish, and that people like you are the reason why we have wars and killing today. If everyone believed in evolution and the simple science behind it, we would leave our beliefs behind and stop killing men, women and children because of them. The idea of a universal God is simply a way of absolving yourself of responsibility, the responsibility you have of determining your own place in the world. God is a scapegoat for lazy people.

    I cannot believe or understand why you would place your faith in an inivisible flying man that created the world in 6 days with his magic wand and life giving prose, which you claim as the undeniable truth, instead of in the testable, proven science that explains evolution, which you claim to be hocus pocus. (Sure, mystical flying men are hard fact, while chemistry and mathematics are hocus pocus.)

    I do hope this response came across as bitter and harsh as it was meant to be. For sometimes, bitterness and harshness are just what are needed so that people will “know the truth”, which as the Bible, that ever reliable book, says “will set them free.”

    Evolution is the truth.
    A Universal God is false.
    Understand and deal with it.

  87. RubeRad says:

    I do believe in God, (I am a Hindu), I only believe in a personal God

    Maybe it’s a Hindu thing that I don’t get, but I can’t make sense of that statement.

    A Universal God is false.

    So are you saying “There is no Universal God out there, independent of our experience, but only a ‘personal God’ for me, and maybe a different ‘personal God’ for you”? If that’s what you mean, you don’t believe in a God at all — such a god derives from your own conception, and is contingent on whatever you feel he should be like. What you really believe in is YOU.

    If everyone believed in evolution and the simple science behind it, we would leave our beliefs behind and stop killing men, women and children because of them.

    If everyone believed in evolution and the simple science behind it, there would be no reason to uphold human dignity, to believe that humans are more valuable than animals, or that humans have civil rights, or that humans are even intrinsically valuable at all. Oopx — we’re already there (see PETA/ELF/Ant Bully, atheist China, 10s of millions of abortions every year, and the growing popularity of euthanasia)

    Of course, you can say that “God is in my heart and he tells me that he exists and he tells me that in faith I will be saved and he tells me that I am not an animal.” And then you claim that because he does all these things in your heart, he must exist. Fine.

    Actually, I would say not fine. Because if it’s all just based on secret emotional feelings in my heart (burning bosom anyone?), there is no way that anyone else can be convinced — there’s no reason that anyone else SHOULD be persuaded that Christianity is true. Contrary to popular opinion, faith is not blind belief, but the proper response to evidence.

    For instance, the evidence I have seen leads me to make the “leap of faith” that O. J. did it. Similarly, the evidence I have seen leads me to have faith that Jesus was resurrected. And if he was resurrected, then he was actually who he said he was, namely God. And if he was actually God, then he was incarnated. Why was he incarnated? Why did he die? Why was he resurrected? He was incarnated because Adam failed and brought the whole human race down with him, and it took God himself to attain perfection. He died because God is righteous, and sin requires judgment, which he took upon himself. He was resurrected (a) to vindicate his claim to divinity, and (b) so that he could give us also new life (if he just died, then at most we could get forgiveness for sins, but without sharing in the power of the resurrection, we could not get any better)

    By the way, radiocarbon dating and the concrete laws of mathematics, like 1+1 = 2, date the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old, and such dating also calculates that the earth must have been created slowly over time, not in 6 days. Surely, if you understand the base concepts of physics, as you imply in your first argument, you will agree with this.

    BTW, I’m with you on that one (although Albino Hayford is not). And the fact that we can watch the history of astronomical objects X billions of light years away (by observing light that has traveled from the objects to us) tells us that the universe is 13-14 billions of years old. Six literal, 24-hour days is not the only reasonable way to interpret Genesis.

    But still, if Jesus was resurrected, then you gotta listen to what he had to say, and one thing he said was “with God all things are possible”, so you have to admit that IF there is an omnipotent God, he COULD have made the universe in 6 days, and (for reasons beyond our understanding) faked evidence that made the universe look like it had evolved over billions of years.

  88. Shashank,

    I would encourage you to examine the claims of Jesus Christ and compare Him to other gods. This thread is about the foolishness of evolution (at its root, positing that nothing produces matter which evolves into our universe). But I believe your larger issue here is separating the God of the Bible (all-powerful yet personal and loving), from all other gods of all other religions. This is a HUGE question, because your eternal destiny rests on the answer. Evolution is simply an attempt to eliminate Creator God from the equation.

    On the issue of a literal, six-day creation: This is more of a discussion for Christians to engage in among themselves, since all of us believe that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” I do tend to see the account in Genesis as a simple narrative, and have no problem believing that God could create the universe with the appearance of age, but I have many good friends who hold the other view.

    If we can help you grapple with the claims of Jesus Christ, we would really love to do so.

  89. Joe says:

    “Evolution has been discredited over and over”

    No, it hasn’t. You are lying.

    “What if I smash my watch with a hammer and leave its parts laying in the desert. What will I find after 1,000 years? A brand new, improved watch? Wrong! Hey, but where’s that magic wand? Millions and billions of years!!”

    No one said you would find a new watch (or animal). Nobody ever said if you took parts of an animal and left it in a desert you would find a brand new animal.

    “The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility”

    Could you give an example?

  90. Joe, someone said that two gasses collided, and after billions of years of chaos….POOF…life appeared…and evolved into intelligent beings…like Joe.

    Example of inteligibility in the universe? Are you kidding, Joe? Um, your brain.

  91. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Hey RubeRad,

    What I meant by a “personal God” is a God that you believe exists inside of you and one that you believe holds some significance over the spiritual aspects of life. For example, we Hindus have many gods, and one god is the god of knowledge. For this reason, Hindus avoid disrespecting things like books and paper, simply because we believe that doing so would disrespect a “God”. It is difficult to explain. I believe that one can believe in a God and hold tradition as is custom in one’s religion, but still believe in evolution. Evolution does not destroy the concept of god and all of the values and traditions that religion stands for. To me, religion is more than worshiping a deity or a God. It is about respecting your elders, respecting your customs, and respecting your culture. This is what I mean about having a “personal God”. I hope this clears things up a little bit.

    I agree with you that faith is not blind belief, but one of the main arguments that Albino Hayford propounded was that simply having faith in God will allow Him to somehow improve your life. And once such an improvment has occured, it proves that God exists, and that you should continue to have faith in him. My argument is that I can have faith in anything; I could worship aliens, and if that faith helped me somehow, it proves that aliens do exist, and that they help humanity in some way. Again, this might be a little confusing, but I’ve explained as best I can.

    I agree that I am not well versed in the Bible and the tenats of Christianity, so I apologize for any extraneous claims I might have made in my drunken stupor. However, I still maintain that if the Bible says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, then it claims that it is 6,000 Earth years, as we measure them now, old. Subsequently, I can say that that aging is false and that the Earth is much, much older than that. And finally, I can lend more credibility to evolution and less to the idea of a Creator God.

    Thanks for listening.

  92. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    First of all, sorry for the double post, but I just remembered something I wanted to say.

    Albino Hayford, no one said that one day, two gasses collided and that after millions of years life appeared and evolved. What science says is that life appeared in many instances in pools of liquid methane and liquid nitrogen. In these pools, some molecules were created consisting of the prevalent carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen compounds. Such reactions could take place due to the high heat energy present to break and reform bonds between atoms. Eventually, a molecule was created, by chance, that could be the catalyst in the reactions of compounds that polymerized into more of the same molecule. These were the beginnings of RNA. By chance, substances were created that would link together to form impermeable layers of phospholipids. Inside these were RNA molecules that were caught. This was a great leap from simply free floating molecules because RNA molecules could now keep the protein they created away from other molecules that would use them for energy. This whole structure was a cell. Unicellular animals evolved, and then, as cells began to clump together as a means of spreading work and doing things together that no one cell could do on its own, multicellular organisms evolved. From then on, the principles of evolution began playing out, and billions of years later, we have animals and humans as diverse as the molecules that create them.

    You certainly oversimplified things. Evolution is not magic, but the steady buildup of useful accidental adaptations to the environment.

  93. RubeRad says:

    Shashank, thanks for sticking around.

    This is what I mean about having a “personal God”. I hope this clears things up a little bit.

    Not really — I’ve heard that Hindus believe in infinite gods, but I’m still quite confused. You say

    What I meant by a “personal God” is a God that you believe exists inside of you and one that you believe holds some significance over the spiritual aspects of life.

    Those ‘believe’s make it seem like it’s not really happening. Does that God really exist inside of you, or do you just believe it? Does that God exist outside of you? Is it connected at all to a personal God that somebody else believes is inside of them? Does that God have any power? Is there anything it can do? You call it “personal”, but I’m thinking you really mean “individual”. Is that God a person? With a personality?

    simply having faith in God will allow Him to somehow improve your life. And once such an improvement has occured, it proves that God exists, and that you should continue to have faith in him.

    Despite many contemporary claims to the contrary, Christianity is not about health, wealth, and happiness. It’s about redemption — which is maybe fitting, because I can’t see your name and not think of The Shawshank Redemption. (I’m sure that’s not the first time you’ve heard that one)

  94. Joe says:

    “Example of inteligibility in the universe? Are you kidding, Joe? Um, your brain.”

    I assume you mean that the brain looks intelligently designed. But (to use another persons post) a snowflake also looks detailed and complex. Did someone or something design it? no.

  95. Joe says:

    Sorry for double posting but could you also give an example of when evolution has been disproved over and over?

  96. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    RubeRad,

    I think the simplest way of expressing what I mean by having a “personal God” is as follows:
    To those of us who are either Christians or Hindus or Jainists there is one or are many gods that make up our religion. However, practicing a religion should not mean practicing every single part of it. For example, Hindus are not supposed to eat meat, but I know many, many Hindus who do eat meat and still call themselves Hindus. I know many Muslims that don’t pray 5 times a day in the direction of Mecca and still call themselves Muslim. This is fine in my view. To be religious shouldn’t mean being a religious zealot. One shouldn’t have to stick to every rule or custom of Christianity, Hinduism or Jainism to call oneself a Christian, Hindu or Jainist. See what I mean? In this same mental standpoint, I think that it is fine to be a Christian and support evolution, especially when there is so much evidence for it. Albino Hayford said that evolution is dangerous, implying that it is dangerous to Christianity and God, and should be fought against. I don’t think that you need to fight against evolution simply because Christianity says God created the world. I don’t think religion and science need to be mutually exclusive. A “personal God”, then, is a way to express this idea that your religion is for you to decide how to practice, however leniently or however strictly. A personal God is just that, MY God, to pray to and respect how I wish, or how it is appropriate. Again, if this doesn’t clear things up, please ask me to explain it again. This is just as helpful for me as I intend it to be for you.

    And HA, I have heard the bit about The Shawshank Redemption countless times. Whenever I meet someone new and tell them my name, more than half of them ask me if I have seen the movie.

    Joe,

    Evolution has never been proven wrong, just as it has never been proven correct. There is some evidence against it, namely what we call the “missing link” in anthropology, but the majority of evidence supports evolution and its ideas.

    Albino,

    The “staggering amount of intelligibility” you speak of in the Universe, sadly, doesn’t exist. As far as we know, there is no other intelligence in the Universe except that found on planet Earth, and Christianity was developed in a time where there was no evidence, not even contemplation, as to the contrary. Planet Earth is only one of 8 “planets” orbiting one star in one galaxy. There are billions of stars in this galaxy, and billions of galaxies in this universe. I’d say the amount of “intelligibility”, as far as we know, is actually quite little.

  97. RubeRad says:

    –contrary to Sagan’s guess that there should be millions/billions of intelligent civilizations out there…

    However, practicing a religion should not mean practicing every single part of it.

    Any religion which it is possible for man to fully, perfectly practice — is not worth being a member of. There are three kinds of people, hypocrites that admit it, hypocrites that don’t, and those whose standards are too low. But I don’t think you are seeing how silly the concept of a “personal God” is. “Personal religion” yes, everybody can have a different set of religious practices and beliefs that need have no relation to each other — just like everybody can have different preferences for flavors of ice cream, or different ways of tying their shoes.

    But to imply a “personal God”, such that you have yours, and I have mine, purposefully ignores the question of whose God actually exists — or does any God (do any gods) actually exist? If a God exists, then he is universal, at least in the sense that his existence is independent of who is asking the question. I say again, a “personal God” is no God at all, because he has no absolute existence; he is a product of human conception, and if all of the persons that believed in him vanished, then so would the “personal God”. I say again, you don’t actually believe in a God — what you believe in is YOU. Your “personal God” is simply an extension of your own consciousness.

    I assume you mean that the brain looks intelligently designed. But (to use another persons post) a snowflake also looks detailed and complex. Did someone or something design it? no.

    Joe: A snowflake does not represent information. Each snowflake is a (beautiful) symmetrical, regular pattern, just like ripples in a pond form a regular pattern. That is an example of patterns that arise from natural laws.

    However, how about DNA? DNA encodes a message, information, expressed in a 4-letter alphabet. Yes, the “letters” of the message are arranged in a (beautiful), symmetrical, regular helical pattern, but so are the letters in the message you are reading right now (except in linear rows).

    If you were to determine an ‘alphabet’ for snowflakes (perhaps atomic shape elements that each snowflake can be decomposed into by unwrapping the pattern), you would find that all the snowflakes in the world are sending you a completely random message; there would be a probabilistic distribution to the usage of the elements of the snowflake alphabet, but no message.

    DNA (A,C,T,G) and English also have probabilistic distributions for the usage of their alphabets, but no string randomly-generated according to that distribution would contain any information. Only a string of letters put together by a human that knows how to write would contain information, and only DNA that was ordered with a purpose would contain information.

  98. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    RubeRad,

    It seems I have been unable to fully explain myself. Forget for a moment that I said “personal God”. What I mean when I say that religion should not force its followers to be absolutely tied to all of its tenats. As a Christian (what I assume you are, forgive me if I am not correct) or as a member of any other religion, you have your God or Gods and your customs. But do you strictly practice all aspects of your religion? Do you do everything your religion says its followers should do? Do you refrain from doing anything your religion tells its followers not to do? I am pretty sure that the answer to these questions are no. But you are still a Christian, are you not? Religion should not put a blinder on and refuse to acknowledge things if they go against one’s religion. Religion itself was a creation of man, just like any other idea or sentiment. You can believe in the God or multiple Gods that make up your religion, but practicing religion should not restrict you from being open minded. Perhaps instead of saying “personal God” I should have said “personal Religion” simply because religion is for yourself, not to please others around you. It is entirely possible if not very likely that evolution is what is really happening out there in the world, and that there was no Creator God that created man. Perhaps there was a God that created the universe and placed all the evidence for the big bang and the formation of the planets, but then let events carry on. There is no way to prove or disprove that, and there is no way that such an idea can destroy the religion you practice. Evolution and religion should not be at odds with each other, but we should be able to weave them together in a peaceful manner with open minds.

  99. RubeRad says:

    But do you strictly practice all aspects of your religion? Do you do everything your religion says its followers should do? Do you refrain from doing anything your religion tells its followers not to do? I am pretty sure that the answer to these questions are no.

    That is absolutely my goal, although I consistently fail, and that’s called sin, and that’s why I need a redeemer, and that’s why God became man and sacrificed himself and resurrected… You think my answer is “No, I do not think that I should strictly practice all aspects of Christianity”, but it’s not. My answer is “I absolutely should strictly practice all aspects of Christianity, but because I am a sinner, I don’t manage to.” Fortunately, the way Christianity works, Christ’s own righteousness is imputed to me, so even though I’m a sinner, God the Son covers me with himself to shield me from judgment, because of the faith that God the Father graciously gave me.

    Now you might whip out something like “Why don’t you sacrifice goats and sheep like the Bible clearly commands?”, but that just shows that you don’t understand that the Bible also clearly rescinds most of the Mosaic Law, because with the coming of Christ, the holy nation of Israel was dissolved. The misguided attempt to use the Mosaic Law as a template for civil governments in general is called Theonomy, and I have written more against that error on my blog than you could ever possibly be interested in reading.

    Perhaps instead of saying “personal God” I should have said “personal Religion”

    That’s my point. I’ll stop hammering you on the phrase “personal God”

    Religion itself was a creation of man

    If God doesn’t exist (as you assume), then absolutely this is true. I agree with you; all religions which are creations of man should absolutely stop pushing themselves on others, because they are WRONG. People should only submit themselves to religion which was the creation of God.

    But you have no basis on which to assert “Religion itself was a creation of man”. There are three possibilities: (1) There is no God (in which case you are correct), or (2) There is a God, but he didn’t create religion (so men created religions for themselves) (in which case you are correct), or (3) There is a God, and he created religion (in which case you are wrong). So you can’t arbitrarily assert that all religions are man-made without disproving (3)

    Is it a generally accepted Hindu belief that Hinduism is a creation of man? Would not Hindus more reasonably believe that the Hindu God(s) created Hinduism? I certainly believe that the Christian God, the only God who actually, objectively, universally exists, created Christianity.

    Also, don’t confuse “ethical system” with “religion”. Certainly there are any number of man-made ethical systems out there, but a religion is more than that, because it includes doctrines about God(s). An ethical system is only about what you should do, but a religion is also about what you should believe. It would seem that you reject the concept that a religion should tell anyone what to believe (or even what to do!)

  100. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    I disagree with you on your third possibility for the origin of religion. I suppose you could look at it in both ways, but I think that religion was not a creation of God, but a creation of man to worship that God. I don’t think that Jesus Christ forced his followers to worship him after his ressurection. Absolutely, people were compelled to worship and praise him due to his actions and miracles, but I don’t think he forced it onto the masses. In this way, I think religion, independent of the deity itself, is solely manmade.

    Also, I don’t reject the concept that religion should tell people what to believe or do, because that is what religion is! What I reject is that religion should enforce its absolute boundaries. Albino Hayford believes, in what I could grasp of his essay, that religion should, in fact, enforce itself: a Christian must fight against evolution because evolution is an idea of the devil. I am trying to say that Hayford is wrong in his beliefs, and that it is not necessary to fight evolution, but rather, to live in harmony with it and its claims.

  101. Joe says:

    Albino I see that you have still not removed this part:

    ‘REASON NUMBER ONE — EVOLUTION MAKES NO SENSE ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

    The idea of evolution is totally contrary to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You leave something by itself and it will decay over time, NOT IMPROVE! Chaos does not produce order…..EVER!!! This is silly on its face. When you ask the evolutionist, “How is that possible?”, they whip out their magic wand : ” Millions and Billions of Years ” — That fixes everything, right? Duh! You mean that over millions of years, chaos produces order, things grow and get better, and species somehow give birth to whole other species. Huh? That’s your best substitute for Creator God?’

    ^That entire part is a collection of lies, probably from drdino.com or some other funny site. The next part was an out of context quote. And

    “I’M SORRY MR. DARWIN, BUT I’M DIFFERENT FROM THE ANIMALS WE HAVE A DESIRE TO KNOW OUR CREATOR AND TO DISCOVER OUR DESTINY THAT IS UNIQUE TO HUMAN BEINGS”

    has nothing to do with evolution, and

    “ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS CAN ONLY OFFER US INSTINCT, DESPAIR AND EMPTINESS” has nothing to do with evolution either.

  102. Gregg says:

    Joe,
    How can desire not have anything to do with evolution? If you reject a creator participating in the world (even if it is only at the beginning and then it left the world to fend for itself- the divine Watchmacher theory) you must hold that all aspects of human psyche is biological in nature- including our deepest desires. Check out himan history. Our art, culture, mythology, deep seated fears and longings all point to the desire to know something greater then ourselves. You must account for this “need” in an evolutionary model.
    It is erroneous for you to claim any facet of our physiology or psychology is not directly related to our evolution.
    Albino is accurate in he belief that the atheistic world view leads to a life of, inevitable, emptiness.
    Gregg

  103. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Gregg,

    Are you saying that atheists don’t have a desire to know their origins and the desire to know a higher power then themselves? Perhaps that power is not God, but such a desire exists. Atheists believe that such a power is natural, not supernatural, in nature. This is why we have such fields as cosmology and astronomy, purely to search for the answer to the question of “where did we come from?”. We have always looked to the heavens for inspiration and answers, theists and atheists alike. The key difference is that when theists see the sky, they see God and his creations, while atheists see the scientific majesty of the universe and the mathematical certainties that govern it. To claim that an atheistic view of life leads to emptiness is erroneous itself, and such a claim is quite unfounded. An atheistic view of life leads to the same “happiness” that a theist view of life, in your opinion, would lead to. The only difference would be that atheists would rather view the universe through the lenses of science, while theists would rather view it through divine ones.

  104. RubeRad says:

    I disagree with you on your third possibility for the origin of religion.

    I know it is your personal opinion that God did not create religion, but you haven’t provided any rational basis to back up that assertion.

    I don’t think that Jesus Christ forced his followers to worship him after his ressurection.

    To quote Jesus “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” I think you don’t understand how extreme Jesus’ claims to divinity were. But then again, I would guess that you don’t believe that (if (you believed) there was a Universal God) God requires people to worship him.

    Also, I don’t reject the concept that religion should tell people what to believe or do, because that is what religion is! What I reject is that religion should enforce its absolute boundaries.

    So religion should tell people what to believe and/or do, but people shouldn’t have to believe or do it? What’s the difference? Why bother telling people what to believe or do if there is no authority behind it?

    a Christian must fight against evolution because evolution is an idea of the devil.

    From my perspective, Albino fails to separate the “science” of biology and paleontology from the naturalistic, materialistic agenda of those who use science to attack God. If you go to this blog, you will find more on the agenda of materialists, if you are interested.

  105. the forester says:

    Christianity was developed in a time where there was no evidence, not even contemplation, as to the contrary.

    Sorry, side comment here. Am I reading this assertion correctly? No one questioned Christianity during its formation? Jesus was crucified, the apostles were continually arrested and flogged, early church letters make constant references to false teachings …

    I must be reading this incorrectly. Human beings were just as sophisticated as we are today. Pontius Pilate asked, “What is truth?” Two thousand years later we’re still debating the same issue.

    Anyone who thinks human intelligence was less sophisticated in the past has no exposure to classical literature. Dig out your Aristotle.

  106. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Forester,

    You misunderstood, very gravely, what I said. I didn’t say that Christianity was fully accepted at the time it was created and that there was no resistance to it. Read from context. What I actually said was: “As far as we know, there is no other intelligence in the universe except that found on planet Earth, and Christianity was developed in a time where there was no evidence, not even contemplation, as to the contrary.” As you can see, what I really meant by these words is that the population as a whole believed that Earth was the only planet, and therefore, the only planet with life. In fact, no one knew that our planet was only one of many planets in our solar system until Gallileo Gallilei finalized the telescope some 1600 years later.

  107. the forester says:

    Ahh … I stand corrected. Thank you.

    My apologies, Shashank. Thank you for correcting me.

  108. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Hey, no problem. I took no offense.

  109. You are free in our time to say that God does not exist. You are free to say that he exists but is evil. You are free to say like some poor satirist that he would like to exist if he could. You may talk of God as a mystification or a metaphor; you may boil him down with gallons of long words or boil him down to the rags of metaphysics. It is not merely that nobody punishes you, but nobody protests. But, if you speak of God as something like a tiger, as a reason for changing ones conduct, then the modern world will stop you if it can. We are long past talking about whether an unbeliever should be punished for being irreverent, it is now thought irreverent to be a believer.

    -G.K. Chesterton

  110. Joe says:

    “‘The idea of evolution is totally contrary to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You leave something by itself and it will decay over time, NOT IMPROVE!”

    True, if you just leave something sitting there all alone.

    The important part there is “You leave something by itself”.

    Last time i checked the earth isn’t all by itself. It has constant energy being poured into it from the sun, so evolution doesn’t break any laws.

    And could you give me one example of when evolution has been discredited over and over?

  111. Hi, Joe. I would be glad to engage with you on this subject, but my summer schedule is nuts. I am out of town a lot in July and August, but I will keep checking in from time to time to see if I can give a quick answer, but my participation may not come every day during the summer.

    Joe, everthing gets old and dies, even the sun. To believe in macro evolution, you must believe that things constantly evolve and get better, and you must further believe the whopper than whole species evolve into whole other species.

    What I mean by evolution being discredited, is that, after all these years, it’s still only a theory, and, in my view, a pathetic theory of how life began. The sad thing is that it is taught in our school system as a fact, not a theory. Maybe if you scrounged up some missing links between species, you may yet save the evolutionist’s credibility problem.

    We both take leaps of faith. You believe in a random collision of gasses, billions of years ago, I believe in an intelligent, eternal Creator. I just think yours doesn’t make as much sense. Next time you look at an iphone or an hdtv, try telling those around you, “Look what nature did by accident, fellas!” They will laugh you at of the room. How much more does the design and detail in nature cry out to you of the existence of a Creator.

    Anyway, thanks for jumping in.

  112. Joe says:

    So because its a theory it is false?

    “In science, [a theory is] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

    So something that is well substantiated with over 150 years of evidence is false?

    “Joe, everthing gets old and dies, even the sun. To believe in macro evolution, you must believe that things constantly evolve and get better, and you must further believe the whopper than whole species evolve into whole other species.”

    So because everything gets old and dies, mutations can’t happen?
    Because it is a fact that they do.

  113. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Hayford,

    You can’t compare an iphone or an hdtv to the biological system called life. An iphone has nothing to do with life except that it is complicated. Life can maintain itself, while technology cannot. This is the main reason why evolution is so compelling. An iphone could have never evolved by itself because it is not living. A human being and an ape are living creatures, whose DNA can mutate and accidentally improve from generation to generation.

    Also, you cannot compare the sun dieing to humans evolving and say that these two things contradict each other for the same reason above. The sun is not living: it cannot achieve homeostasis and it is not sentient. Evolution is not intended. An ape doesn’t say “I think i’ll improve myself” and suddenly evolve into a person. Mutations that cause an organism to be able to use its environment better are what drive evolution over millions of years.

    Also, on a more technical note, life does not, in any way, violate the laws of thermodynamics. A cell or a person, which is a collection of cells, intakes food and digests it to gain more energy. Over 50% of this energy is released from the cell, or the human, as heat, which is pure entropy. Since more energy is released than is taken in, the overall entropy, or disorder, of the universe increases. This is how life does not, and cannot, violate the laws of thermodynamics.

  114. RubeRad says:

    An iphone could have never evolved by itself because it is not living.

    How can amino acids floating around in primordial soup evolve by themselves into life, if they are not already living?

  115. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    RubeRad,

    Amino acids never evolved by themselves. Amino acids and other such compounds simply followed the laws of physics and chemistry in their environment, reacted with one another and became more complex molecules. These molecules further reacted, and a certain molecule known nowadays as RNA surfaced. The genetic code had to develop before evolution could begin. Next, all of these different molecules became trapped within a phospholipid bilayer and the cell came into existence. Once DNA developed from ribosomes and nucleic acids reacting with the RNA, and the genetic code developed, the evolution that we talk about today began to occur. So, to answer your question, yes, amino acids were not living, but no, they did not evolve. They are the same today as they were billions of years ago. An iphone cannot even be compared to amino acids because it doesn’t react with other iphones to create bigger and better and more complex iphones, and it can’t be compared to DNA or RNA because it doesn’t contain a genetic code of any sorts.

  116. RubeRad says:

    Amino acids and other such compounds simply followed the laws of physics and chemistry in their environment, reacted with one another and became more complex molecules. These molecules further reacted, and a certain molecule known nowadays as RNA surfaced. The genetic code had to develop before evolution could begin.

    Sure sounds like evolution to me. And that’s a lot of hand-waving. What directed this increase in complexity towards a useful configuration of amino acids? Among all the other random configurations of amino acids, why did the ones with information (the genetic code) win?

  117. Alex says:

    Albino, are you having fun playing “ring around the rosies” with Joe and Shawshank? They are on a journey to find answers sufficient enough for their own minds. The problem is it’s a faith issue and faith makes no sense to the human mind. Take for example your own faith, you believe that when your time is up on this earth you will face a God that can’t be with sin. You have faith that although “we all have sinned and fall short” you will spend eternity in heaven ONLY because of the access that a man named Jesus Christ gave you. You believe that this Man who walked this very same earth that you and I are walking on was crucified for your sins and the sins of the whole world and then He was raised from the dead to show victory over death. Talk about not having answers. “Lucy, you have a lot of splaining to do.” So I implore you to step out of this intense game of “ring around the rosies” and come out to San Diego and get whooped up in a game of hoops for old times sake.

    Joe and Shawshank,

    You have heard the Gospel message and it was orchestarated by God himself that you would even interact with these Whacky Christians on this Blog. Just know that you are just one step closer to believing in Jesus Christ the Savior yourselves.

    Romans 10:14
    14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

    Romans 10:20

    20And Isaiah is very bold and says,
    “I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME,
    I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.”

    Joe and Shawshank, your mind (life) can only be changed by the Gospel message so search on my friends, search on.

  118. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Amino acids don’t contain genetic information. They became more complex by reacting with one another and joining together to form long polymers called proteins. RNA surfaced by chane, from nucliec acids joining together in spontaneous reactions. There was no competition between amino acids. I suggest you read this before asking me any more questions:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=cell.section.61

    This will explain in great detail what I am trying to explain to you.

  119. RubeRad says:

    That link points to “From Single Cells to Multicellular Organisms”, not “From Molecules to the First Cell”, and I can’t find a way to navigate over there (I think they want to make it hard to use the book online, so people won’t stop paying $150 for the textbook). If you have another link, I will read it, but in the meantime, I still want to point out:

    RNA surfaced by chance, from nucleic acids joining together in spontaneous reactions.

    If that was the case, then you would expect the distribution of RNA chains to have been completely uniformly scrambled, yet here we are with RNA that persists and communicates genetic information, not just random noise, and we got here somehow. Whether you want to call it a competition or not, most of the randomly-formed RNA disappeared, or stopped becoming complex (i.e. lost), while the RNA which contained genetic information turned into life (i.e. won). So what is the selective pressure, the reproductive advantage, which caused some random RNA to win and others to lose, before there was any reproductive life?

  120. Gregg says:

    Shashank,

    Sorry it took me so long to respond. I do not have ready access to the internet. Going back to a July 14th posting. I think you misunderstood what I was saying to Joe I brought up how the evolutionary model does not accurately address the immaterial aspects of the human psyche. Things like desire, asthetics, and the likes. Lets face it what and who we find physically attactive as little evolutionary value.
    Your response seems like a defense to the hope atheist expierence. Do atheist have hope? I am not qualified to say where they do or don’t.

    Gregg

  121. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Gregg,

    I agree that physical attraction is not linked to evolution in a major way, but I don’t think that you can claim, then, that physical attraction gives evidence for a Creator God. It simply means that the human psyche has evolved to view some features preferable over others. You would agree that humans are pleasure mongers. We like to have fun, in one way or another. Women find men with rock hard abs and huge arms attractive because they believe that they will get more pleasure from them, as opposed to from those with a less appealing stature, if you know what I mean. This goes the same for what kinds of women men like. Physical attraction, I believe, stems off of the need for pleasure. Although such a need might not have strict evolutionary benefits, although I have heard that happiness is generally more conducive to a healthy lifestyle than sadness, it does not necessarily point to the intervention from some Creator God.

    I was surfing some atheism links online to learn more about what atheists really believe, as I am not fully qualified to judge athiests either. I found this excerpt from a response to the argument that atheism leads to hopelessness and despair that sums up my argument very nicely:

    “To start with, it is arrogant as well as mistaken to assume that, without a belief in their god, then I must have nothing to hope for. Granted, I can’t hope for their particular idea about an afterlife, but that hardly warrants the conclusion that I have nothing to hope for or to look forward to in the future. What do I have to look forward to? Life — an enjoyable life doing the things I love and being with the people I love. Why do I live? Because of the people I love and the things I love — basically, because I enjoy life. Does it matter that, eventually, I am going to die and the life I enjoy will end? I admit that that will be unfortunate, but it doesn’t mean that doing what I enjoy now is therefore worthless. After all, every individual action I am doing will end — every good meal end, every trip to an amusement park ends, every good book ends.

    Does the fact that every moment ends and cannot be recaptured mean that, therefore, it was worthless and meaningless to experience and enjoy that moment? Not at all. There is absolutely no reason to think that the temporary nature of any particular moment or experience forces us to de-value that moment or experience — and, therefore, to also de-value all of life.

    I have no need for an afterlife, a heaven, a god, or any supernatural beliefs in order to appreciate living and take joy out of my life. For many religious theists, and for Christians in particular, it is unacceptable to think that “life on earth is all that we have.” To me, that sounds like someone who doesn’t take much joy out of their life. A person who truly enjoys and appreciates their life will take pleasure in it and enjoy it regardless of whether any sort of afterlife exists. They might believe in an afterlife and even in some sort of wonderful heaven, but they won’t depend upon the existence of such a heaven in order for their lives to have meaning or purpose. The disagreement here is thus not between theists who believe in an afterlife and atheists who do not, but rather between theists who are unable to find value in this life and everyone else — atheists as well as theists — who can.”

  122. Gregg says:

    Two thoughts.
    1) A completely agree with you in that physical attraction- while it does not have an evolutionary purpose proves (or even points to) the existence of a higher being. I was not remotely intending to make that case. I appologize if I sounded if I was. I am not sold on the attraction being associated with pleasure. Sexual gratification does not necessarily relate to the attraction of the woman. You could argue that women are attracted to strong men because they have a greater chance of protecting their off-spring, thus insuring the blood line, but why we choose hot women still seems flat. Not to mention why it changes through time and culture (but that is another point.)

    2) I also agree with you assesment of some religious people. Your statement that Christians sometimes do not take much joy in life is well founded. I would disagree with your premise that it is particular to Christians. As a Navy Chaplain, I have seen many different faith groups attempting to live out their faith, and I think too often it is more pandemic to fundamentalist across the religious spectrum. From my experience, while I believe and look forward to an after life, I also think my faith helps me fully enjoy the life I have now. regretably I think this point is lost to the fact that (presumably) you and I live in a 1st world country.
    The joy in this present life argument (both secular and sacred) is difficult based on our living in a first world country then it is a acurate description of Christians. Christians in the Sudan deeply hope in a life better then the one that thery have. Are they wrong for this hope? Is Christianity therefore a crutch and within the realm of the weak minded and cowards? I deeply hope you are not going to make that conclusion, I have lived in Africa and I have seen the strength many of these people have. So if you do make that conclusion please read Jared Diamonds book before you make that conclusion.
    Anyways have a great day and I hope to talk with y’all after I get back
    Gregg

  123. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Gregg,

    I have not come to the conclusion that Christianity is a crutch for the weak minded. I think this sentiment need not follow directly from the conclusion that atheism does not lead to hopelessness and despair. I agree that many people are able to enjoy life better because they believe in God and can hope for a wonderful afterlife, but my main point was only that atheists too can enjoy better lives after having rid themselves of the notion of God.

  124. lampoon says:

    Even if evolution appears ‘stupid’ to you, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. And how exactly do you prove evolution false by attacking atheists?

  125. Lampoon. Do you really “believe” the theory that you are the result of cosmic gasses colliding, then species evolving into other species over billions of years by random chance? I call that stupid.

    Atheists look at all the design in nature and still posit that there is no God. That makes them fools.

  126. lampoon says:

    “the theory that you are the result of cosmic gasses colliding, then species evolving into other species over billions of years by random chance?”

    Thats actually three theories, the big bang theory, abiogenesis theory, and the theory of evolution. I really doubt that you understand evolution, considering you think that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. You obviously just went to some creationist websites and copied down some old and refuted arguments. So no, you are the fool.

  127. So what do you believe, lampoon? You failed to tell us which one you think is more plausible. Let me guess: unintelligent gasses create life? (cue laugh track)

  128. Lupin says:

    I don’t think you can rule out physical attraction having an evolutionary purpose.

    1) Physical attraction for people today is largely influenced by society, so picking specific physical attractions and using them to say that physical attraction does not have an evolutionary purpose is meaningless.

    2) If a man is more attracted to physical characteristics of women that are more likely to give birth to a healthy baby that is more likely to survive, that mans genes would be more likely to survive.

    3) If a woman is more attracted to physical characteristics of men that are more likely to pass on physical abilities necessary for survival, then her genes are more likely to survive.

    Sorry to jump in on the conversation Gregg and Shashank.

  129. Lupin says:

    Albino,

    You are really trying to make things seem ridiculous by making a jump from cosmic gasses to one species evolving to another. There would have to be several processes going on in between, and models of those processes are being studied.

    I think this is a common misunderstanding in this thread. For example,

    “You can’t turn an orange into an apple as hard as you try”

    “A dog will never give birth to a cat”

    I would agree that an apple tree wouldn’t suddenly produce and orange, and a dog wouldn’t suddenly give birth to a cat. If it were to happen, it would happen slowly, maybe one mutation in the DNA at a time with natural selection occuring in between. You are looking at the beginning and the end of the process and saying, nope can’t happen.

    I haven’t written in a while. I’ll try and catch up on other topics later.

    Lupin

  130. Lupin, thanks for dropping into the blog. Listen, you are making my point for me. You said,

    “an apple tree wouldn’t SUDDENLY produce an orange, and a dog wouldn’t SUDDENLY give birth to a cat, but would happen slowly.

    You see what you are doing here? Those ideas are ridiculous, but you grabbed your magic wand — billions of years — that is supposed to make it sound reasonable. Sorry, my friend. It is STILL ridiculous. Unintelligent life cannot produce intelligent life, and species do not produce other species.

  131. Shashank Dwivedi says:

    Hayford,

    You seem to be missing a key point of evolutionary theory. This is a point that has been clarified and reworded many times previously so that you could understand it. Evolution is the process of natural selection acting over billions of years to produce a separate species. You can’t refute evolutionary theory by saying that the length of time is simply a magic wand used by evolutionists to support evolution. That’s like saying that the equation 1+1 = 2 cannot possibly be correct because the laws of mathematics are simply a magic wand employed by mathematicians to explain addition. The huge length of time is a fundamental characteristic of evolutionary theory, not just some random addition to the theory scientists pull out of nowhere to support it.

    I am going to ask you two questions, and if you don’t respond, I am going to assume you have no answer for them and no real evidence to back up your claims, and not just that you’ve refused to respond:

    Define evolutionary theory in your own words.
    Why do you believe that all of science is wrong in saying that the Earth is 4 billion years old when radioisotope dating supports such a calculation?

    Even a third grader could understand evolutionary theory when explained to him as so many people on this thread have explained to you. Yet, you still hide behind your trite arguments and previously disproved points. Why are you unwilling to see the truth and simplicity behind such basic science? Why are you so intent on eschewing the laws of the natural world to support the supposed existence of the supernatural? Do you have any hard evidence, and let me repeat, HARD EVIDENCE, for the existence of a Creator God?

  132. Lupin says:

    I should of anticipated that you were going to say this Albino. I am saying that it is ridiculous to get from an orange to an apple because it would actually take several mutations. It would most likely take one mutation at a time, with natural selection working along the way. Yes there are billions of years involved in this process. No it’s not such a ridiculous idea that people have to ‘throw in’ billions of years. It’s just a slow process.

    For the record, I think the monkeys on a type writer typing shakespeare given enough time is stupid. There is no natural selection for shakespeare.

    Also for the record, I saw someone trying to refute the watchmaker story with saying that the watch is not alive, and then he rightly got asked the question of why chemicals would associate with eachother if they are not alive. Chemicals form bonds because it is a more stable state to form those bonds. They release energy when those bonds are formed, and increase the entropy of the surroundings. The system (the chemicals) can decrease in entropy, while the surroundings are gaining more entropy. The entropy of the universe still beceomes greater. The watch has no energetic reason for the parts to assemble, so it does not. In addition, the macroscopic watch parts have no kinetic energy as a whole, but the chemicals are slamming into eachother constantly, with enough energy to react.

    The watchmaker example is completely unrelated to evolution, and is kept around to confuse people, just like saying that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.

    I though I made it vey clear before why the laws of thermodynamics are not broken by evolution, yet you have not removed the false information from you website. You are propagating lies, which is downright wrong.

    So you can continue ridiculing people who accept evolution as a scientific theory, or you can take an honest look at whether you doing something evil to achieve something which you think is good. You are lying to make people think science is ridiculous and therefore make them believe in God. Why lie? You don’t have to lie about whether or not evolution is science to follow God.

  133. Lupin says:

    Sorry about the double post.

    You can look at the world and see beautiful things, and think that they must be designed by a Creator. You can look at the human race created in God’s likeness and be in awe of his power.

    You can also look at the world and see the beautiful and amazing changes that random mutations caused, and natural selection kept. You can study the human race to find out why certain traits of ours were selected.

    I don’t believe having either of these thoughts is stupid. I think this constant attacking of oneanother achieves nothing, except for give politicians something to pick up a few votes on.

    The only reason I started in on this debate was because scientific theories are being misrepresented, and there is advocation for interfering with science being taught in the classroom. That would be a tragedy.

  134. Lupin says:

    That was a response to the Lampoon/Albino discussion. Let me know what you think.

  135. Lupin says:

    Sorry one more.

    Gregg and others have been talking about evidence that suggests that molecules are the result of The Big Bang, and all of the energy and matter were compiled into an infintesimal spot that exploded to give the universe. There is cosistent evidence for the Big Bang theory. Before I get replies about whether this has been ABSOLUTELY proved… it has not. If there is scientific evidence that does not agree with the Big Bang then the theory will have to be modified or discarded…and scientists accept that.

    Now people like to say where did that singularity (the infitesimally small matter and energy) come from? Then they say God must have put it there. But, you are assuming that the universe must have a beginning. That the universe began when that matter-energy was ‘put there’. You ask questions like ‘where did those gasses come from?’, thinking that since there is not an answer, God must have done it. This is a dangerous game to play. The God-of-Gaps idea seems tempting, but really there is no reason to say God started the universe. You can see how one could come to that conclusion, but you don’t have too, and it requires a step out of what we know about the physical world in order to do so. So you are believing in God. People who don’t believe in God don’t have to have ‘much more faith’ as people like to say, they just have to be alright with saying they don’t know when they don’t know.

  136. okiedokie says:

    “..we teach the lie of evolution as a fact,..”

    First off evolution isn’t a lie, there is not even debate within the scientific community on whether it is or isn’t a “lie”.

    “..and don’t bother talking about creation”

    Its called separation of church and state, it’s a good thing they don’t teach Christianity in schools.

  137. Alex says:

    Albino,

    I just received word of a new documentary film on Evolution coming out next February that looks real interesting. The film is called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”

    http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

    Can’t wait to see it!!!

  138. mirza says:

    http://www.evolutionisstupid.com/

    btw, shashank, do YOU have any HARD evidence for evolution?! no you don’t sir! as far as i am concerned, life is enough of a proof for a designer…

    you evolutionists, trying to show us how smart you are by not beliving in “mythis and old ideas”, but with your idiot theory of evolution, you just proved the opposite!

  139. Ishy says:

    All I can get from this is “I don’t understand science, so it must be magic.”

  140. Charles Nickalpoulos says:

    One reason the public school teachers like this evolution theory, is because they
    feel they will have to give NO account to any one. If they thought they were going to be judged by a higher power, they would be afraid to teach it.

    All the public school teachers have to do mostly is show up for “work”, but of
    course they know that, better than I do. The teachers union will see they get
    paid, regardless.

  141. Charles Nickalpoulos says:

    The people that believe in evolution, are like a little mouse that is trying to one last squeak in before the cat gets it.

  142. Garrett Oden says:

    Very nice article!

    You are a talented writer.

  143. Mad Bluebird says:

    As someone who has a interest in birds i refuse to ecept the rediculous idea that they came from reptiles and are the direct decendents of dinosours what kind of stupid muttonheaded idea is that? they idea that feathers are modified scales is absolutly stupid and the fact that NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC has not only lied about evolution but were cuaght back in NOV 1999 of using a fake to try and link birds and dinosours and why else did hitler target the jews BLAME IT ON DARWIN and for RICHARD DAWKINS to arrogantly call all those who belive in CREATION and INTELLEGENT DESIGN as stupid WELL HE HAS JUST INSULTED SOME TO SCIECES GREATEST MOVERS AND SHAKERS LIKE ISSAC NEWTON and LOUIE PASTURE but what else can one ever expect from a ignorant arrogant patheic atheists fool

  144. Mad Bluebird says:

    In a more recent issue of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC they reproduced HEINKLES phonie embryo drawings i mean call it NATIONAL GEOGRAFAKE

  145. zola says:

    Are you guys retarded or something? You’re trying to say science isn’t here. Yeah some guy made it clear that god is real by writing in a note book called the bible as a practical joke and all of you believe it. Now I don’t know what happens after I die, but you can’t bring yourself enlightenment from just idling “Him”. As for evolution, did you think god just zapped us and made us change. Took some clay, and said there that’s a human. Did “the holy one” also put cells in us, and a nucleus in those cells, or do you think that’s all bull to. You know, I think you need to stop going to church because you’ve actually just been brainwashed your whole lives and I haven’t. I mean, that must be why you all sound like such idiots, otherwise I’ve got to say…… By the way I am an atheist.

    “..we teach the lie of evolution as a fact,..”
    First off evolution isn’t a lie, there is not even debate within the scientific community on whether it is or isn’t a “lie”.
    “..and don’t bother talking about creation”
    Its called separation of church and state, it’s a good thing they don’t teach Christianity in schools.

    Who ever wrote that give yourself a hand.

  146. zola says:

    —-Note to Albino Hayford——

    Ok, even if you argue that you aren’t a fool for believing in the “all so mighty lord”, your still a horrible person. You support Christianity, the ones you locked the Jewish in a concentration camps. That’s like supporting the KKK.

  147. zola says:

    —-Note to Albino Hayford——

    Ok, even if you argue that you aren’t a fool for believing in the “all so mighty lord”, your still a horrible person. You support Christianity, the ones you locked the Jewish in concentration camps. That’s like supporting the KKK.

    • anonymous says:

      Well, if it isn’t fuckzolass? Everyone whom believes evolution, believes that 1+1=3, and spagetti evolved into Nintendo DSi, and apes evolved into people. RETARDED! DUH!

    • anonymous says:

      I just realized, I shouldn’t say your ****, but say one thing… God has told me this right now… you’ve seen God’s power… you know that the creation of the earth is true, but you’re not willing to accept the truth!! …

  148. Flu-Bird says:

    The harmful effects of EVOLUTION can be traced to whats cuased racsim,and why HITLER persicuted the JEWS and in a propeantic way which is why we have racism BLAME IT ALL ON DARWIN and the facts that later even he had some doubts about it all and the late CARL SAGAN was lying when he claims evolution is a proven fact

  149. Shep says:

    Anyone who believes Darwin caused Hitler to initiate genocide is a sick and twisted individual, Hitler was raised a Catholic ( what wonderful morals the church instills amongst it’s followers) , I must also be mistaken about the Catholic church and their numerous crusades to kill the infidels in Jerusalem and also about the slave trade. The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply for closed systems, so be quiet. To the fool that talked about Isaac Newton and Pasteur , learn to spell their names. Shashank quite clearly does have hard evidence and if any of you uneducated fools actually read “on the origin of species” you might understand what evolution refers to. Those against evolution don’t know what it is, and so I would appreciate if they stayed quiet until they do. What does the Big Bang theory have to do with evolution? It has very little relevance to it and certainly doesn’t disprove it. Also the fact it takes time for something to happen IS important , you see a man at the bottom of a hill, and then a picture of him at the top of the hill. Surely he can’t have spent time walking up this hill step by step? No don’t be ludicrous! Time obviously is of no importance… You seem to think atheists are evil amoral demons intent on destroying Christianity? I have morals, they come from my society not a religious group, I am not evil and I detest your ignorance and stupidity. Nothing in this article disproves evolution it is just an assault on atheism, atheism has no relevance to evolution and this article’s sources are completely unrelated to the subject it is about. ” that apple is green therefore my shoes are too big for me”, this is effectively your argument.

    • anonymous says:

      YOUR a fool, you fucking Shep bitch homosexual. :)

      • anonymous says:

        Anonymous: Sooo… I ‘dmit ‘wuz acting a-kinda angry, there. Sorry. :(

        Shep: Kinda angry!?

        Anonymous: Okey dokey, I’m a goin’, then. LOL

        (Note: So now EVERYTHING labeled, “Hey, I’m a lie, I’m not true. >:D” IS right? Like, Cukoovolution for instance?)

  150. anonymous says:

    And we all know evolution matches with cinderella, and other dumbass fairytales like, Raponzel! Oh! Her hair evolved into super-long hair! LOL LOL LOL! Everyone whom believes Damnevoloution, is a… fool. You heard me, gay athiests (I’m talkin’ ta you, zola!)!

  151. anonymous says:

    Assthiests are like, retarded! Bet some people even pretend they believe in evolution, just ’cause they hafta! I wouldn’t be glad to hear my wii evolved from stone! My friends at school even laugh at foolish, retarded, damnass, CHILDISH evolution! PLEEEEASE! Doesn’t anyone notice they’ve gone a bit too far with Darwin’s JOKE? Soon, it’ll be almost all religions and christians against athiests and boodists and muslims! Fighter planes shooting inocent dude’s houses! Tanks echoing the sound of explosions those echoes going into frightened and inocent children’s ears! Shooting if you don’t believe in this or that! Evofucktion is, foolish, and evil! (10,000 people applause 1/2 of them with joyful tears in their eyes)

  152. Mad Bluebird says:

    Atheists evolutionists RICHARD DAWKINS said that anyone who beleives in INTELLEGENT DESIGN and CREATION are stupid FINE THING DAWKINS you have insulted some of sciences greatest movers and shakers like ISSAC NEWTON and LOUIS PASTURE but he is oviuos one of those arrogant types walking around with blinders on until oneday perhaps some chimp will bean him with a coconut

  153. Ana says:

    So no evolution right? Now you will say that Christianity is the only religion? I am a Christian myself, but I am NOT blind. And, whatever you say after this, I am a Christian and not you or any of your friends can’t say the opposite.

  154. Birdzilla says:

    Evolution is one of the reasons behind RACSISM and why HITLER presucuted the JEWS becuase hitler belived in EVOLUTION and his superiour ARIAN RACE

  155. east sussex designers…

    [...]Evolution is Stupid & Dangerous « Word to the Wise[...]…

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: