Atheism

[Panthera tigris FC]

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?

Scientific 'mavericks' who pioneered paradigm shifts in their fields practised rigorous science. Presentation of partial/incomplete facts to support one's preconceived conclusion is shoddy science and nothing like what 'maverick' scientists do. This is why you don't see the work of ID proponents in scientific journals....because it is not intellectually rigorous enough. The 'maverick' scientists that have changed their fields did so through the accumulation of data and publication of results in the peer review literature until the evidence became convincing. There is nothing like that come from the so-called ID scientists. The Discovery Institute is nothing more than a PR machine, as its leaked internal documents testify to.

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.

An impression is quite different from me stating that I wouldn't read something because it is ID rubbish.

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.

I don't know if you misunderstood the quoted section of the article. The thousands (millions?) of flagella that they are referring to are all prokaryotic! Are all of these the product of special creation? Read the article and a discussion on the article here. It is clearly not irreducibly complex.

BTW pointing out flaws in theories without postulating viable alternatives is not great science either.

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

So you have read the scientific papers on these topics to see the opposing POV (and the data supporting such a view)?

I read the scientific literature and the creationist literature and come to my conclusions by looking at what supports the conclusions that both come to.

As for the propaganda claim...any website that presents itself as 'scientific' and then acts in an intellectually dishonest fashion (as discussed earlier) to support a preconceived idea is propaganda IMO.

Thats what I read too. I tried to simplfy what was being said.

You didn't simplify...you changed. Can you see the difference between your simplification and the original text?

My point (and I still think it is valid) is could the the simpler system be derived from the more complex variety?

But which complex variety? This is a simplistic view that does not take into account the astonishing diversity in this single system (which Prof. Gregory touches on in his post).

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.

Scientific theories are supported by many lines of evidence...including evolutionary theory. When data is collected it either agrees with a theory or contradicts it at which time the theory must be amended. So yes, observations of a single species evolving supports the theory as a whole. I am still waiting on the positive contradictory evidence.

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

Postulating mechanisms for evolutionary pathways is valid and can be supported by many lines of evidence. That is not to say that there aren't examples of the 'just so' stories that you mention, especially amongst strict adaptationists who look to explain every trait in terms of natural selection (which is an incorrect approach and ignores other evolutionary mechanisms IMO). To say we have no idea how is also incorrect. The molecular basis for many evolved traits are known and were discovered after a putative evolutionary pathway was postulated.

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.

Why is your creator exempt from the causation you invoke for everything else? Isn't he 'just so'. This deist idea of a all-powerful creator is also quite distinct from the theist position of a personal god (where is the evidence for that?!?!).

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.

Science popularisation is due to creationists? Please.

What made you start studying science? For me it was reading some great popularisers of science, especially Sagan. This communication of science to the community at large continues today and there are plenty of excellent popular science writers who make the most amazingly complex topics highly interesting and accessible. Try reading some Carl Zimmer or Sean B Carroll for some recent examples.

To say that ID proponents are making molecular biologist justify their claims again belies the small amount of contact that you have with the scientific community. Everything published is criticised and requires rigorous justification. Your suggestion sounds, to me, like molecular biologists have been happily making *smile* up hoping no one would have a close look and it was only the ID proponents that have required such justification. This is so far from the reality of the situation that it is laughable.

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.

I know your background, but the strong claims you make are clearly not the product of wide reading from a number of sources, but claims rehashed from creationist websites that a little bit of further (and wider) reading could clarify for you.

You seem to think that academia is still an ivory tower profession, which again is (usually!) far from the truth.

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.

They are against it because it directly challenges their beliefs! Which begs the question as to the basis of those beliefs.

You clearly don't have issues with the science that doesn't challenge your faith-based beliefs. It seems you are only sceptical when those beliefs are challenged. Are you equally sceptical about your faith-based beliefs, or are they immune from such examination?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

including walking on water (What's the scientific theory of how He did that?).

Um....he didn't?

 

[jayfox]

Um....he didn't?

Exactly my point. There are many things contained within the Bible that science will never be able to explain, and fair enough. They are supernaturally created events. Science does a great job of explaining many parts of our natural world but when something from beyond our world or understanding gets involved, i.e. God, science is naturally at a loss.

 

[Djevv]

An impression is quite different from me stating that I wouldn't read something because it is ID rubbish.

That aside, the flagellum is a creationist whipping boy that has been done to death and has been thoroughly discredited. Google it and read some articles that explain why this molecular motor (or I should say motors) are in no way irreducibly complex. There is a good video on YouTube that summarises this.

Found it. I actually watched the vid - it was good - especially the soundtrack - how'd you know I was a Boston fan?

So you are saying this isn't a brush off?

If you had have read the article you would have realised that the article specifically seeks to debunk the work of the researcher on which it is based.

 

[Djevv]

I don't know if you misunderstood the quoted section of the article. The thousands (millions?) of flagella that they are referring to are all prokaryotic! Are all of these the product of special creation? Read the article and a discussion on the article here. It is clearly not irreducibly complex.

BTW pointing out flaws in theories without postulating viable alternatives is not great science either.

I wasn't sure if they were talking abour eukaryotes. Do you think all these flagellar systems evolved separately or are they all derived from a common ancestor?

I don't agree. Surely any scientist that destroyed a scientific paradign like Darwinism would get the Nobel prize! Even if he/she could not provide a (naturalistic) alternative.

So you have read the scientific papers on these topics to see the opposing POV (and the data supporting such a view)?

I read the scientific literature and the creationist literature and come to my conclusions by looking at what supports the conclusions that both come to.

As for the propaganda claim...any website that presents itself as 'scientific' and then acts in an intellectually dishonest fashion (as discussed earlier) to support a preconceived idea is propaganda IMO.

Again you beg the question. This is what we are discussing. You arrogantly assume you have won the argument (happens a lot on this thread

I have read the paper you gave me. But I have the impression it is written for people who were well versed in all the arguments - it was hard to follow - but I didn't take a long time on it.

You didn't simplify...you changed. Can you see the difference between your simplification and the original text?

I was quoting from memory and no I don't see much of a difference.

But which complex variety? This is a simplistic view that does not take into account the astonishing diversity in this single system (which Prof. Gregory touches on in his post).

Scientific theories are supported by many lines of evidence...including evolutionary theory. When data is collected it either agrees with a theory or contradicts it at which time the theory must be amended. So yes, observations of a single species evolving supports the theory as a whole. I am still waiting on the positive contradictory evidence.

Postulating mechanisms for evolutionary pathways is valid and can be supported by many lines of evidence. That is not to say that there aren't examples of the 'just so' stories that you mention, especially amongst strict adaptationists who look to explain every trait in terms of natural selection (which is an incorrect approach and ignores other evolutionary mechanisms IMO). To say we have no idea how is also incorrect. The molecular basis for many evolved traits are known and were discovered after a putative evolutionary pathway was postulated.

I am not attacking evolution here. I'm just interested in this topic.

Why is your creator exempt from the causation you invoke for everything else? Isn't he 'just so'. This deist idea of a all-powerful creator is also quite distinct from the theist position of a personal god (where is the evidence for that?!?!).

Err Jesus! ;D

Science popularisation is due to creationists? Please.

What made you start studying science? For me it was reading some great popularisers of science, especially Sagan. This communication of science to the community at large continues today and there are plenty of excellent popular science writers who make the most amazingly complex topics highly interesting and accessible. Try reading some Carl Zimmer or Sean B Carroll for some recent examples.

To say that ID proponents are making molecular biologist justify their claims again belies the small amount of contact that you have with the scientific community. Everything published is criticised and requires rigorous justification. Your suggestion sounds, to me, like molecular biologists have been happily making sh!t up hoping no one would have a close look and it was only the ID proponents that have required such justification. This is so far from the reality of the situation that it is laughable.

I know your background, but the strong claims you make are clearly not the product of wide reading from a number of sources, but claims rehashed from creationist websites that a little bit of further (and wider) reading could clarify for you.

You seem to think that academia is still an ivory tower profession, which again is (usually!) far from the truth.

They are against it because it directly challenges their beliefs! Which begs the question as to the basis of those beliefs.

You clearly don't have issues with the science that doesn't challenge your faith-based beliefs. It seems you are only sceptical when those beliefs are challenged. Are you equally sceptical about your faith-based beliefs, or are they immune from such examination?

No I'm skeptical because I don't agree that the evolutionary explanation is the only possible one that fits all the data. If I minded having my beliefs challenged, would I have spent such a long time on this thread? I think science should not go beyond the data and start making blanket statements about the nature of man and his origin as if naturalism was beyond doubt.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Found it. I actually watched the vid - it was good - especially the soundtrack - how'd you know I was a Boston fan?

So you are saying this isn't a brush off?

If you had have read the article you would have realised that the article specifically seeks to debunk the work of the researcher on which it is based.

Yes, but the crux of the ID argument is on a single bacterial flagellum when there are thousands, if not millions of systems, each with their own mechanism of function. This is an example of the poor scholarship that I spoke of.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Exactly my point. There are many things contained within the Bible that science will never be able to explain, and fair enough. They are supernaturally created events. Science does a great job of explaining many parts of our natural world but when something from beyond our world or understanding gets involved, i.e. God, science is naturally at a loss.

There are many things in the Koran that we can't explain either. Does that make them true? Why, or why not?

 

[Djevv]

Yes, but the crux of the ID argument is on a single bacterial flagellum when there are thousands, if not millions of systems, each with their own mechanism of function. This is an example of the poor scholarship that I spoke of.

I'm unsure as to the significance of thousands of flagellar systems? Are they all similar and possibly derived from a common ancestor, or are they all unique and evolved independently?

 

[jayfox]

There are many things in the Koran that we can't explain either. Does that make them true? Why, or why not?

Both 'faiths' require exactly that - faith. A believe in an unseen God who has the ability to do what we consider impossible. The difference is which one you actually think is the true word of God and which is a deception of the Devil.

I'd be interested to know what "things" in the Koran you were referring to though?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I wasn't sure if they were talking abour eukaryotes. Do you think all these flagellar systems evolved separately or are they all derived from a common ancestor?

No, the article is specifically on bacterial flagella. Did they evolve from a single, common ancestor or are they the product of convergence? Not being a microbiologist, I am not certain what the data suggests in this area. Neither would surprise me though. Why did your God create thousands, if not millions, of different 'machines' to do essentially the same job?

I don't agree. Surely any scientist that destroyed a scientific paradign like Darwinism would get the Nobel prize! Even if he/she could not provide a (naturalistic) alternative.

So where is the contradictory data? You remain sceptical based on what?

Again you beg the question. This is what we are discussing. You arrogantly assume you have won the argument (happens a lot on this thread

Well have you read the scientific answers to the objections raised by the creationist and ID proponents? Do you do this as part of your normal research?

I have read the paper you gave me. But I have the impression it is written for people who were well versed in all the arguments - it was hard to follow - but I didn't take a long time on it.

It is a review article, so you do need some biology, but it is reasonably clear. Here again you argue strongly for a position while at the same time admitting that you aren't well versed in the area. Wouldn't it make more sense to understand the basis of the debate before deciding which side of the argument you favor? This is, again, an example where you have a conclusion formed a priori that you are attempting to explain after the fact.

I was quoting from memory and no I don't see much of a difference.

Sloppy . You really don't see the difference between claiming (i) that there is no known mechanism for the evolution of a trait and (ii) the available data makes it impossible to distinguish the order in which evolutionary changes have occurred?

Really?

They are completely different claims.

I am not attacking evolution here. I'm just interested in this topic.

We aren't arguing the validity of evolutionary theory??

Err Jesus! ;D

That is still a faith-based belief.

No I'm skeptical because I don't agree that the evolutionary explanation is the only possible one that fits all the data. If I minded having my beliefs challenged, would I have spent such a long time on this thread?

And you don't believe because you have a preconceived conclusion! Why doesn't mainstream science share your view? If the data was compelling there would at least be debate on the topic.

The whole reason you are debating is because evolution challenges your beliefs!

I think science should not go beyond the data and start making blanket statements about the nature of man and his origin as if naturalism was beyond doubt.

Where has science done this?

I think you need to understand the limitations of what can be known and the fallibilities of your own perception. I don't think people should claim absolute knowledge of the unknowable.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm unsure as to the significance of thousands of flagellar systems? Are they all similar and possibly derived from a common ancestor, or are they all unique and evolved independently?

Read the paper.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Both 'faiths' require exactly that - faith. A believe in an unseen God who has the ability to do what we consider impossible. The difference is which one you actually think is the true word of God and which is a deception of the Devil.

And by what standards do you make this decision? How are these any more valid than a muslim's?

I'd be interested to know what "things" in the Koran you were referring to though?

Um, how about the alleged source of the Koran for starters.

 

[Djevv]

No, the article is specifically on bacterial flagella. Did they evolve from a single, common ancestor or are they the product of convergence? Not being a microbiologist, I am not certain what the data suggests in this area. Neither would surprise me though. Why did your God create thousands, if not millions, of different 'machines' to do essentially the same job?

Thats not the issue, the issue is whether they are irreducibly complex or not. These thousands of flagella are just a red herring then. I don't know the hows or whys and neither do you.

So where is the contradictory data? You remain sceptical based on what?

I'm mainly skeptical based on whether there are viable evolutionary pathways between higher forms via natural selection. I have seen no convincing evidence of this, nor have lab studies demonstrated anything apart from very small scale changes.

Well have you read the scientific answers to the objections raised by the creationist and ID proponents? Do you do this as part of your normal research?

It is a review article, so you do need some biology, but it is reasonably clear. Here again you argue strongly for a position while at the same time admitting that you aren't well versed in the area. Wouldn't it make more sense to understand the basis of the debate before deciding which side of the argument you favor? This is, again, an example where you have a conclusion formed a priori that you are attempting to explain after the fact.

I reread the article, it basically said that most of the proteins were homologous to others in a bacteria, and may have been co-opted into a flagellum. This means it is more technically possible that it evolved - as I understand it. But it doesn't explain why the system it is supposedly derived from seems to have developed after the flagellum.

Sloppy . You really don't see the difference between claiming (i) that there is no known mechanism for the evolution of a trait and (ii) the available data makes it impossible to distinguish the order in which evolutionary changes have occurred?

Really?

They are completely different claims.

Thats why I made both. I thought the article had said there was no evidence of how the Bombardier beetle had evolved in essence except some simpler systems existed. I suggested that possibly they might have developed later. Thats all. Is this being dishonest? How do you think the Bombardier beetle might have evolved without blowing it's self up?

We aren't arguing the validity of evolutionary theory??

No we are having a nice friendly chat about it, as is our wont on this thread . You see from my POV evolution is neither here nor there, I am convinced that it is one possible creative method God might of used. I think a lot of the evidence for some of the GEM is so strong that Christian thinkers need to seriously address them. I think this process has begun but is not anywhere near complete yet. As for purely naturalistic evolution, I'm with Plantinga, not likely from a theistic POV IMO.

That is still a faith-based belief.

If there is, as I believe, a Creator God, I see Jesus as being the only really convincing manifestation of Him in human history. This is faith, but based on reason. Why do you think He is not who He said He was?

And you don't believe because you have a preconceived conclusion! Why doesn't mainstream science share your view? If the data was compelling there would at least be debate on the topic.

The whole reason you are debating is because evolution challenges your beliefs!

Where has science done this?

I think you need to understand the limitations of what can be known and the fallibilities of your own perception. I don't think people should claim absolute knowledge of the unknowable.

I actually don't either, so I try hard not to be really dogmatic on faith matters. Have you picked that up? I think you have, given some of what you have posted about me. So I agree there is no way of knowing the unknowable, certainly by any human means - say logic or science - but it might be possible if the actual creator reveals Himself.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Thats not the issue, the issue is whether they are irreducibly complex or not. These thousands of flagella are just a red herring then. I don't know the hows or whys and neither do you.

There are 2 issues that you keep jumping back and forth between, so the topic has been somewhat confused.

The question of irreducible complexity and the order in which the the flagella and secretory systems evolved.

For the irreducible complexity question the examples of simpler flagella, that operate using less proteins than the more complex flagella operate with and the the use of these proteins in secretory systems as well as other cellular functions is well covered in the paper.

For the case of their being a created flagella system that then devolved into the simpler systems observed in modern bacteria, how do you explain the thousands, if not millions, of flagella observed? Each individually created? Why?

I'm mainly skeptical based on whether there are viable evolutionary pathways between higher forms via natural selection. I have seen no convincing evidence of this, nor have lab studies demonstrated anything apart from very small scale changes.

Define "forms". Read up on the field of comparative genomics to get an idea of how similar so-called different forms (if I understand the term correctly) are at the molecular level (and the changes that have occured). The rise of genomics over the past decade or two had provided amazing insights into molecular evolution (and the findings dovetail beautifully with our understanding of evolution and refine it further).

I reread the article, it basically said that most of the proteins were homologous to others in a bacteria, and may have been co-opted into a flagellum. This means it is more technically possible that it evolved - as I understand it. But it doesn't explain why the system it is supposedly derived from seems to have developed after the flagellum.

No, it actually addresses the specific claim that ID proponents make..that is, that the components of the flagellum could not have randomly assembled into one selectively advantageous system in one go, the odds of that being astronomical. However, the demonstration that simpler subsystems of the whole are selectively advantageous in their own right demonstrates that they could have been selected for prior to being co-opted into the flagellum.
As for the TTSS evolving from the flagella, the evidence (through analysis of the proteins in these systems) would suggest otherwise.

Thats why I made both. I thought the article had said there was no evidence of how the Bombardier beetle had evolved in essence except some simpler systems existed. I suggested that possibly they might have developed later. Thats all. Is this being dishonest? How do you think the Bombardier beetle might have evolved without blowing it's self up?

Did you make both? I must have missed it.

Any beetle that evolved a mechanism to blow itself up might be quickly taken care of by natural selection .

No we are having a nice friendly chat about it, as is our wont on this thread .

Indeed...argument, debate, conversation...all the same. We do appear to have differing views on this topic though .

You see from my POV evolution is neither here nor there, I am convinced that it is one possible creative method God might of used. I think a lot of the evidence for some of the GEM is so strong that Christian thinkers need to seriously address them. I think this process has begun but is not anywhere near complete yet. As for purely naturalistic evolution, I'm with Plantinga, not likely from a theistic POV IMO.

What is the basis for this theistic POV though?

Many Christian thinkers accept evolution as fact. They have just reconciled this with their faith-based beliefs.

If there is, as I believe, a Creator God, I see Jesus as being the only really convincing manifestation of Him in human history. This is faith, but based on reason. Why do you think He is not who He said He was?

He said what? Ah...back to the historicity of Jesus. Suffice to say that there are serious questions on the veracity of those tales due to the 'chain of evidence', the history of that book and the politics involved. Either way I certainly wouldn't be basing my worldview on such a thing, nor do I find it that convincing.

I actually don't either, so I try hard not to be really dogmatic on faith matters. Have you picked that up? I think you have, given some of what you have posted about me. So I agree there is no way of knowing the unknowable, certainly by any human means - say logic or science - but it might be possible if the actual creator reveals Himself.

What I have picked up is that you are certainly open to discussion and don't resort to 'god-did-it' explanations.

When that creator reveals himself be sure to post it and we can finally put this debate to rest. Until then.....your turn.

 

[Disco08]

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.

I asked if you could present tales such as Noah's Ark as scientifically factual without being dishonest. I don't see how inserting God into the gaps of a thesis can make it scientifically factual.

 

[Djevv]

There are 2 issues that you keep jumping back and forth between, so the topic has been somewhat confused.

The question of irreducible complexity and the order in which the the flagella and secretory systems evolved.

For the irreducible complexity question the examples of simpler flagella, that operate using less proteins than the more complex flagella operate with and the the use of these proteins in secretory systems as well as other cellular functions is well covered in the paper.

For the case of their being a created flagella system that then devolved into the simpler systems observed in modern bacteria, how do you explain the thousands, if not millions, of flagella observed? Each individually created? Why?

Why? Good question. Perhaps God tweaked an original flagellum design to make it useful in many different species . Perhaps He is a keen molecular engineer and wondered how many viable flagella He could make . Perhaps Devolution has modified an original flagellum in different bacteria by essentially natural means . Perhaps God got carried away with an artistic urge when it came to flagella .

Is it more reasonable to believe that each flagellum from each prokaryote was individually evolved by each species? Sorry, I am tempted to commit the incredulity fallacy again :hihi.

Define "forms". Read up on the field of comparative genomics to get an idea of how similar so-called different forms (if I understand the term correctly) are at the molecular level (and the changes that have occured). The rise of genomics over the past decade or two had provided amazing insights into molecular evolution (and the findings dovetail beautifully with our understanding of evolution and refine it further).

A form would be a functionally viable individual that has a selectictive advantage. I'll make sure that genomics reading goes on my 'to do' list .

No, it actually addresses the specific claim that ID proponents make..that is, that the components of the flagellum could not have randomly assembled into one selectively advantageous system in one go, the odds of that being astronomical. However, the demonstration that simpler subsystems of the whole are selectively advantageous in their own right demonstrates that they could have been selected for prior to being co-opted into the flagellum.
As for the TTSS evolving from the flagella, the evidence (through analysis of the proteins in these systems) would suggest otherwise.

OK, but does the demonstration that a simpler system exists that might be co-opted to form a flagella mean it is definitely able to be assembled stepwise with all fully functional intermediates? The point here is is that it is not difficult to invent a somewhat plausible story about how a complex machine like biological structure possibly formed as long as some of the the details are missing. This might have occured, we infer that this must have happened. Is a somewhat plausible story enough to prove that evolution produced a structure which to seems to require a certain number of functional parts to all work together? I think it remains a somewhat plausible story, and no more.

Isn't it easier to imagine that a a TTSS system that is useful for only a minority of bacteria might have developed from a working flagellum? Certainly it is possible.

I read the article, but not in the kind of detail you need to fully comprehend the force of the evidence and arguments, so not being and expert in the field I won't comment except to wonder about this section:
'Second, the suggestion that a simpler system
(TTSS) is derived from a more complex system (flagella) is
quite odd in an evolutionary context since it runs against the
progressionist grain that pervades evolutionary thought
since the days of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. As was pointed out
by Aizawa (2001): “The flagellum is a beautifully designed
architecture almost completed in evolution. Why should
those sophisticated skills be abandoned to go back to boring
soluble proteins?”

This seems to be indicating that the paper has an a priori progressionist evolutionary bent that it wishes to promulgate.

Any beetle that evolved a mechanism to blow itself up might be quickly taken care of by natural selection .

I agree, natural selection ought to have taken care of this creature at its inception, but it didn't. Why?

Indeed...argument, debate, conversation...all the same. We do appear to have differing views on this topic though .

What is the basis for this theistic POV though?

Many Christian thinkers accept evolution as fact. They have just reconciled this with their faith-based beliefs.

He said what? Ah...back to the historicity of Jesus. Suffice to say that there are serious questions on the veracity of those tales due to the 'chain of evidence', the history of that book and the politics involved. Either way I certainly wouldn't be basing my worldview on such a thing, nor do I find it that convincing.

What I have picked up is that you are certainly open to discussion and don't resort to 'god-did-it' explanations.

When that creator reveals himself be sure to post it and we can finally put this debate to rest. Until then.....your turn.

Well, the Bible is the revelation you were after. I know that is not original thinking on my part, but it is tried and tested.

To me all roads in life hinge on the question, who do you say Jesus is. Can you answer that question?

Finally since the topic is intellectual honesty - do think it is honest of ID proponents to question evolution in terms of irreducible complexity. I agree they have not proved their case, but I don't think it is dishonest to try.

 

[Djevv]

I asked if you could present tales such as Noah's Ark as scientifically factual without being dishonest. I don't see how inserting God into the gaps of a thesis can make it scientifically factual.

Surely it is honest for a Christian to believe that God might have intervened in a natural process! Is a Christian obliged to be a methodological naturalist?

 

[Disco08]

Of course they can believe it honestly. However presenting it to a wider audience without also offering the widely available evidence that counters these tales seems disingenuous at best to me. These sites also never adress the considerable evidence which contradicts the account of a worldwide flood. What is the hypothesis here? God created the counter evidence to test peoples faith?

Another example would be the evidence these sites use to show that the earth is 6 million years old. This evidence is often presented as scientific fact yet the claims have been addressed and countered ad nauseum by people expert in the relevant fields. Again, dishonestly IMO, these replies or the facts contained within them are never mentioned much less offered so that an individual may judge the evidence for themselves.

 

[jayfox]

And by what standards do you make this decision? How are these any more valid than a muslim's?

There are many reasons. The fact that works alone can not get you to Heaven which is a distinction between Christianity and every other religion. The fact that Muslims regard the Old Testament as gospel but the Old Testament contains around 100 prophecies of the Messiah's coming, all of which Jesus fulfills. The fact that The Bible is a consistent record of many people's experience's with God - the Koran is one mans, and even then he didn't actually write it himself. It is also the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament and the fact that Christians are supposed to try to follow His example in their lives. I believe that Jesus moral teachings are far better than many that are in the Koran. The list goes on and on but I am sure that this gives you and idea.

 

[jayfox]

I asked if you could present tales such as Noah's Ark as scientifically factual without being dishonest. I don't see how inserting God into the gaps of a thesis can make it scientifically factual.

Okay, well my response was more based around - could we come up with scientific possibilities, given that we have an omnipotent God, without being dishonest. And I think that I did that. For a Christian in reading a story like Noah's, there is no need to try to work out how it could have happened without God's involvement, as we know that He was involved.