Atheism

[Six Pack]

Sorry you will have to clarify the percieved contradiction. Flightless birds are birds who had ancestors who could fly but lost this ability. This is not a problem for creationists as information loss since the flood due to the fall is expected.

As for the Bible I said I believed it. But if you think understanding the Bible is simple or straighforward, then I suggest you write a book on it and unite the Church! Essential doctrines are those you must believe to be considered a Christian.

Dj, if the bible relies so heavily on man's interpretation and interpretation in turn, leads to action and belief, how can it be the word of God? There's too many variations to make it a reliable and credible source.

For example, a commandment like 'thou shall not kill,' should be straightforward, but it can be bent every which way. Now if god was fair dinkum he would make this an ironclad rule, whereas men women down thru the ages have used this how they will.

You can either kill or not kill.

 

[Djevv]

So you reckon if God was a better designer, we would all have a blowhole?? Pulleeese :hihi :hihi

Don't deliberately miss the point. It's an example of a design flaw that some animals have evolved to correct, whilst others haven't

I don't think God or anyone did design us, except evolution. Evolution explains profound design "faults" and vestigial organs and limbs, intelligent design doesn't.

Look anyone with a bit of imagination could 'design a better animal'. So what? Proves nothing.

I think the reason whales and the like were designed with blowholes is pretty obvious if you think about it. As for why other animals don't have them, well......they don't need them!

I reckon most of the other poor design arguments can be tidied up as either
1. information loss
2. they have other functions
3. they have undiscoved other functions
4. they can be explained as above.

OK now you have lost me completely.

Try reading some creationist/ID sites.

 

[Djevv]

Sorry you will have to clarify the percieved contradiction. Flightless birds are birds who had ancestors who could fly but lost this ability. This is not a problem for creationists as information loss since the flood due to the fall is expected.

As for the Bible I said I believed it. But if you think understanding the Bible is simple or straighforward, then I suggest you write a book on it and unite the Church! Essential doctrines are those you must believe to be considered a Christian.

Dj, if the bible relies so heavily on man's interpretation and interpretation in turn, leads to action and belief, how can it be the word of God? There's too many variations to make it a reliable and credible source.

For example, a commandment like 'thou shall not kill,' should be straightforward, but it can be bent every which way. Now if god was fair dinkum he would make this an ironclad rule, whereas men women down thru the ages have used this how they will.

You can either kill or not kill.

God gives us a number of mechanisms that help us understand His Word.
1. The Holy Spirit - guides us into 'all truth'.
2. Christian leaders who have a strong relationship with God.
3. Biblical scholars who are well grounded in Hebrew and Ancient Greek.
4. Christian brothers & sisters.

If you can get all these to line up then you are likely to be onto a solid Biblical interpretation. Funnily enough the main Biblical ideas are very clear and nearly everyone believes the same. Where people come unstuck is all the non-essential stuff.....

 

[Six Pack]

The problem is that the 'non-essential' stuff is still there. And some maintain it's the word of God. Who is to choose what's the stuff to live by and what isn't?

 

[dukeos]

Sorry Disco, only have a look here during work hours

You have already asked me this question on the other thread. I am a non-practicing Catholic, only go to Church for Christmas really. So Im not what I'd call religous, I havent read the bible ect ect. I do however believe in God, no doubt. Why? If you line Big Bang up against the Big Bloke, I think the later is far more likely and plausable. Sure, you cant prove it, but we are no more likely to prove the big bang either. We can all argue about Science this and Science that, but how much of what we know today will stand up in 1-2-300 years time. You just dont know. I think we are incapable of understanding what its all about. I cant comprehend there being an infinite universe. I believe in evolution in species, not evolution from slime however. I am a mixed bag of NUTS, as we all possibly are?

Anyhow, enough rambling from me. Anyhow, in the words of Rick James, ENJOY YOURSELF!!

 

[Disco08]

I think we are incapable of understanding what its all about. I cant comprehend there being an infinite universe.

Agreed, and neither can I.

Do you believe in heaven and hell?

 

[Djevv]

The problem is that the 'non-essential' stuff is still there. And some maintain it's the word of God. Who is to choose what's the stuff to live by and what isn't?

If you really want to understand how the Bible works then first you need to walk the Roman Road http://contenderministries.org/romanroad.php. When you've done that, get back to me (but perhaps on the 'Christianity' thread) .

 

[Six Pack]

The problem is that the 'non-essential' stuff is still there. And some maintain it's the word of God. Who is to choose what's the stuff to live by and what isn't?

If you really want to understand how the Bible works then first you need to walk the Roman Road http://contenderministries.org/romanroad.php. When you've done that, get back to me (but perhaps on the 'Christianity' thread) .

oh mate, that's the big kiss-off!

 

[Disco08]

If you really want to understand how the Bible works then first you need to walk the Roman Road http://contenderministries.org/romanroad.php. When you've done that, get back to me (but perhaps on the 'Christianity' thread) .

So, before the interweb and contdenderministries people couldn't truly understand how the bible works?

 

[Six Pack]

The bible is a cobbled together collection of myths and fables and contains numerous historical inaccuracies, lies and misleading rules, regulations and absurdities.

Here on the Atheism thread we prefer to believe in common sense and logic!

 

[AngryAnt]

Look anyone with a bit of imagination could 'design a better animal'. So what? Proves nothing.

Actually, it disproves the theory of intelligent design. Why would an intelligent designer design profoundly flawed organisms? On the one hand you say these organisms or organs (eg eyes) are too sophisticated to have evolved, now you are saying it's OK for a intelligent designer to design organisms with profound flaws? You can't have it both ways.

I think the reason whales and the like were designed with blowholes is pretty obvious if you think about it. As for why other animals don't have them, well......they don't need them!

Why do whales then have vestigial pelvis bones unattached to any other skeletal structure? They don't need them, so why do they have them? The simple answer is that they evolved from land mammals that most definitely needed pelvic bone structures. Occam's razor.

I

reckon most of the other poor design arguments can be tidied up as either
1. information loss
2. they have other functions
3. they have undiscoved other functions
4. they can be explained as above.

Try reading some creationist/ID sites.

I just did and I have to say that the concept of "information loss" is the most profoundly stupid "theory" I have ever come across.

OK so the "theory" of information loss states that all mutations result from a loss of genetic information - thus mutations can be seen to occur, but these are entropic - due a loss of genetic information, not a change due to the addition or creation of new genetic information. Under this theory, no new genetic information can be added - thus "genetic evolution" cannot occur. Under this theory, things can get simpler, but not more complex. Things can get stop working, but not improve. Negative entropy if you will.

For a start, this does not explain at all my example of wisdom teeth in humans which you put down to "information loss". I don't think you understand the theories you are citing, but feel free to explain why the RETENTION of vestigial wisdom teeth can be explained by "information loss".

Furthermore, science has shown that genetic information can change and be added to - it's not the case at all that genetic mutations are due to "information loss".

Ultimately what we get down to is that you choose not to accept the theory of evolution because you have faith in a belief system that is contradicted by it. That's fine and stick with that, but if so why try to argue the science? You have not been able to invalidate any of the arguments for evolution - in fact you seem to profoundly misunderstand the theory and implications of evolution.

Just say "I choose to not accept the theory of evolution because it conflicts with my religious beliefs".

 

[Disco08]

I just did and I have to say that the concept of "information loss" is the most profoundly stupid "theory" I have ever come across.

With all due respect.........

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I just did and I have to say that the concept of "information loss" is the most profoundly stupid "theory" I have ever come across.

With all due respect.........

It never gets old ;D

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I just did and I have to say that the concept of "information loss" is the most profoundly stupid "theory" I have ever come across.

OK so the "theory" of information loss states that all mutations result from a loss of genetic information - thus mutations can be seen to occur, but these are entropic - due a loss of genetic information, not a change due to the addition or creation of new genetic information. Under this theory, no new genetic information can be added - thus "genetic evolution" cannot occur. Under this theory, things can get simpler, but not more complex. Things can get stop working, but not improve. Negative entropy if you will.

For a start, this does not explain at all my example of wisdom teeth in humans which you put down to "information loss". I don't think you understand the theories you are citing, but feel free to explain why the RETENTION of vestigial wisdom teeth can be explained by "information loss".

Furthermore, science has shown that genetic information can change and be added to - it's not the case at all that genetic mutations are due to "information loss".

Ultimately what we get down to is that you choose not to accept the theory of evolution because you have faith in a belief system that is contradicted by it. That's fine and stick with that, but if so why try to argue the science? You have not been able to invalidate any of the arguments for evolution - in fact you seem to profoundly misunderstand the theory and implications of evolution.

Just say "I choose to not accept the theory of evolution because it conflicts with my religious beliefs".

Very nice post antman. I have posted detailed counters to Djevv's posts about information loss on the Christianity thread. It appears that he has chosen to ignore these posts and continue to repeat old and scientifically debunked ID garbage. Repetition of the same old rubbish does not add weight to the argument.

Djevv, as Antman said, nothing you have posted contradicts evolutionary theory, yet there are many examples, of which imperfect design and vestigial organs are but two, against the 'theory' of ID. Proponents of ID apparently want their 'theories' taken scientifically seriously, but they don't publish in the scientific literature and they appear to spend more time in politics and in the spread of misinformation than in the process of discovery.

Antman's final sentence about sums it up. You can believe what you want, but the reason you disregard the scientific theories of evolution (that are as good as fact in the world of biology) is because you have faith in your religious books, not because there is any evidence to support your position.

If you want another response to the idea of 'information loss' as repeatedly cited by ID proponents, read what Richard Dawkins, who specialises in the area of evolutionary biology, has to say on the topic.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

We can all argue about Science this and Science that, but how much of what we know today will stand up in 1-2-300 years time. You just dont know.

Just to address this little 'pearl' that occasionally rears its head as a reason to discredit scientific findings and to equate and idea of scientific 'faith' with religious faith.

Religion is in the business of perpetuating dogma. Everything there is to know about religion is found in the bible (to use Christianity as an example). No new information can change the position of true adherents, no new evidence can persuade true believers away from their faith.

Science on the other hand is a concerted effort to learn about the world around us, using techniques that minimise the subjective experience of the observer as much as possible. As such, new evidence is constantly being discovered that can 'tweak' the major theories that describe the world around us. Science does change, but that is its strength. It takes all of the available information/evidence and presents a picture of how things work in the natural world. To say that our current theories are subject to change is true, but wholesale change in established scientific theories is extremely rare. For example, our theories about planetary motion, or genetic inheritance are based on centuries (or one century for genetics) of accumulated evidence. As Sam Harris points out any new theories will have to take all of this accumulated evidence into account.

So you can choose to believe some or all of the words in a first century text, but their inability to change, as our knowledge increases, and I would like to see someone try to argue that our knowledge hasn't increased in that time, makes their application in today's society borderline at best.

 

[Djevv]

On the one hand you say these organisms or organs (eg eyes) are too sophisticated to have evolved, now you are saying it's OK for a intelligent designer to design organisms with profound flaws?

What are these 'profound' flaws? I think you mean 'minor' and even that is arguable. If there were major flaws you might have a point.

I think the reason whales and the like were designed with blowholes is pretty obvious if you think about it. As for why other animals don't have them, well......they don't need them!

Why do whales then have vestigial pelvis bones unattached to any other skeletal structure? They don't need them, so why do they have them?

They have the same design as other mammals springs to my mind. Why completely change a design? To prove a point?

I reckon most of the other poor design arguments can be tidied up as either
1. information loss
2. they have other functions
3. they have undiscoved other functions
4. they can be explained as above.

Try reading some creationist/ID sites.

I just did and I have to say that the concept of "information loss" is the most profoundly stupid "theory" I have ever come across.

OK so the "theory" of information loss states that all mutations result from a loss of genetic information - thus mutations can be seen to occur, but these are entropic - due a loss of genetic information, not a change due to the addition or creation of new genetic information. Under this theory, no new genetic information can be added - thus "genetic evolution" cannot occur. Under this theory, things can get simpler, but not more complex. Things can get stop working, but not improve. Negative entropy if you will.

Yes, isn't that what we observe normally in life?

However, I'm not sure what 'negative entropy' is.

For a start, this does not explain at all my example of wisdom teeth in humans which you put down to "information loss". I don't think you understand the theories you are citing, but feel free to explain why the RETENTION of vestigial wisdom teeth can be explained by "information loss".

I still have mine and I can assure you they are effective for masticating food .

Furthermore, science has shown that genetic information can change and be added to - it's not the case at all that genetic mutations are due to "information loss".

Yes a minority of mutations result in gain in function. But new irreducibly complex structures, like feathers are a whole different ballgame.

Ultimately what we get down to is that you choose not to accept the theory of evolution because you have faith in a belief system that is contradicted by it. That's fine and stick with that, but if so why try to argue the science? You have not been able to invalidate any of the arguments for evolution - in fact you seem to profoundly misunderstand the theory and implications of evolution.

Just say "I choose to not accept the theory of evolution because it conflicts with my religious beliefs".

I see you are from the Panther school of understanding faith. I'm only questioning evolution on scientific grounds. The fundamental problem of macro-evolution the MECHANISM still eludes science:

If mutation produces change resulting in new information then why can't it be easily demonstrated experimentally:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p. 70. (emphasis added)

 

[Disco08]

They have the same design as other mammals springs to my mind. Why completely change a design? To prove a point?

God didn't give the whales their own optimal design without vestigial components because he didn't want to completely change the design he'd used for other mammals. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Six Pack]

God had nothing to do with it!

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

They have the same design as other mammals springs to my mind. Why completely change a design? To prove a point?

God didn't give the whales their own optimal design without vestigial components because he didn't want to completely change the design he'd used for other mammals. Is that what you're saying?

Why didn't he just use that fish design he had lying around? That tricky omnipotent being!

 

[jb03]

I just did and I have to say that the concept of "information loss" is the most profoundly stupid "theory" I have ever come across.

With all due respect.........

:hihi :hihi :hihi