Can an atheist understand this logic.Or tell me if I am wrong.
By
on
April 29th, 2009
There is so much irrefutable evidence of design in molecular machinery of life that it’s a mystery to me how so many biology professors can cling to the belief that it all “just happenned”.
When I have asked them for evidence of certain aspects of evolutionary dogma, the best answer I’ve gotten is “Well, we just have to assume that’s the way it happened.” Science isn’t about assumptions; it’s about empirical and experimental evidence. Over and over again, I was asked to believe things for which no evidence existed, and which no experiment ever backed up.
On the other hand, evidence of a creator many orders of magnitude more intelligent than the greatest human geniuses is everywhere you look in nature. The more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about its wondrous complexity, the more the idea that this could be nothing more than the outcome of a random process becomes more and more ridiculous. Physical systems don’t grow in complexity, they don’t accumulate information, they do the opposite.
It couldn’t have happened as the atheists’ theory would have it.
The far more plausible theory is that the information, the BLUEPRINT was present at the beginning.
If you walk into my kitchen and a pot of water is boiling, WHY is it boiling. Science answers partially, with water temperature, etc., but the more meaningful reason is I want a cup of tea, which science misses completely, So also, science misses God completely, and to often, intentionally.
Scientists have spent the past 30 or 40 years trying to induce evolution in fruit flies, whose life cycle is very short. 40 years later, and tens of thousands of generations later, scientists have produced fruit flies with slighlty longer legs, or slightly darker color, but so far all that has been produced are FRUIT FLIES. Forget about turning a fruit fly into a giraffe, ovbiously that would take millions of generations. They haven’t been able to turn a fruit fly into a mosquito.
mememememe says:
SUMMARIZE IT INTO ONE WORD
April 29th, 2009 at 5:06 am
neil s says:
See “argument from incredulity”. There is no logic here.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Nowpower says:
Read the material.
We’ll wait.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:37 am
magpieix A.L.M.N. says:
You’re wrong.
Anything else I can do for you.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Amber says:
“but the more meaningful reason is I want a cup of tea”
You can want a cup of tea all you want, it’s not going to happen until you boil the water and put in the tea bag.
Not to mention that nearly everything else you said is incorrect as well.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:51 am
It’s so clear now! says:
The idea of strict objectivity in intellectual circles is a myth. While most scholars like to think of themselves as broad-minded, unprejudiced paragons of virtue, the fact is that they, too, on occasion, suffer from bouts of bias, bigotry, and presuppositionalism.
Narcissism & egos overrun the scientific world.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:47 am
deacon666smirk says:
You are wrong, and for this reason: There is ABSOLUTELY NO credible, verifiable, tangible, concrete or irrefutable evidence that supports the existence of any ‘god’. If you think differently, present that evidence to this forum. We’re waiting.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Bella C <3 v3.0 says:
ugh, for the last time I’m an atheist, NOT a molecular biologist. So naturally, I cannot answer your biology questions. But there are people who can.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Andrew says:
Fruit flies can’t turn into already existing species.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:02 am
HeRmiT says:
Read
Evolution for Wingnuts
April 29th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Prometheus Unbound says:
Your assessment of molecular biology is wrong. But just playing along, if simple one celled organisms are too complex to have not been created, how incredibly more complex the God who created them is. Well who created this complex god. And the standard creationist answer that god is “eternal, outside space and time, the uncreated creator” are all just meaningless cop-outs. Your scientific outlook is clouded by your pre-determined dogmatic religious beliefs.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
AuroraDawn says:
You are the one with the bad logic. You believe in a creator because you were taught to believe it, not because of any evidence, and then you discredit true science so as not to burst your own bubble. Grow up and get an education in science for crying out loud. The whole world is on the side of science. Don’t you feel embarrassed.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
T.V. is a Mind Control Box says:
The new world order needs to rid religion so communism can reign, this is why all UNIONS are pro commie, including the schools, media, entertainment, etc. (anti christ)
April 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Desiree says:
There are too many assertions in there for it to be taken seriously.”.evidence of a creator many orders of magnitude more intelligent than the greatest human geniuses is everywhere you look in nature.””Over and over again, I was asked to believe things for which no evidence existed, and which no experiment ever backed up.”
These are just dumbass assertions. See, you’ve got to look out for these before you take any argument seriously. Good scientists don’t assert anything without evidence. Bad scientists and religious people assert all sorts of things like gods, demons, virgin births, afterlife scenarios, etc, etc.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Sin ‘jari Secular pirate P3D says:
This stinks of the argument from incredulity.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Daniel S says:
You say it would take millions of generations to turn a fruit fly into a giraffe. evolutionists agree completely. Billions of years is plenty of time for millions of generations.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Searider Falcon says:
Science can and does answer the “how” of it all. But science doesn’t answer the “why”.
To answer that question we invented religion and discovered logic.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
emfederin says:
You wasted 5 points on THIS.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Seth says:
If you are so big into science, give me solid proof god exists, saying that the complexity of the universe is reason enough does not cut it. You are being hypocritical in saying that scientists and atheists assume when you are doing the very same. It is not more plausible that we were created, it is more plausible that over hundreds of millions of years, organisms mutated, adapted, and evolved to new environments in order to survive. God has no place in modern science because modern science did not exist when god was created by man.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
ethericat says:
There is so much irrefutable evidence of design in molecular machinery of life that it’s a mystery to me how so many biology professors can cling to the belief that it all “just happenned”.
Stopped reading here. You are an idiot.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
neil h says:
LOL
There is no god. All gods are imaginary.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
n00b_c0der says:
Simple. The evidence is open to interpretation by both sides. Believe what you want. It’s not like it’s gonna kill someone to be wrong about how life came to be. And honestly, you really wanna know. Go back in time and watch it for yourself. Assuming, of course, that the concept of time is not an illusion.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Huh? says:
Your wrong. Your logic is flawed, and creationism or ID is not science or even remotely logical. There is not a single piece of scientific evidence supporting a creator as you have claimed.
Also your water boiling argument is also nonsense.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Religulous Amanda says:
Adaptation causes changes in species - without changing the environment - like say, shifting techtonic plates, one of your creator’s “wonderful complexities” - there is no reason to assume a species will need to adapt differently.
And so as far as your Biblical view is concerned - where in it’s pages does it tell you how to make a cup of tea - or for that matter, even boil water.
And finally, there is NO CONSPIRACY amongst scientists to discount the existance of a God - there is simply no way to test scientifically for a divine being, especially if said being only moves in “mysterious ways”, which may be acceptable to the superstitious or the intuitive, but holds no “water” in the realm of the scientific methodology.
If you are truly interested, and not just copying some creationist/ID notes out of a self-published piece of psuedo-science garbage you found on the back table of your local evangelical church, please check out THE DNA OF REALITY: SUPERSTRING THEORY by Prof. S. James Gates, Jr in a course put out by the Teaching Company
(somehow, I don’t think you really are interested though - you seem to be unable to understand that even if you did somehow prove a diety, it would hardly be the diety of Christianity, which I believe is really at the heart of your attack on the scientific community
April 29th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Dr. Pansophical says:
You’re wrong. I find it amusing that you always present these gotcha questions which are inherently fallacious. We all know that you, Bilbo, love to present the argument from incredulity fallacy. But I love a challenge.
Probability dictates that the chances of our universe existing in its current state is the same probability of it existing in virtually any state. Your assertion is a fallacy.
Abiogenesis is not always included in the model of Evolution but it has been demonstrated that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be created from nonliving material.
Natural selection does not occur in species who do not demonstrate the need to necessitate change.
Feel free to google any of the above and learn something.
Anymore questions.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
O says:
Ill skip the bulk because there’s no point in talking about it, I can’t prove you wrong but you can’t prove me wrong ether. With regard to the fruit flys evolution would only create a slightly better fruit fly it wouldn’t turn it into a tiger or an elephant.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
duke_of_urls says:
It isn’t logic. It’s wishful thinking mixed with a lack of being able to conceive hundreds of millions of years of time.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Shawn B says:
You’re absolutely wrong and cutting and pasting from creationist sites not only showcases their ignorance, but yours as well.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:57 am
lhikanliveson says:
They’ve made actual progress with the damn flies. They’ve pushed them along the way into actual evolution. All that’s needed is an environmental factor that makes rare traits common (for example, the elimination of many flies without the traits, or an environmental factor that gives flies with the traits a survival advantage over flies without the traits).
Science isn’t just about empirical/experimental evidence. Part of it is extrapolating further information from what you have learned through experiments with logical reasoning and the occasional educated guess.
Why is it somehow more plausible that there is a plan than that there isn’t one. You use your water pot deal as a reconstruction of the watchmaker argument. A common argument I’ve seen for intelligent design is that if one were to see a watch, would one assume that the watch was always like that, or would one assume it had been made by something with intelligence.
The argument then continues on to say that one would of course believe the watch had been made by someone, and then goes on to suggest that complex things have designers.
I now offer a counter-argument: Show a watch to an infant that just gained speaking ability. Ask the child where he thinks the watch came from. He won’t tell you he thinks that the watch was made by someone. He’ll tell you he doesn’t know.
The reason the watchmaker argument falls apart is that people already know ahead of time that watches are the sort of thing that is made by people, but they have to be informed of this.
If you were walking and you found a pine cone, would you assume that something intelligent had crafted the pine cone, or would you assume it had grown naturally. A pine cone is a very complex thing, almost as complex as a watch (the watch has moving parts, so it just barely edges the pine cone out), what with its vascular tissue and such. Surely, something complex must be the work of a designer, right. Wrong. The pine cone fell off of that tree over there, where it originally grew.
Is it not enough to simply think that the lake is beautiful. Must you believe that a magical fairy made it so.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:31 am
jpryst says:
A friend recently told me this:
A group of Atheists show up before God and say, “Hey, we’ve got it all figured out how you did that stuff in the Bible making man out of clay and all and we can even prove it to you. You game.” And God says, “Sure.” And the Atheists say, “Great. Now, all we need is some earth and some.” And God says, “Woah, hold on there. Make your own earth. Then we’ll talk.”
I’m not a Christian and I don’t believe in the Christian God as He’s presented in the Bible but I do believe that the deity I have faith in is the same one the Bible tries to represent. I just so sincerely wish that Christians would not present themselves as such morons quoting scripture as though it is self-evident. At least here you’re making an attempt at rational discourse. All the best to you.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:22 am
façade says:
Ah, the wondrous miracles of Nature. Yes, the hand of the great god Cernunos is to be seen everywhere we look. And the womb of the Goddess as well. But above all else, remember that you do not need a tea bag to make a pulchritudinous cup of tea, as long as you have loose tea leaves readily available.
(I.e., yes, you have made an error in logic.)
Scientists, like all people, seek knowledge and understanding based on what we can detect. No one claims to have all the answers all the time. But we do not become so overwhelmed by the beauty that we throw up our hands and say. “Well, it is beyond us.”. Instead we keep searching. Do not give up your search for truth and beauty; you can have both. Take care.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:13 am
valcus43 says:
You’re wrong.
You don’t have a clue.
Start at the beginning with “epistemology” or how a person knows something.
What epistemology is in your noggin.
Let’s just suppose that science is simply a method of knowing things and it requires evidence. Then let’s suppose that there are disagreements over what is real or not. How do you suppose scientists are going to resolve the disagreement. Do you think they will kill each other. Noooo. Each of the contending parties will launch a massive inquiry for more substantiating data and the team that has the best data as judged by the community of well educated scientists will win the argument TEMPORARILY. If the other team keeps on working and discovers some other evidence, some experiment that is replicable, their ideas come out on top. In the mean time, the practical folks, the engineers, use scientific discoveries to invent iPods and new drugs.
Religion on the other hand was created by pedophiles who gathered in Nicaea and picked and chose which fictional gospel best suited their needs, went home and scared the crap out of people and asked them to pay ten percent and let the priests play with their children. OR if you are from Mexico, let the priests kill someone each day to make sure the sun rises.
Again, you are wrong. But don’t let that stop you from believing the preposterous.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:03 am