Atheism

[Panthera tigris FC]

This is probably a decent example, if you can beleive Dawkins is actually capable of answering the question posed which it seems reasonable to assume he is given he discusses it at length in one of his books.

"In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realizing that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to ‘give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome’. It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was the point I tumbled to the fact that I been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview, because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe their question cannot be answered."

Comparing these two sites would also provide numerous possible examples:

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

The makers of the pro-ID film Expelled were also not very honest in their dealings with scientists during the making of of the film

 

[jayfox]

This clip of him 'struggling' to answer their question is used often by creationists yet like I said, he discusses it at length in one or more of his books. Why would you think he isn't capable of answering in this case and why exactly do you think he needs the respect of creationists? His work is roundly criticised by them despite the fact he's a leading expert in the fields he's discussing.

There's a clip somewhere of him discussing evolution with a creationist. He certainly makes him look like a complete fool. I'll try and find it later to see what you think.

Okay thanks.

 

[Disco08]

BTW Jay, glantone's asked you a few questions in the other thread you may have missed.

 

[jayfox]

BTW Jay, glantone's asked you a few questions in the other thread you may have missed.

Yeah I had, thanks for the tip. I will have to get to them next week as I am flat out today and on the weekend.

 

[AngryAnt]

The only thing that I will say is that if those sites are deliberately misleading people, then it would be abhorrent to God. Why don;t you show me where you think that they are deliberately misleading people.

Yes, I'm impatient AND arrogant.

You don't need to be a scientist. The names of the websites are enough - http://big-bang-theory.com, http://www.allaboutscience.org/, http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ - all of which pretend to be scientific but are actually christian apologetics.

Straight and honest answer now Jayfox - is this dishonest or not?

 

[evo]

While we're waitnig lets ponder the good news.

Mathew 24


4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all[a]these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.


When in doubt be afraid.Be VERY afraid!!

 

[jayfox]

Yes, I'm impatient AND arrogant.

You don't need to be a scientist. The names of the websites are enough - http://big-bang-theory.com, http://www.allaboutscience.org/, http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ - all of which pretend to be scientific but are actually christian apologetics.

Straight and honest answer now Jayfox - is this dishonest or not?

I don't think that the names of the websites are dishonest. Website names can be whatever you want them to be and theirs clearly contains scientific references, I assume? Is this site really located at the "Punt Road End"? It is what is contained within the websites and the claims that they make that are important. AS you guys have said a number of times the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, so, prove to me why they are intellectually dishonest. To avoid being hypocritical and be consistent with the atheist approach of these threads thus far, the responsibility is yours.

 

[Disco08]

OK. Take AIG's section on Noah's Ark. There's plenty of evidence which would seem contrary to the possibility of the Ark story which is readily available and has been pointed out by experts in the respective fields. Isn't it disingenuous to not include this evidence in their studies on the Ark's feasibility?

Similarly, isn't it disingenuous of ID proponents to continually put forth arguments for their theory (such as the bacterial flagella, the human eye and that little bug tigertime used as evidence not long ago) without at least addressing the rebuttals and explanations again offered by numerous experts? Surely they're aware that their arguments for irreducible complexity in these cases have been comprehensively debunked so why ignore these responses and continue to promote their theory as unquestioned fact?

 

[Djevv]

What is a "true" God though? Different religions have different Gods and beliefs. Some even believe in reincarnation yet your God apparently pilfers their children for his own purposes.

Sorry Djevv I must have missed it. I've read back to the quote below that I was referring to but I can't see your explanation. Could you give me a link please?

When you question "should he stand back and do nothing" I wonder "should he punish the innocent victims or the enforcers who make them torture and murder?". Your question makes it sound like a conscious decision on God's behalf so I wonder how he makes the call who to punish. I don't understand what you refer to as "fair".

I looked back at the thread and I had written this:

OK I'll have a go at this one.

Innocent children go to heaven. I'll explain this more if you want, but It's what most Christians believe.

Jesus (and us) is God's answer to wiping out evil on Earth.

We are responsible for this planet, when God created us He gave it to us, on the proviso we passed a probationary period. Unfortunately we failed it. The planet now belongs to Satan - and hence it is not a pleasant place. The reason why God does not destroy the lot and make it what it was is that He is merciful - and hopes we will recognise Him as Lord and creator. If we want to end tyranny, WE must do it. It is possible - remember what happened to the Berlin wall and Corazon Aquino's people power in the Phillippines!

Anyway hope this answers your question, I realise it is not an easy answer to accept, but its the one that I believe is correct. BTW thanks for your kind words .

 

[Djevv]

On the subject of lying,personally i tell people the truth wherever possible,it seems to me a good policy. If nans roast sucked ,i tell her so, politely but truthfully.

If people can't handle the truth thats a problem of their ego.

The Bible says 'tell the truth in love'. I reckon that is the best policy - especially when the missus asks you if she looks fat in this particular outfit! :hihi

 

[Djevv]

I don't mind Jayfox's accusation of arrogance, even though it's based on a "perception" of my posts rather than anything concrete, but I've come to understand that for Christians it's all about feelings and faith rather than facts.



Djevv's latest site http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ is a fine example of lying for God. It's Christian apologia, but masquerades as discussion of science. It links to other apologia at sites like http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org, and it's all deep linked from the master page http://www.allaboutscience.org/ which has as its major blurb

All the links go to Christian Apologia.

If this is not lying for God, what is? How do Djevv and Jayfox feel about this obvious dishonesty and deception? Is it OK to lie in this way if it convinces people to believe in God? Does the end justify the means?

For once could you actually attack the SUBSTANCE of the site rather than the purpose. Just because it is Christian doesn't make it WRONG. Christians can and do have opinions about science, philosophy and the like.

I think you may believe the interpretation of the facts on certain sites is incorrect. I certainly see that in mainstream sites as well as Christian sites. That doesn't make the conclusions LIES. I don't believe any of the sites I have cited are dishonest, but feel free to disagree with their substance. It comes across as arrogant to say sites are no good because they are Christian, Athiest, Agnostic or even have poor graphical design. It's all about the substance.

 

[Djevv]

OK on the subject of 'intellectual dishonesty' - do you mean that people who disagree with mainstream interpretations of certain facts are always liars? If this is the case science would never have got off the ground.

Are ID proponents liars because they haven't proved their case? If they provide an example of real irreducible complexity which everyone accepts will they not have debunked Darwinism? Isn't this legitimate science? I saw an article on the Flagellum which I asked Panther to critique but he refused to read it because 'everything the ID people say is debunked'. Instead he posted a video which gave the interpretation of how the flagellum might have been formed that the article sought to debunk. Basically the article says: could not the structure that the flagellum was supposedly formed from was actually have formed after the flagellum? Isn't this a fair argument? Is this an intellectually honest reply to my question?

Another one was a response to TT's Bombardier Beetle (another irreducible complexity example) link (a video). A blog was posted in response along with a lot of put downs directed at the presenter (was it Gish?). I read the Blog which gave a lot of interesting info about Bombardier beetles, but basically and honestly said at the end that there was no solid ideas on how it's explosive gas mechanism might have evolved. It did offer the rather weak point that since one or two species had mechanisms with reduced functionality - that means it probably evolved from something like these. Surely again these might have devolved from the original mechanism! Wouldn't it be more honest not to handwave these away as minor annoyances to certain aspects of the GEM (grand evolutionary myth) but actually acknowledge that they need real explanations rather than hand waving and 'just so' stories.

To be honest I think the Creationist and ID challenges to evolutionary theory have been good for science. They have challenged scientists to come out come out of their ivory towers and attempt to explain their ideas simply to the general public. Much excellent discussion has ensued...............

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

OK on the subject of 'intellectual dishonesty' - do you mean that people who disagree with mainstream interpretations of certain facts are always liars? If this is the case science would never have got off the ground.

Who said such a thing? That is a blatant strawman argument. It wasn't about disagreeing, it was about knowingly misleading or presenting partial information that supports one's position. That is intellectually dishonest. It also explains why these arguments are dismissed by the scientific community. If they bore any weight or had any intellectual rigour they would at least be published in the peer-reviewed literature and be exposed to discussion and open criticism by scientists in the field. However creationists and ID proponents choose not to do this, instead sniping from the sidelines and in recent times playing the victim card!

Are ID proponents liars because they haven't proved their case? If they provide an example of real irreducible complexity which everyone accepts will they not have debunked Darwinism? Isn't this legitimate science? I saw an article on the Flagellum which I asked Panther to critique but he refused to read it because 'everything the ID people say is debunked'. Instead he posted a video which gave the interpretation of how the flagellum might have been formed that the article sought to debunk. Basically the article says: could not the structure that the flagellum was supposedly formed from was actually have formed after the flagellum? Isn't this a fair argument? Is this an intellectually honest reply to my question?

Who is being dishonest now? Where did I refuse to read the article? If you aren't being overtly dishonest you are certainly trying to mislead to support your position. I did read the article you posted.

I have stated this before, but I will do it again as you clearly choose to ignore me. Try expanding your reading to include the scientific literature on these matters, many of the objections raised in the articles that you post from Christian propaganda sites are very selective in the data they choose to present and ignore any contradictory data. The argument made is a valid proposition (if one presupposes special creation, which raises numerous questions in itself, which I will ignore for the sake of the argument), however it is less likely when one considers all of our available evidence on the matter. The simplistic argument made on these creationist websites begs the question as to which flagella was specially designed:

Many new flagellar systems have been
discovered through genome sequencing —
a trend that is likely to increase with time.
For example, over three hundred flagellin
sequences were obtained in a single
sequencing project that focused on samples
from the Sargasso Sea. By even the most
conservative estimate, there must therefore
be thousands of different bacterial flagellar
systems, perhaps even millions. Therefore,
there is no point discussing the creation or
ID of ‘the’ bacterial flagellum. Instead, one
is faced with two options: either there were
thousands or even millions of individual
creation events, which strains Occam’s razor
to breaking point, or one has to accept that
all the highly diverse contemporary flagellar
systems have evolved from a common
ancestor.
Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ (October 2006). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella". Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4 (10): 784–90

Another one was a response to TT's Bombardier Beetle (another irreducible complexity example) link (a video). A blog was posted in response along with a lot of put downs directed at the presenter (was it Gish?). I read the Blog which gave a lot of interesting info about Bombardier beetles, but basically and honestly said at the end that there was no solid ideas on how it's explosive gas mechanism might have evolved. It did offer the rather weak point that since one or two species had mechanisms with reduced functionality - that means it probably evolved from something like these. Surely again these might have devolved from the original mechanism! Wouldn't it be more honest not to handwave these away as minor annoyances to certain aspects of the GEM (grand evolutionary myth) but actually acknowledge that they need real explanations rather than hand waving and 'just so' stories.

Again you either misunderstood Prof. Gregory's post or you are willingly misrepresenting him. He clearly states that the argument that he is debunking is the notion that the Bombardier beetles defensive mechanism is irreducibly complex (the creationist claim) by pointing out less complex systems in extant species that still are advantageous to those species. In his words:

The beetles discussed above are all modern species, and none is suggested to be ancestral to any others. As such, these comparisons do not in themselves provide information on the historical sequence of changes in the evolution of the most complex bombardier beetle defences. However, the continued existence of some species lacking one or more of the features found in other species clearly refutes the argument that the complete system must arise all together in order to be functional. Much work remains to be done in sorting out how their remarkable features arose, but there is no reason to believe that they are not the product of gradual evolutionary change. Emphasis added.

He says nothing like "there was no solid ideas on how it's explosive gas mechanism might have evolved", he just states (correctly) that because this information is derived from extant species the order of the individual adaptations that led to the complex systems cannot be determined.

Again you refer to an "original mechanism". Which one? No such "original mechanism" exists. Did your God see fit to create many different systems for kicks?

Your use of the GEM acronym clearly shows that you limit your reading and your arguments to creationist sources. I have asked before, and I am still waiting to see an answer - where is the positive evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory?

Where is the just so story that you refer to here? Your God is the ultimate 'just so' story. The uncreated creator....can it get more 'just so'?

To be honest I think the Creationist and ID challenges to evolutionary theory have been good for science. They have challenged scientists to come out come out of their ivory towers and attempt to explain their ideas simply to the general public. Much excellent discussion has ensued...............

LOL! Yes, those elitist scientists in their ivory towers are under siege from the creationists! LOL! What a cliched caricature of reality!

Honestly Djevv, do you have much to do with the scientific community? Do you regularly read the scientific literature? If you did you would have a better idea of the reality of how the scientific establishment functions. The main issue with creationism is the attempts to have it taught to children under the guise of science (which it is not). You also suggest that scientists are loathe to have to explain their ideas to the general public, which in my experience is the exact opposite of reality.

 

[Disco08]

OK on the subject of 'intellectual dishonesty' - do you mean that people who disagree with mainstream interpretations of certain facts are always liars? If this is the case science would never have got off the ground.

No. In this case, intellectual dishonesty is knowingly presenting either false or incomplete evidence and promoting it as a complete and feasible theory. Do you think creationist websites are guilty of this Djevv?

 

[Tiger74]

No. In this case, intellectual dishonesty is knowingly presenting either false or incomplete evidence and promoting it as a complete and feasible theory. Do you think creationist websites are guilty of this Djevv?

Are you saying 100% of websites supporting a creationist stand point are knowingly peddling lies? I think we all agree some are (its common in most debates, look at the lies both sides of climate change push), but to say all is a bit statement.

 

[Disco08]

Do you think you can conceivably present the Noah's Ark tale as undeniably and scietifically correct and not be being dishonest in some way?

 

[Tiger74]

Do you think you can conceivably present the Noah's Ark tale as undeniably and scietifically correct and not be being dishonest in some way?

If they look at it from a strictly geological and archaeological point of view, with legitimate evidence which has not been falsified, yes. You may disagree with the conclusions, but as long as they are not distorting evidence, they are not lying, they are just putting forward a belief that is different to yours.

Also we should remember there is a difference between lying about facts, and discrediting a fact. Noah theory can reject any evidence that disproves it, as long as it gives a reasonable reason for doing so (i.e. not "coz"). Again, you can argue and disagree with the rejection, but as long as it is done in a transparent way it is not lying and it is not disception.

 

[Djevv]

Who said such a thing? That is a blatant strawman argument. It wasn't about disagreeing, it was about knowingly misleading or presenting partial information that supports one's position. That is intellectually dishonest. It also explains why these arguments are dismissed by the scientific community. If they bore any weight or had any intellectual rigour they would at least be published in the peer-reviewed literature and be exposed to discussion and open criticism by scientists in the field. However creationists and ID proponents choose not to do this, instead sniping from the sidelines and in recent times playing the victim card!

I have agreed with this in the past and I still do. I'm not entirely up to speed with the ID debate. But my post here concerned scientific 'mavericks' who have eventually been proven correct. Perhaps this is just the beginning of the ID movement?

Who is being dishonest now? Where did I refuse to read the article? If you aren't being overtly dishonest you are certainly trying to mislead to support your position. I did read the article you posted.

This was the impression I got. You certainly didn't address the article in any specific way. I looked for the post but couldn't turn it up.

I have stated this before, but I will do it again as you clearly choose to ignore me. Try expanding your reading to include the scientific literature on these matters, many of the objections raised in the articles that you post from Christian propaganda sites are very selective in the data they choose to present and ignore any contradictory data. The argument made is a valid proposition (if one presupposes special creation, which raises numerous questions in itself, which I will ignore for the sake of the argument), however it is less likely when one considers all of our available evidence on the matter. The simplistic argument made on these creationist websites begs the question as to which flagella was specially designed:

Many new flagellar systems have been
discovered through genome sequencing —
a trend that is likely to increase with time.
For example, over three hundred flagellin
sequences were obtained in a single
sequencing project that focused on samples
from the Sargasso Sea. By even the most
conservative estimate, there must therefore
be thousands of different bacterial flagellar
systems, perhaps even millions. Therefore,
there is no point discussing the creation or
ID of ‘the’ bacterial flagellum. Instead, one
is faced with two options: either there were
thousands or even millions of individual
creation events, which strains Occam’s razor
to breaking point, or one has to accept that
all the highly diverse contemporary flagellar
systems have evolved from a common
ancestor.
Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ (October 2006). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella". Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4 (10): 784–90

This really doesn't address the point either. I think ID basically focus on the Prokaryotic flagellum. If it is irreducibly complex then Darwinism fails, doesn't it? No replacement theory is being propounded.

The bolded sections are unwarranted ad hom attacks. They both beg the question.

Again you either misunderstood Prof. Gregory's post or you are willingly misrepresenting him. He clearly states that the argument that he is debunking is the notion that the Bombardier beetles defensive mechanism is irreducibly complex (the creationist claim) by pointing out less complex systems in extant species that still are advantageous to those species. In his words:

The beetles discussed above are all modern species, and none is suggested to be ancestral to any others. As such, these comparisons do not in themselves provide information on the historical sequence of changes in the evolution of the most complex bombardier beetle defences. However, the continued existence of some species lacking one or more of the features found in other species clearly refutes the argument that the complete system must arise all together in order to be functional. Much work remains to be done in sorting out how their remarkable features arose, but there is no reason to believe that they are not the product of gradual evolutionary change. Emphasis added.

He says nothing like "there was no solid ideas on how it's explosive gas mechanism might have evolved", he just states (correctly) that because this information is derived from extant species the order of the individual adaptations that led to the complex systems cannot be determined.

Again you refer to an "original mechanism". Which one? No such "original mechanism" exists. Did your God see fit to create many different systems for kicks?

Thats what I read too. I tried to simplfy what was being said. My point (and I still think it is valid) is could the the simpler system be derived from the more complex variety?

Your use of the GEM acronym clearly shows that you limit your reading and your arguments to creationist sources. I have asked before, and I am still waiting to see an answer - where is the positive evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory?

GEM is simply a way of breaking up 'evolution' into it's component parts so it can be better understood. I think it is intellectually dishonest of mainstream science to take any example of a species changing and claim it as supporting evidence of the whole edifice. GEM is from my reading of Plantinga, and is not used on any creationist site I know of.

Where is the just so story that you refer to here? Your God is the ultimate 'just so' story. The uncreated creator....can it get more 'just so'?

It evolved because ???, we know it did, we just have no idea how?

I think an uncreated creator is necessary to explain the origin of matter and energy. I realise you atheists think this is the product of a delusional mind :hihi but I haven't heard a coherent argument against it yet, just the usual mockery.

LOL! Yes, those elitist scientists in their ivory towers are under siege from the creationists! LOL! What a cliched caricature of reality!

You and I both know thats not what I meant. I was trying to make the observation that Creationists have made scientists get out into the general public to make their voices heard - rather than just talking amongst themselves. I actually think that is a good thing. ID proponents have made molecular biologists try to justify their evolutionary claims - to me another good result.

Honestly Djevv, do you have much to do with the scientific community? Do you regularly read the scientific literature? If you did you would have a better idea of the reality of how the scientific establishment functions. The main issue with creationism is the attempts to have it taught to children under the guise of science (which it is not). You also suggest that scientists are loathe to have to explain their ideas to the general public, which in my experience is the exact opposite of reality.

Honestly Panther, I have been on this thread for 400 pages, and you still claim to not know my background? I am a teacher, not a researcher, so no I don't read current research in fields outside my expertise. However, I am always prepared to read in order to support claims I make on this thread.

To me creationists are mainly against the religious implications of evolution propounded by materialists such as yourself. The science of the Theory I have no issues with, although, I reserve the right to skepticism.

 

[jayfox]

OK. Take AIG's section on Noah's Ark. There's plenty of evidence which would seem contrary to the possibility of the Ark story which is readily available and has been pointed out by experts in the respective fields. Isn't it disingenuous to not include this evidence in their studies on the Ark's feasibility?

Similarly, isn't it disingenuous of ID proponents to continually put forth arguments for their theory (such as the bacterial flagella, the human eye and that little bug tigertime used as evidence not long ago) without at least addressing the rebuttals and explanations again offered by numerous experts? Surely they're aware that their arguments for irreducible complexity in these cases have been comprehensively debunked so why ignore these responses and continue to promote their theory as unquestioned fact?

I don't claim to be a scientific expert so a few of these questions would be better answered by Djevv than me. However, most Science/Christian sites that I have visited do have theories as to how God may have done certain things which, without God, everyday science deems unlikely or impossible. Take Noah's ark for example, scientists say "how could you feed, tend to and store that many creatures in the ark?" A very valid question, but I have seen Creationist sites put forward ideas that, as God brought the animals to Noah, perhaps He brought all infant animals that would not take up as much room or eat as much. Perhaps He put them into a state of hibernation whilst on the ark, therefore relieving Noah and his family of many of the duties etc. These are only ideas and pure speculation but I don't think that they are being disingenuous with it. They are simply saying that with a Supernatural Creator things are not always as they seem. How did Jesus walk on water? How did Jonah survive in the Whale? How did Daniel survive in the Lions Den? What about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego? God is all powerful and can make things, that are unnatural to us, happen if it serves His purpose.

 

[jayfox]

Do you think you can conceivably present the Noah's Ark tale as undeniably and scietifically correct and not be being dishonest in some way?

Absolutely. We have an omnipotent God who is capable of anything, including walking on water (What's the scientific theory of how He did that?). He is not bound by natural laws so anything is possible. You may say it is a convenient argument but it is a consistent claim from the very start to the very end of the Bible, and has always been the belief of Christians, not just a response to tricky questions from atheists.