There is no God !!!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
One. It's belief, not beleif. Fool.

Two. Creationists don't tend to back their stuff up. I have written copiously on these forums regarding evolution. Read my posts.

Three. There are no discrepancies between evolutionary theory and molecular biology or any other part of biological theory. Without evolutionary theory basically all our unde y one of your objections countless times, hence my request for you to stop wasting mine.

One. If it pleases you to disrespect me by making fun of a few mispelled words then that is your business I guess. What are you my grammer teacher?

Two. Have you ever heard of the theory of spontaneous generation. And he calls me a dimwit. Educate yourself on this web site.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html

It was disproved by a man named Francesco Redi by showing that flies did not evolve from rotting meat.

Three. The whole song and dance about not having enough time and money to create life in a lab seems nothing more than a huge cop out in my view. Evolution is much like the theory of spontaneous generation but is harder to disprove.


Four. Has any one noticed something here. This site is suppose to be a sprituality forum is it not? Why are all of these evolutionists here to pester us? I can understand if a person believes in both evolution and God as to why they would post on this site.

Five. Who is the bigger fool? One who mispells a few words every now and then accidentally or one who says in his heart there is no God with all of the evidence that is around us that says there is a God?

Originally posted by whodey
One. If it pleases you to disrespect me by making fun of a few mispelled words then that is your business I guess. What are you my grammer teacher?

Two. Have you ever heard of the theory of spontaneous generation. And he calls me a dimwit. Educate yourself on this web site.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html

It ...[text shortened]... n his heart there is no God with all of the evidence that is around us that says there is a God?

2) Now you've claimed that as early as 100 years ago scientists believed "flies evolved from refuse," citing spontaneous generation as evidence of this claim. You even linked us to a nice web page detailing the history of this idea. Oddly enough, if you bother to read what the site says, you'll find that your dates are way off. Francesco Redi, for example, lived over 300 years ago. In fact, according to the site [t]he theory of spontaneous generation was finally laid to rest in 1859 by the young French chemist, Louis Pasteur.. That's well over 100 years ago, and perhaps most remarkable of all, it's the same year that Origin of Species was published! If spontaneous generation was "laid to rest" in 1859, the same year the theory of evolution was published, how could scientists use it to claim that flies evolved from refuse?

3) Why is it a song and dance? There are myriad experiments in all sorts of fields that just require too much time, money, or computational power to achieve right now. Creating life in a lab from non-organic materials is not like making a vinegar/baking soda volcano. It is extremely challenging and costly. What your doing here is on the same level as denying spectroscopy and then demanding that astronomers instead fly a space ship to Rigel and collect some of it as evidence.

4) As far as I can tell, you were the first person to bring up evolution in this thread. Go back and check out page 8.

5) I'm not one to quibble about spelling errors, but it's certainly not obvious that denying the existence of God (here I believe you mean your particular ancient Hebrew deity) makes some one a fool. If there is anything that makes some one look silly, I think you must have committed it in your post.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

Wow, have you got an ego!
If you think you know more than Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Jed Macosko, Scott Minnish, Paul Nelson and Johnathan then I strongly suggest you write a book and disprove their arguments. I myself am only qualified to report what these scientists have worked on for decades.

Even if he had proof, it would only prove life is irreducibly complex now.
So that argument works against his proof but not yours? Where is your proof of what that Rubisco wasn't big and complex when life began? I don't want a hypothesis here, I want the actual scientific proof your so sure of.

Now I appreciate that much of what I've said is contentious, and may never be proved or disproved
You hypocrit. You have as much faith in your science as I do in God, and yet you condemn me for mine and praise yourself for yours.

Science is SUPPOSE to be the exploration of the world around us in an unbiased fashion. We draw our conclusions from what we deduce in our examinations. Your position excludes God out of hand, simply because you don't want to accept it as a possibility. That's fine as a personal opinon, but don't give us this bunk about it being science. It's not. True science does not exclude possible causes. It's a process that examines the world around us and learns from it. To exclude something as a possible cause with no direct evidence against it isn't science.

DF

Originally posted by whodey
One. If it pleases you to disrespect me by making fun of a few mispelled words then that is your business I guess. What are you my grammer teacher?

Two. Have you ever heard of the theory of spontaneous generation. And he calls me a dimwit. Educate yourself on this web site.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html

It ...[text shortened]... n his heart there is no God with all of the evidence that is around us that says there is a God?

Personally I'd say the bigger fool is the one who misspells the word 'belief', of which he believes himself to be so strong in, in the same way every single time in his post.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
Wow, have you got an ego!
If you think you know more than Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Jed Macosko, Scott Minnish, Paul Nelson and Johnathan then I strongly suggest you write a book and disprove their arguments. I myself am only qualified to report what these scientists have worked on for decades.

[b]Even if he had ...[text shortened]... e something as a possible cause with no direct evidence against it isn't science.

DF

I believe Behe et al. are trying to argue their point. However, they use the old creationist / ID arguments, dressed up in some fancy maths to try and 'prove' their point. Problem is, most of their assumptions have been shown to be wrong. I don't need to write a book on the subject - there are many excellent tomes out there on the subject, such as 'The seflish gene' or 'Blind watchmaker' by Dawkins, 'Bully for brontosaurus' by the late Stephen Jay Gould, 'What evolution is' by Ernst Mayr, 'Evolution' by Mark Ridley, 'The red queen' by Matt Ridley or 'Speciation' by Coyne & Orr, amongst many others.

"So that argument works against his proof but not yours? Where is your proof of what that Rubisco wasn't big and complex when life began? I don't want a hypothesis here, I want the actual scientific proof your so sure of."

I will freely admit that nowadays Rubisco amongst many other things could not be simplified without either losing biological function or resulting in severe problems for the organism. I also stated that Rubisco (as well as life) evolved when the selection pressure was much lower than it is today. It's all a question of time scales. I said it's like an arms race. Well, developing the cross bow when your enemies have submachine guns or nuclear weapons won't keep you safe. In the same way, the modern world's niches are so full of life it's almost impossible for there to be great variation in life strategies (within niches). Still, a nice big extinction event will free up alot of niches, reduce selection pressure (so that organisms with adaptations that would not otherwise survive can live and pass on their genes too, hence introducing and increasing genetic and physiological variation within the population) and lead to greater diversity. Worked when the Yacatan meteorite hit 65 million years ago. Up until then the largest mammals were the size of rats.

The difference between science and religion is the ability to prove things. I can't show you the evolution of Rubisco, but I can demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution, and show the evolution of new strains and new proteins in, for example, bacteria, or the avian flu. I can prove the mechanism - you cannot prove god.

I exclude god from my explanations because it is more parsimonious to do so in the absence of any evidence of gods existance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by whodey
One. If it pleases you to disrespect me by making fun of a few mispelled words then that is your business I guess. What are you my grammer teacher?

Two. Have you ever heard of the theory of spontaneous generation. And he calls me a dimwit. Educate yourself on this web site.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html

It ...[text shortened]... n his heart there is no God with all of the evidence that is around us that says there is a God?

Oh, and essentially spontaneous generation was dead by 1668.

The first serious attack on the idea of spontaneous generation was made in 1668 by Francesco Redi, an Italian physician and poet. At that time, it was widely held that maggots arose spontaneously in rotting meat. Redi believed that maggots developed from eggs laid by flies. To test his hypothesis, he set out meat in a variety of flasks, some open to the air, some sealed completely, and others covered with gauze. As he had expected, maggots appeared only in the open flasks in which the flies could reach the meat and lay their eggs.

Ironically, it was a priest (Needham), not a scientist, who chose to try and prove it.

1668, or even 1859 (when, as Telerion rightly points out, Pasteur nailed that coffin shut) may be only 100 years ago in your world, but in my world it's 2006.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
Wow, have you got an ego!
If you think you know more than Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Jed Macosko, Scott Minnish, Paul Nelson and Johnathan then I strongly suggest you write a book and disprove their arguments. I myself am only qualified to report what these scientists have worked on for decades.

[b]Even if he had e something as a possible cause with no direct evidence against it isn't science.

DF[/b]

I know you like a lot of what the Discovery Institute tells you, but you really shouldn't be overawed with their titles.

Michael Behe received his title by publishing articles on topics NOT related to Intelligent Design. There is a disclaimer on the department webpage at Lehigh University where he is employed that makes it very clear that no one else in his department supports his ideas on ID. None of his colleagues is impressed with his pet ideas that he publishes in the popular press. Just off hand, you know that he accepts that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor right?

Stephen Meyer is a philosopher in the School of Ministry at Palm Beach Atlantic University. While he degree is in History and Philosophy of Science, Meyer is in no way a scientist.

Phillip E. Johnson, while possessing a stellar education in law, has no degree in biology or any other science. His central role in the ID movement perhaps best points to the foundation of the argument, where science is replaced with verbal legerdemain.

William Dembski is a mathematician and theologian. I've read some of his recent popular articles (He does not produce academic papers.), and as some one who has been formally trained at the graduate level in probability and statistics, I can confidently say that his math is quackery. From what I've heard, the few math departments that have invited him out to speak in recent years have discovered as much as well.

I had never Jed Macosko. I found one in the Physics Department of Wake Forest. Is this the person of whom you write?

Scott Minnish is a professor at the University of Idaho. While he has published enough articles in microbiology to attain the title of associate professor and publically supports Behe's irreducible complexity assertion, none of his published academic work is on ID.

Paul Nelson was new to me as well. He also holds a degree in philosophy and apparently has only found employment in a special interest think tank.

I assume your last reference is to Jonathan Wells. He has a PhD in theology and molecular biology. From what I've heard of him, he actually entered graduate school to learn how to combat evolution (I see that wikipedia confirms this.). Not exactly the sort of person you want to learn the TOE from.

Please do not misconstrue these profiles as a fallacious defense of evolution. The point is that while in the circles that eat their pseudoscience up, these men are considered quite ingenious (The DI loves to refer to Dembski as the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" despite his obscurity in the literature of the field). Few of them have any reputation in academia for their non-religious work, and their books on Intelligent Design have only gained them infamy among their colleagues. Your attempt to promote your creationism with arguments from authority is not only fallacious as a general principle, but moreover, in this specific case, it also lacks any 'authority' from which to begin.

So quite honestly, yes, scotty is quite likely more knowledgeable of evolution than any one of those people you listed.

As for including God as a hypothesis, when you can describe God, find a way to scientifically test God, and can make verifiable predictions from God, then I'll be all ears.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I exclude god from my explanations because it is more parsimonious to do so in the absence of any evidence of gods existance. Nothing more, nothing less.[/b]

You say there is no God based on lack of evidence, but you deny any evidence that might lead you to Him. Your mind is set and you dismiss anything outside of your conclusion as either bunk or creationist arguments. You avoid any input suggesting God while happily putting your faith in the theory that an enzyme wasn't always as it is today.
Your faith is in science and it's strong. And you reject anything that threatens it.
There is more to life than what can be measured in a lab. Love, for example. I hope you learn that some day.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
You say there is no God based on lack of evidence, but you deny any evidence that might lead you to Him. Your mind is set and you dismiss anything outside of your conclusion as either bunk or creationist arguments. You avoid any input suggesting God while happily putting your faith in the theory that an enzyme wasn't always as it is today.
Your faith ...[text shortened]... e than what can be measured in a lab. Love, for example. I hope you learn that some day.

DF

Mis-quoting me here. I personally do not believe in god, but i never said 'there is no god because there is no evidence'. My position as a scientist on god is this 'there is no evidence, so there is no evidence'. It cannot be told. Parsimony implies there is no god, but without definitive proof (either way) we cannot tell. On the physical world and the things in it, I will accept only arguments grounded in reason, either logic, or verifiable evidence based arguments. I will not accept the mentality that we cannot or should not know.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
You say there is no God based on lack of evidence, but you deny any evidence that might lead you to Him. Your mind is set and you dismiss anything outside of your conclusion as either bunk or creationist arguments. You avoid any input suggesting God while happily putting your faith in the theory that an enzyme wasn't always as it is today.
Your faith ...[text shortened]... e than what can be measured in a lab. Love, for example. I hope you learn that some day.

DF

The problem isn't that there is no evidence. The problem, from a scientific perspective, is that ANY state of the world can be made consistent with an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural Creator. The natural world's being as it is then is uninformative.

As a challenge, can you think of anything we could discover about nature that could not be made consistent with God? I'm speaking hypothetically here, so feel free to use your imagination when coming up with a hypothetical discovery.

Originally posted by telerion
The problem isn't that there is no evidence. The problem, from a scientific perspective, is that ANY state of the world can be made consistent with an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural Creator. The natural world's being as it is then is uninformative.

As a challenge, can you think of anything we could discover about nature that could not be made c ally here, so feel free to use your imagination when coming up with a hypothetical discovery.

How can you call it evidence if it has no informative value?

Originally posted by whodey
One. If it pleases you to disrespect me by making fun of a few mispelled words then that is your business I guess. What are you my grammer teacher?

Two. Have you ever heard of the theory of spontaneous generation. And he calls me a dimwit. Educate yourself on this web site.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html

It ...[text shortened]... n his heart there is no God with all of the evidence that is around us that says there is a God?

Four. Has any one noticed something here. This site is suppose to be a sprituality forum is it not? Why are all of these evolutionists here to pester us? I can understand if a person believes in both evolution and God as to why they would post on this site.

Because parts of evolution are beliefs nothing more, they have as
right to be here as anyone else.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Four. Has any one noticed something here. This site is suppose to be a sprituality forum is it not? Why are all of these evolutionists here to pester us? I can understand if a person believes in both evolution and God as to why they would post on this site.

Because parts of evolution are beliefs nothing more, they have as
right to be here as anyone else.
Kelly[/b]

We put no faith in it, though.

Originally posted by Palynka
We put no faith in it, though.

not true

Originally posted by KellyJay
not true

How do you know?