NationStates Jolt Archive

I disagree. Of course, I disagree in a way that will be extremely unsatisfactory to IDers, but who cares?

My view is that a description of ID as "the belief that God made the world in such-and-such a way, in such-and-such a time period, and that he did this-and-that trick here-and-there which accounts for such things as apparent age of rocks and the presence of fossils, etc," and that this belief is something espoused by some Christians for <list of asserted of reasons>, and that, yes, this is a direct contradiction of what science tells us, which the people who espouse this idea reject for <list asserted reasons>", is all a perfectly acceptable way to cover ID in a comparative religions or religious history class.

Such an approach would present the ID point of view in opposition to science without pretending that ID is science. Rather, it would acknowledge that it is an inherently religious world view, which it is.

I was just about to say something along the same lines, but *shrug* I'll just agree with you and add.

Yeah wot he sed!

Hmm. How would you fit design inference and irreducible complexity in there ?

I wouldn't. This is an attempt to science-ify ID, which just is not science.

Hmm. How would you fit design inference and irreducible complexity in there ?
Pretty much the same way you just fitted them into the conversation.

I wouldn't. This is an attempt to science-ify ID, which just is not science.
This too. ^^ :)

Pretty much the same way you just fitted them into the conversation.

But they are the central arguments of the ID crowd. Just mentioning them in passing is unfair.

But they are the central arguments of the ID crowd. Just mentioning them in passing is unfair.
Did you miss the part of my post where I said that my view would be "extremely unsatisfactory to IDers, but who cares?"

It's in the very first sentence.

But they are the central arguments of the ID crowd. Just mentioning them in passing is unfair.

They are, but again there is no evidance for such claims. No evicane, not science. It is a religous belife, let them have it.

They should cut their losses and push forward with Intelligent Falling.

But they are the central arguments of the ID crowd. Just mentioning them in passing is unfair.
its not unfair to give little to no coverage of a minor religious belief in public schools.

its not unfair to give little to no coverage of a minor religious belief in public schools.

No, but it is unfair to omit central points or even misrepresent it when you do. That is sinking to the same level as people that say evolution is all about "humans came from monkeys" or that Islam is about "getting 70 virgins when you blow yourself up".

I prefer not giving it any attention at all, but if one is going to treat and trash it in a classroom, at least be fair. The truth is after all damaging enough to their case.

But they are the central arguments of the ID crowd. Just mentioning them in passing is unfair.

Actually, I would teach ID in a science class.

One of the first classes we had about science introduced us to the scientific method. We had a little lecture, then we had to come up with our own hypotheses, that were testable, made predictions, etc.

By comparing and contrasting ID to the theory of evolution, you could explain the difference between a good theory (evolution) and a bad one (ID).

So, I would teach it as an example of a failure at coming up with a decent hypothesis.

Actually, I would teach ID in a science class.

One of the first classes we had about science introduced us to the scientific method. We had a little lecture, then we had to come up with our own hypotheses, that were testable, made predictions, etc.

By comparing and contrasting ID to the theory of evolution, you could explain the difference between a good theory (evolution) and a bad one (ID).

So, I would teach it as an example of a failure at coming up with a decent hypothesis.

That seems quite fair :)

Actually, I would teach ID in a science class.

One of the first classes we had about science introduced us to the scientific method. We had a little lecture, then we had to come up with our own hypotheses, that were testable, made predictions, etc.

By comparing and contrasting ID to the theory of evolution, you could explain the difference between a good theory (evolution) and a bad one (ID).

So, I would teach it as an example of a failure at coming up with a decent hypothesis.

*nod* not just a pretty present of the omniecene creative force are you!:D

Actually, I would teach ID in a science class.

One of the first classes we had about science introduced us to the scientific method. We had a little lecture, then we had to come up with our own hypotheses, that were testable, made predictions, etc.

By comparing and contrasting ID to the theory of evolution, you could explain the difference between a good theory (evolution) and a bad one (ID).

So, I would teach it as an example of a failure at coming up with a decent hypothesis.

I agree with this. Given the controversy over ID (particularly in the US), I think it's a prime example that science teachers could use in the classroom to draw a clear contrast between science (and the scientific method) and non-science. ID is a damn good example of poor science. So use it as such.

No, but it is unfair to omit central points or even misrepresent it when you do. That is sinking to the same level as people that say evolution is all about "humans came from monkeys" or that Islam is about "getting 70 virgins when you blow yourself up".

I prefer not giving it any attention at all, but if one is going to treat and trash it in a classroom, at least be fair. The truth is after all damaging enough to their case.
maybe...i think that is for educational professionals to decide...but in a choice between ignoring them totally or having to take up valuable class time detailing their beliefs, id go with ignoring them.

but then ive never lived in a school district with enough money to offer comparative religion classes.

I agree with this. Given the controversy over ID (particularly in the US), I think it's a prime example that science teachers could use in the classroom to draw a clear contrast between science (and the scientific method) and non-science. ID is a damn good example of poor science. So use it as such.I wouldn't necessarily. While it's a wonderful example of poor application of science, teaching it may set the precedent that wedge-strategists desire to overturn decisions barring it from the classroom. If you can teach it in one way, what exactly can you bring to bear against not teaching it at all? In the end, it may do more harm than good.

Off topic random musing, not really meant to be followed up:

Too bad :)

I really don't get why it is considered a sign of malevolence or sadism or other kinds of badness for humans to be mortal and subject to various weaknesses that can lead to death.

I don't see it as a sign that God is malevolent; I see it as a sign that God is absent. Certainly absent from the process of 'design'.
I can see why he'd want human beings to be mortal, but the whole 'bang on the head->internal bleeding->death' thing just seems to be so random. One person can survive being shot in the head, but another can die from banging their head on a doorframe. It's a needless design flaw.

Too bad :)



I don't see it as a sign that God is malevolent; I see it as a sign that God is absent. Certainly absent from the process of 'design'.
I can see why he'd want human beings to be mortal, but the whole 'bang on the head->internal bleeding->death' thing just seems to be so random. One person can survive being shot in the head, but another can die from banging their head on a doorframe. It's a needless design flaw.
1) That sounds a little like you have an idea of how human being should have been designed, which is only slightly presumptuous. :D

2) Nature likes redundant systems and also flexible systems that allow for novel results on occasion, which could be why there are so many things that can kill us and so few of them come with guaranteed results.

Regardless of whether one is going to ascribe the workings of nature to a god or not, if everything works that way, and it all very clearly works in general, then I'm don't really see how it is a design flaw for humans to sometimes die that way and sometimes not.

Anyway, that's just my view. I guess I don't really see anything wrong with the way bang-on-the-head injuries work.

Which is silly of them. An intelligent, sadistic creator is much easier to defend when looking at reality.

WinAce was a damned genius (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Organisms.cfm).

1) That sounds a little like you have an idea of how human being should have been designed, which is only slightly presumptuous. :D
Sort of. There are a few major design flaws in the human body, from a design point of few, that even an idiot like me could have done better.

2) Nature likes redundant systems and also flexible systems that allow for novel results on occasion, which could be why there are so many things that can kill us and so few of them come with guaranteed results.

Regardless of whether one is going to ascribe the workings of nature to a god or not, if everything works that way, and it all very clearly works in general, then I'm don't really see how it is a design flaw for humans to sometimes die that way and sometimes not.

Anyway, that's just my view. I guess I don't really see anything wrong with the way bang-on-the-head injuries work.

Personally I don't see this particular scenario as being evidence of a major design flaw. Some animals have more protective skulls, but we sacrificed the thicker parts around the brain case in order to have larger brain size. A trade off. And even so, most things will die, most of the time, if shot in the head or hit hard enough there. There are way bigger flaws in the human body than that.

The way I see it is that god intended for us to have free will, rational thought, and novelty in our lives. In order to do so, the universe must be genuinely random in at least some aspects. Evolution, of course, then becomes a mechanism for creating rational thought in humans while preserving free will. We were not destined to be rational beings, but we were given the opportunity. However, to create that opportunity, god had to create a universe wherein doubt, evil, pain and suffering could exist.

http://www.counterbalance.net/ctns-vo/haugh-body.html

The way I see it is that god intended for us to have free will, rational thought, and novelty in our lives. In order to do so, the universe must be genuinely random in at least some aspects. Evolution, of course, then becomes a mechanism for creating rational thought in humans while preserving free will. We were not destined to be rational beings, but we were given the opportunity. However, to create that opportunity, god had to create a universe wherein doubt, evil, pain and suffering could exist.

http://www.counterbalance.net/ctns-vo/haugh-body.html

I like this. If god wanted us to have reason, why would god not want us to use it?

I like this. If god wanted us to have reason, why would god not want us to use it?
I see no logical reason why he wouldn't.

Of course, this is all academic to me. I personally don't buy into this particular notion of an omni-this-and-that deity that created all of life, etc. But if we assume the existence of such a being, then yeah, I would assume he meant his creations to function to the full capacity that he designed them for.

Sort of. There are a few major design flaws in the human body, from a design point of few, that even an idiot like me could have done better.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was going to say. Pointing out a problem with the human body is hardly usurping God.


Personally I don't see this particular scenario as being evidence of a major design flaw. Some animals have more protective skulls, but we sacrificed the thicker parts around the brain case in order to have larger brain size. A trade off. And even so, most things will die, most of the time, if shot in the head or hit hard enough there. There are way bigger flaws in the human body than that.

No, no. I'm not bothered about the trade off between skull thickness and protection. The problem is that the brain can swell up due to infection or bleeding. There is nowhere for the expanded bit of brain to go, and nasty things can happen when the pressure builds up. So an injury that wouldn't seriously harm another organ can be fatal if it affects the brain.

also, no time today to get into longer posts. could you guys remind me either tomorrow or the next day to come back to this though?

or, you know, a week later. if anyone still cares...

I like this. If god wanted us to have reason, why would god not want us to use it?

Same reason why he put temptation (Apple tree) in a garden, told his charges not to take them, and hid in a bush waiting for them to take it so he could jump out and yell "A-HA!"

God's a bastard.

I am a christian. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate, but I figure I'll let y'all know before I'm screamed at for it.

However, I do not believe Evolution has a satisfactory or convincing argument. Personally, I do believe most of Evolution is true. But how can you explain huge holes in the theory such as the fossil record gap or irreducible complexity? Evolution, as-is, cannot explain such complex and unknown processes.

A book entitled Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by a brilliant man named Michael J. Behe clearly shows the large gaps in the theory of evolution. The irreducible complexity of the human eye, as one of thousands of examples, is "too complex to have evolved from simpler, or 'less complete' predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations."

I believe in evolution. However, I believe a higher power, in my case God, started evolution and currently keeps it going. I believe that we evolved from monkeys and apes, and you wouldn't believe the scrutiny I receive from my christian peers. However, the theory of evolution seems to be pretty accurate aside from falsified and incorrect carbon dating methods.

There are gaps in evolution; this fact cannot be denied. As a christian, I believe these gaps are filled by God. I stand by the quote above: certain body parts and such are too complex to have evolved from simpler and less complete predecessors...through natural selection. I believe we did in fact evolve from these simpler predecessors, but rather through the work of God and I think he's fulfilling his plan by using evolution.

I am a christian. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate, but I figure I'll let y'all know before I'm screamed at for it.

However, I do not believe Evolution has a satisfactory or convincing argument. Personally, I do believe most of Evolution is true. But how can you explain huge holes in the theory such as the fossil record gap or irreducible complexity? Evolution, as-is, cannot explain such complex and unknown processes.

A book entitled Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by a brilliant man named Michael J. Behe clearly shows the large gaps in the theory of evolution. The irreducible complexity of the human eye, as one of thousands of examples, is "too complex to have evolved from simpler, or 'less complete' predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations."

I believe in evolution. However, I believe a higher power, in my case God, started evolution and currently keeps it going. I believe that we evolved from monkeys and apes, and you wouldn't believe the scrutiny I receive from my christian peers. However, the theory of evolution seems to be pretty accurate aside from falsified and incorrect carbon dating methods.

There are gaps in evolution; this fact cannot be denied. As a christian, I believe these gaps are filled by God. I stand by the quote above: certain body parts and such are too complex to have evolved from simpler and less complete predecessors...through natural selection. I believe we did in fact evolve from these simpler predecessors, but rather through the work of God and I think he's fulfilling his plan by using evolution.



:rolleyes:


Id go over this post, but the issues have alreadybeen addressed earlier in the thread.

certain body parts and such are too complex to have evolved from simpler and less complete predecessors...through natural selection.Yet there are animals of (supposedly) lesser intelligence than us with better eye-sight, better hearing, and better sense of smell than us. ...Why? :rolleyes:

certain body parts and such are too complex to have evolved from simpler and less complete predecessors...through natural selection.

name one

:rolleyes:


Id go over this post, but the issues have alreadybeen addressed earlier in the thread.

I'm sorry, I guess I must've missed the exciting parts of the debate. I simply wanted my two-cents. I'll respect people like you who don't want to read already-covered information and would also ask anybody to go over my post and criticize.

name one

The human eye. It is too irreducibly complex to have evolved (via natural selection alone) from a less complex being to the state that it is currently at.

The human eye. It is too irreducibly complex to have evolved (via natural selection alone) from a less complex being to the state that it is currently at.

No, its not impossible.

The human eye. It is too irreducibly complex to have evolved (via natural selection alone) from a less complex being to the state that it is currently at....Then how do you explain the eyesight of an eagle?
Does God want them to be more advanced than us?

No, its not impossible.

I never once quoted that it was impossible. I simply believe that because there are many flaws and unexplainable parts of evolution that a higher being, God, did such things and let them happen in such a way that we can't explain them.

It's not impossible, but so many things in evolution are extremely unlikely that the chances of all of those things happening perfectly without supernatural intervention is illogical.

The human eye. It is too irreducibly complex to have evolved (via natural selection alone) from a less complex being to the state that it is currently at.

No, its not impossible.

And Michael Behe himself has stated the evolution of the eye has been pretty well tracked through the fossil record, from photosensitive cells in microbial organisms all the way up through its development.

Hell, we don't even have a "complete" eye, per se. There are plenty of other animals, birds in particular, with eyesight far better than ours, eyesight more heavily "evolved" (though such a term, implying a direction for evolution, is inaccurate) than ours.

...Then how do you explain the eyesight of an eagle?
Does God want them to be more advanced than us?

I do not know what God wants. That's none of my business for now.

We were created to "be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (thats in Genesis 1 somewhere, by memory)

If God wants some animals to have advantages than they will. I cannot attempt to explain his desires, and this debate frankly isn't about that.

And Michael Behe himself has stated the evolution of the eye has been pretty well tracked through the fossil record, from photosensitive cells in microbial organisms all the way up through its development.

Hell, we don't even have a "complete" eye, per se. There are plenty of other animals, birds in particular, with eyesight far better than ours, eyesight more heavily "evolved" (though such a term, implying a direction for evolution, is inaccurate) than ours.

Exactly, the eye is the worst example IDers can throw out, because its one of the most well documented progressions of evolution.

I do not know what God wants. That's none of my business for now.

We were created to "be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (thats in Genesis 1 somewhere, by memory)

If God wants some animals to have advantages than they will. I cannot attempt to explain his desires, and this debate frankly isn't about that.So...
"I don't really know what God wants, but this is what I think he's actually doing with evolution. But the debate isn't about what his evolutionary 'plan' for humanity is."
...Right?

So...
"I don't really know what God wants, but this is what I think he's actually doing with evolution. But the debate isn't about what his evolutionary 'plan' for humanity is."
...Right?

Although stated in such a way that makes me seem literally insane, that is correct. The debate isn't what God's plan is, it's whether or not a higher being is letting evolution continue. Because of the complexity and unexplainability (is that a word?) of evolution, I do believe a higher being is behind it. As a christian, I believe the christian God is behind evolution and He can explain what we can't.

Although stated in such a way that makes me seem literally insane, that is correct. The debate isn't what God's plan is, it's whether or not a higher being is letting evolution continue. Because of the complexity and unexplainability (is that a word?) of evolution, I do believe a higher being is behind it. As a christian, I believe the christian God is behind evolution and He can explain what we can't.

So it's a "god of the gaps" argument for you, then?

If evolution could be explained to you in sufficient detail for you to understand it, you'd cease believing in a deity?

The human eye. It is too irreducibly complex to have evolved (via natural selection alone) from a less complex being to the state that it is currently at.

that's a terrible example. we have actually existing examples of all of the 'steps' needed to build a complex eye, from light sensitive cells on. it's actually pretty easy, relatively speaking, because each 'step' is both beneficial as an eye in its own right and has an obvious selective advantage over the one before. eyes don't even need to be explained in terms of function cooption. hell, eyes are so easy and useful that they quite possibly may have shown up independently a couple times in a variety of lineages.

Although stated in such a way that makes me seem literally insane, that is correct. The debate isn't what God's plan is, it's whether or not a higher being is letting evolution continue. Because of the complexity and unexplainability (is that a word?) of evolution, I do believe a higher being is behind it. As a christian, I believe the christian God is behind evolution and He can explain what we can't.Lack of explanation as of now. Science evolves daily, unlike humans. We could quite possibly have this explanation in a matter of years.
Lack of data might also explain why we cannot give a concrete answer to the people with their fingers in their ears.

Exactly, the eye is the worst example IDers can throw out

the fact that they use it at all is the price tag still attached to the cheap suit of ID. the origins of the 'eye' meme in creationist quote mining is readily apparent, and ought be embarrassing to those who spout it.

So it's a "god of the gaps" argument for you, then?

If evolution could be explained to you in sufficient detail for you to understand it, you'd cease believing in a deity?

To the contrary! I'd gladly embrace such information and praise God for starting and letting the process continue! If the evolutionary fossil gap can be sufficiently explained in great, convincing detail then I would praise God and be extremely happy to know how he made such a complex process happen.

If the evolutionary fossil gap can be sufficiently explained in great, convincing detail

wait, what? the fact that not all organisms get fossilized? or something else?

To the contrary! I'd gladly embrace such information and praise God for starting and letting the process continue! If the evolutionary fossil gap can be sufficiently explained in great, convincing detail then I would praise God and be extremely happy to know how he made such a complex process happen.So, no mater what explanation is offered, God inevitably had a hand in it?

And Michael Behe himself has stated the evolution of the eye has been pretty well tracked through the fossil record, from photosensitive cells in microbial organisms all the way up through its development.

Hell, we don't even have a "complete" eye, per se. There are plenty of other animals, birds in particular, with eyesight far better than ours, eyesight more heavily "evolved" (though such a term, implying a direction for evolution, is inaccurate) than ours.

Fuck, our eyes are wired backwards.

http://tubearoo.com/articles/28846/Family_Guy_The_Big_Bang.html

:)

Although stated in such a way that makes me seem literally insane, that is correct. The debate isn't what God's plan is, it's whether or not a higher being is letting evolution continue. Because of the complexity and unexplainability (is that a word?) of evolution, I do believe a higher being is behind it. As a christian, I believe the christian God is behind evolution and He can explain what we can't.
I don't know what debate you're talking about, because that is not the debate this thread is about. This thread asks whether ID is science or not. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is a god or what he might do.

Also, I do not think any atheist would engage in the debate you seem to think we are having, since the argument would be meaningless and irrelevant to an atheist, since atheists do not believe there is a god. Also no one who believes in a god or gods other than the Christian one would have much interest in it the way you frame it, either.

I realize the thread is long, but there is value in reading before you post.

The human eye. It is too irreducibly complex to have evolved (via natural selection alone) from a less complex being to the state that it is currently at.According to whom? Oh, right, people that don't want to believe in evolution...
I never once quoted that it was impossible. I simply believe that because there are many flaws and unexplainable parts of evolution that a higher being, God, did such things and let them happen in such a way that we can't explain them.

It's not impossible, but so many things in evolution are extremely unlikely that the chances of all of those things happening perfectly without supernatural intervention is illogical.Happen perfectly? It doesn't happen perfectly. Apart from the nonsensical idea that we've evolved "perfect" or "useful" organs (you have an appendix. The existence thereof [or the fact that you've had it removed] ought to be sufficient proof that we don't have fully functional organs appear overnight, since we have stuff like the appendix left over), the organisms that don't get the working eyes or eyes that go sufficiently wrong die. This means we only get to see organs and organisms that "worked". The ones that didn't (and there's likely a good multitude of those more than the ones that did) aren't around, hence the appearance that eyes "happened perfectly".
Although stated in such a way that makes me seem literally insane, that is correct. The debate isn't what God's plan is, it's whether or not a higher being is letting evolution continue. Because of the complexity and unexplainability (is that a word?) of evolution, I do believe a higher being is behind it. As a christian, I believe the christian God is behind evolution and He can explain what we can't.This seems more like a means by which to cheat on biology exams than anything else, actually.

As a christian, I believe the christian God is behind evolution and He can explain what we can't.

The classical "god of the gaps" approach.

which is belief and not science. there should be a line strongly held for all science that is not blurred by religion, beliefs or politics

Sadly too many things have crossed it

which is belief and not science. there should be a line strongly held for all science that is not blurred by religion, beliefs or politics

Sadly too many things have crossed it

It will never happen, humanity is awash with belife, I suspect it is the deafualt for us, heh but that is just one of my belifes!

The classical "god of the gaps" approach.

I think if you belive in God then it is very easy to say, 'god did it' to almost any perplexing question.

Actually, not only I believe in intelligent design, but I have solid and incontestable proof in its favor.


And I don't mean any esoteric proof, but clear, materialistic confirmation.

Actually, not only I believe in intelligent design, but I have solid and incontestable proof in its favor.


And I don't mean any esoteric proof, but clear, materialistic confirmation.

Lets have it then?

Hahaha. You wish it was that easy. No, the proof that intelligent design is more solid is well visible to anyone, and you just need to open your eyes to see it. Try. If you fail, in 8-12 hours I'll chew it up for you. But really, try yourself.

Hahaha. You wish it was that easy. No, the proof that intelligent design is more solid is well visible to anyone, and you just need to open your eyes to see it. Try. If you fail, in 8-12 hours I'll chew it up for you. But really, try yourself.

Okay so you lied then. *nods*

No, I haven't. Whey I say that if in 12 hours you fail to get it yourself, I'll chew it up for you, I mean it. Until then, please, turn on your mind. Intelligent design works. Walk out on the street and you'll see lots of proof around you. Just use your mind to get the right conclusions. I don't want to take the chance to think away from you.

No, I haven't. Whey I say that if in 12 hours you fail to get it yourself, I'll chew it up for you, I mean it. Until then, please, turn on your mind. Intelligent design works. Walk out on the street and you'll see lots of proof around you. Just use your mind to get the right conclusions. I don't want to take the chance to think away from you.

No you said:


And I don't mean any esoteric proof, but clear, materialistic confirmation.

And now you say I can see it if only I open my eyes. Like it's all around me, if only I could open my eyes and see, almost as if it is there but hidden from the view of ordinary people. Quite the defintion of just what esoteric means if you ask me.

So yeah, you lied.

Ben Stein has a collection of wonderful arguments for intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Also some wonderful arguments against evolutionary biology. Most of them coincide with my earlier statements concerning the mathematical probability of undirected mutation.

Example, citing a molecular biologist in Expelled:
There are a minimum of 250 different complex proteins required to achieve self-sustaining, replicating single celled organisms. The chance that single-celled life alone could have been achieved without a designer is statistically zero. A failure in the random mutation of any one of those 250 proteins would preclude the coalescing of the cell.

I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.

So
No, I haven't. There's nothing esoteric about that. Take a bit of water and wash your eyes. Then open them. Then look. IRL or on the Internets, you'll find the proof, you'll find solid arguments for intelligent design that can't be beaten. All materialistic and physical.
Just freaking do it.


Now, if you excuse me - have I mentioned it in this thread or in the one about AIDS? - I have a sports competition to win, so I have to go.

No, I haven't. There's nothing esoteric about that. Take a bit of water and wash your eyes. Then open them. Then look. IRL or on the Internets, you'll find the proof, you'll find solid arguments for intelligent design that can't be beaten. All materialistic and physical.
Just freaking do it.


Now, if you excuse me - have I mentioned it in this thread or in the one about AIDS? - I have a sports competition to win, so I have to go.


Why don't you tell me what it is that you expect me to see? If it is not esoteric then you should have no problems in find the words huh.

The chance that single-celled life alone could have been achieved without a designer is statistically zero.

Statisticly zero huh? Which could mean 0.99999999999% So in real terms then a slim chance.

How much higer does the chance get if we factor in the age of the Earth, I wonder?

Why don't you tell me what it is that you expect me to see?

That Vault 10 is trolling you. I've been noting his behavior patterns on this forum for a while, and this falls within the parameters.

That Vault 10 is trolling you. I've been charting his behavior patterns on this forum for a while, and this falls within the parameters.

Yeah when somebody claims to have the proof and then does not give it up, well you know summit is going on huh!

Yeah when somebody claims to have the proof and then does not give it up, well you know summit is going on huh!

The problem with message boards is that you can never tell when someone is being sarcastic or not...

That Vault 10 is trolling you. I've been noting his behavior patterns on this forum for a while, and this falls within the parameters.

You keep notes on us?

You keep notes on us?

Yes, I'm a creepy spook who keeps thick dossiers on everyone I come into contact with, collating data and constructing behavior pattern charts on them, integrating the sum data as the guidelines for an extensive societal control program.

Or maybe I'm not...

Yes, I'm a creepy spook who keeps thick dossiers on everyone I come into contact with, collating data and constructing behavior pattern charts on them, integrating the sum data as the guidelines for an extensive societal control program.

Or maybe I'm not...

lol

Damn and here I was thinking I wasn't the only one :tongue:

Yes, I'm a creepy spook who keeps thick dossiers on everyone I come into contact with, collating data and constructing behavior pattern charts on them, integrating the sum data as the guidelines for an extensive societal control program.

Or maybe I'm not...

I hope mine are written in crayon. :)

which is belief and not science. there should be a line strongly held for all science that is not blurred by religion, beliefs or politics

Sadly too many things have crossed itI, on the other hand, am perfectly ok with politics messing with science. I'm not all that interested in seeing science become unfettered from things such as "ethics", "morality", or "the law".
Ben Stein has a collection of wonderful arguments for intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Also some wonderful arguments against evolutionary biology. Most of them coincide with my earlier statements concerning the mathematical probability of undirected mutation.Actually, he doesn't. The whole film is primarily meant to play out on a victim complex sprinkled with taking things out of context and pseudoscience.
Example, citing a molecular biologist in Expelled:
There are a minimum of 250 different complex proteins required to achieve self-sustaining, replicating single celled organisms. The chance that single-celled life alone could have been achieved without a designer is statistically zero. A failure in the random mutation of any one of those 250 proteins would preclude the coalescing of the cell."A molecular biologist"? I'll bet there's more molecular biologists named Steve that disagree (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve).
I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you with it's reducibly complex teeth.
That Vault 10 is trolling you. I've been noting his behavior patterns on this forum for a while, and this falls within the parameters.I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that.

I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.

Ah, I think I see what is happening again. SOmehow, IDers confused themselves with the scientific community. Here's an easy way to tell them apart: Scientists test hypotheses, IDers do not.

Ah, I think I see what is happening again. SOmehow, IDers confused themselves with the scientific community. Here's an easy way to tell them apart: Scientists test hypotheses, IDers do not.

Scientests have a BS, IDers just speak it

"A molecular biologist"? I'll bet there's more molecular biologists named Steve that disagree (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve).

That is lovely and makes me wish my name were Steve.

Ben Stein has a collection of wonderful arguments for intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Also some wonderful arguments against evolutionary biology. Most of them coincide with my earlier statements concerning the mathematical probability of undirected mutation.
If you take the dictionary definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wonderful) of 'wonderful' to be "exciting wonder : marvelous, astonishing" then I'd agree with you... I find some of the tortured logic and unfathomable leaps in Stein's film to br pretty astonishing too. If, on the other hand, you're taking the alternative definition ("unusually good : admirable") and seriously trying to claim that Expelled holds any kind of scientific merit then I see little hope for debate. The claims and conclusions made in that film have been more solidly debunked than anything else I've ever seen -- "OMGMoonLandingIsFAKE" conspiracy nonsenses included.

Example, citing a molecular biologist in Expelled:
There are a minimum of 250 different complex proteins required to achieve self-sustaining, replicating single celled organisms. The chance that single-celled life alone could have been achieved without a designer is statistically zero. A failure in the random mutation of any one of those 250 proteins would preclude the coalescing of the cell.
Typing this is probably a waste of the skin on my fingertips, but okay...
Ignoring for the moment that your statistical objections are against abiogenesis, and not against evolution per se, nobody outside of the ID lobby claims that evolutionary theory involves a cell spontaneously arising out of a mass of short-chain molecules (or longer-chained proteins) just by random chance. Contemporary theories for the advent of the first cells are all based around the prior existence of molecules whose characteristics (usually as a result of their physical shape) allow for heredity during replication, and there are dozens of competing theories regarding this. The difference between ID and the various scientific theories that have been floated is that ID provides no evidence, or testable hypotheses, whatsoever, which is sort of the point of the thread if I recall the OP and poll correctly.
I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.
As I read this paragraph I found that there was a little voice in my head, saying...
A propaganda war is being waged by the deniers of evolution, a loud and vocal group in which the majority appear to believe what they believe because their parents cared only that their children were raised to believe what they themselves were raised to believe the generation before. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about ignoring evidence or using appeals to Biblical authority to protect its failing empire and, as evidenced by this board, has no qualms about resorting to 'appeals to persecution' when called on their lack of coherent scientific argument.
See how easy it is to just string together a few nonsensical sentences instead of an actual argument? I probably shouldn't of bothered with that last bit, since you'll no doubt just see it as some kind of personal attack anyway, but I couldn't help it...

I'm a creepy spook who keeps thick dossiers on everyone I come into contact with, collating data and constructing behavior pattern charts on them, integrating the sum data as the guidelines for an extensive societal control program.
Eeeeexcellent... </MontyBurns>

Scientests have a BS, IDers do too, wait how does that prove your point? :p

Scientists have a BS, IDers BS. :D

Scientists have a BS, IDers BS. :D

lol, yeah I changed it just after you quoted it, it seems.

That is lovely and makes me wish my name were Steve.Project Steve: Saving science one Steve at a time =D

lol

Damn and here I was thinking I wasn't the only one :tongue:

That's been accounted for too. ;)

I hope mine are written in crayon. :)

Black, 10 font size New Times Roman, same as everyone else. I must admit, pinning you down, even if only in writing, as one iota of data amidst a sea of others, drowned out in averageness and median scores, was almost... enjoyable.

lol, yeah I changed it just after you quoted it, it seems.

These things happen. :)

That's been accounted for too. ;)



Black, 10 font size New Times Roman, same as everyone else. I must admit, pinning you down, even if only in writing, as one iota of data amidst a sea of others, drowned out in averageness and median scores, was almost... enjoyable.

I bet it took a while. ;)

I, on the other hand, am perfectly ok with politics messing with science. I'm not all that interested in seeing science become unfettered from things such as "ethics", "morality", or "the law".
Actually, he doesn't. The whole film is primarily meant to play out on a victim complex sprinkled with taking things out of context and pseudoscience.
"A molecular biologist"? I'll bet there's more molecular biologists named Steve that disagree (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve).
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you with it's reducibly complex teeth.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that.

Aww, you missed an opportunity. You ought of pointed out that given vast stretches of time even the statistically vastly improbable becomes nearly certain to occur at least once.

Aww, you missed an opportunity. You ought of pointed out that given vast stretches of time even the statistically vastly improbable becomes nearly certain to occur at least once.

And it only has to occur once.

And it only has to occur once.

For instance it's entirely possible that every atom that makes up LG's pants could spontaneously simultaneously shift a foot to the left of their current position. It's indescribably unlikely, but hell over 13.5 billion years of opportunities it's almost certain.

Aww, you missed an opportunity. You ought of pointed out that given vast stretches of time even the statistically vastly improbable becomes nearly certain to occur at least once.

I said that I said that! :p

For instance it's entirely possible that every atom that makes up LG's pants could spontaneously simultaneously shift a foot to the left of their current position. It's indescribably unlikely, but hell over 13.5 billion years of opportunities it's almost certain.

It happened last week. :)

Ben Stein has a collection of wonderful arguments for intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Also some wonderful arguments against evolutionary biology.

No, he really doesn't. As with most creationists, he tends to argue against things that aren't even a part of evolutionary theory and then tries to claim that he's somehow disproved it.

I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.

So, again, have you purchased your tin foil hat yet?

I, on the other hand, am perfectly ok with politics messing with science. I'm not all that interested in seeing science become unfettered from things such as "ethics", "morality", or "the law".


These things aren't the same as politics, though.

I am a christian. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate, but I figure I'll let y'all know before I'm screamed at for it.


No, you're being a Christian is directly connected to the matter. WHerever you find something that isn't satisfying to you (like the 'gaps' you claim in the fossil record, your first assumption is that 'god must have done it', rather than any other response. I'll explain that later.


But how can you explain huge holes in the theory such as the fossil record gap or irreducible complexity? Evolution, as-is, cannot explain such complex and unknown processes.


The 'gaps' in the fossil record are easily explained. If every person on e the planet, right now, died - how many fossils would be left in a million years?

There are six billion people. I wouldn't expect six billion fossils.

And that's the problem with the 'fossil gap' idea. Just because you haven't found bones that show every single transition, doesn't mean those transitions MUST not have existed, any more than a failure to find six billion human fossils a million years from now would be evidence we don't exist now.


A book entitled Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by a brilliant man named Michael J. Behe clearly shows the large gaps in the theory of evolution.


Michael Behe is a hack. He's a poor scientist.


The irreducible complexity of the human eye, as one of thousands of examples, is "too complex to have evolved from simpler, or 'less complete' predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations."


And here's the thing. Even Michael Behe admits the human eye isn't irreducibly complex. In order for something to actually BE irreducibly complex, it would have to be LITERALLY impossible for it to form without intervention.

And, that's why Michael Behe's idea is bullshit. It hinges on the idea that there ARE irreducibly complex parts (although none actually exist that stand up to scientific rigour), and it assumes that parts MUST have evolved to serve the purpose they now serve. The argument 'yes, but it wouldn't have been useful as a lung in earlier iterations' is a useless argument if the organ in question evolved into being a 'lung' after millions of years of mutations of an organ that functioned perfectly well as a swim-bladder.


I believe in evolution. However, I believe a higher power, in my case God, started evolution and currently keeps it going. I believe that we evolved from monkeys and apes, and you wouldn't believe the scrutiny I receive from my christian peers. However, the theory of evolution seems to be pretty accurate aside from falsified and incorrect carbon dating methods.


What's wrong with carbon dating? MOst commonly, the arguments against carbon dating are that it is inaccurate under certain conditions, and has a finite focus.

Those arguments might be relevent if the scientific community didn't already KNOW that.

I was listening to a creationist radio program a while back, and they were talking about carbon dating giving the wrong age for (what they were calling) 'fossilised barbwire'. It was kind of amusing, but kind of depressing, that people would use an argument that THEY don't understand the limitations of carbon dating... as an argument that it must be 'wrong'.


There are gaps in evolution; this fact cannot be denied.


Yes it can. There are no 'gaps' in any meaningful way.

If one piece of a jigsaw puzzle gets lost, the rest of it is still a puzzle. To write-off evolution because some of the pieces, in a set of unknown size, still haven't been found is ridiculous. Even more so when those puzzle pieces are buried in the ground, over a surface area the size of a planet.


As a christian, I believe these gaps are filled by God. I stand by the quote above: certain body parts and such are too complex to have evolved from simpler and less complete predecessors...through natural selection.


No, they aren't.


I believe we did in fact evolve from these simpler predecessors, but rather through the work of God and I think he's fulfilling his plan by using evolution.

"Simpler predecessors" suggests that we are more 'complex'. But the 'goal' of evolution isn't complexity, and you can't measure the 'degree' of evolution-ness from mere measure of complication.

Ben Stein has a collection of wonderful arguments for intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Also some wonderful arguments against evolutionary biology. Most of them coincide with my earlier statements concerning the mathematical probability of undirected mutation.

Example, citing a molecular biologist in Expelled:
There are a minimum of 250 different complex proteins required to achieve self-sustaining, replicating single celled organisms. The chance that single-celled life alone could have been achieved without a designer is statistically zero. A failure in the random mutation of any one of those 250 proteins would preclude the coalescing of the cell.

I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.

Bolded for emphasis.

You certainly are fighting a propaganda war.

Ben Stein has a collection of wonderful arguments for intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Also some wonderful arguments against evolutionary biology. Most of them coincide with my earlier statements concerning the mathematical probability of undirected mutation.



Oh God. *adds to list of people on NSG not to take seriously*

I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.
You can shout and stamp all you like -- and you can indirectly insult us by suggesting we are all liars, all you like too -- but it changes nothing. Religion is not science, and you are arguing for religion OVER science, not even religion AS science.

And you are arguing it in a most deliciously ironic way, too.

"Simpler predecessors" suggests that we are more 'complex'. But the 'goal' of evolution isn't complexity

it isn't the goal, but it is an outcome of it due to something analogous to gould's drunken walk. fall below a certain level of complexity and you cease to be life, so over time some things that don't fall into the gutter will tend to get more complex

and we most certainly are more complex than our ancestors (considered broadly, of course).

and you can't measure the 'degree' of evolution-ness from mere measure of complication.

indeed

it isn't the goal, but it is an outcome of it due to something analogous to gould's drunken walk. fall below a certain level of complexity and you cease to be life, so over time some things that don't fall into the gutter will tend to get more complex

and we most certainly are more complex than our ancestors (considered broadly, of course).


As a broad stroke, yes - if we evolved from unicellular life, then we are more complex... but we're not automatically more complex than EVERY step that led to us.

I've got a quick point to raise...

In Biology, the first thing we learnt was the Law of Biogenesis. Which Simply put life comes from life.

So let's for a moment put that in part logic/math terms. n implies existance of n-1.

Now if we switch over to purely mathematics, there is a well known proof that there is no actual number for infinity. The Proof which uses the Induction method goes something like this... ( a minor change step 3 is usually prove true for x=n+1, the effect of this is that's we've changed the proof from positive infinty to negative infinity)

Step 1 (Prove something that's basic maths for when x=1.. in this case that x-x=0)

1-1=0

therefore x-x=0, when x = 1

Step 1 has been proven, for this step it doesn't really matter as long as it's a fundamental mathematic operation.

Step 2 (Assume True for x=n)

n-n=0

Step 3 (Prove True for x=n-1)

n-1 - (n-1)=0
n - 1 - n + 1=0 (-(n-1) expanded
n-n = 0 (-1 + 1 cancel each other out and equal 0)
n-n=0 as we have assumed

Step 4

As we have proved tha x-x=0 is true for x=1, we have no proved it true for 0 (1-1), -1 (0-1), -2 and so we have proved there can be no negative number that is negative infinity because there will always be a number below it.

.....

Taking this back into it's Biological context... by maths we have just proven that there has been infinite amount of life. As there can be no "starting lifeform" as there always should be one before it. Thus even if it was the earliest moments of creation/big bang then it existed without a llifeform progenating it (abiogenesis), At least within normal bounds. but for a moment let's ponder a hypothetical. And I'll start by asking a question.

What does the "n-1" mean in this biological context? It means a life form that exists (or existed) independently of the n lifeform but the n lifeform was derived from it, so how can we make it so logically life can exist without breaking this rule. We have to apply it in a context where the entire 'n-1' context is meaningless.

And the only place I can think of is outside normal bounds, infact... outside of time itself. If time doesn't exist then the whole concept of before and after are melded together into... eternity. So then if indeed I am right and the first lifeform exists outside of time, then surely the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... 100th could very well exist within time and the law of biogenesis is adhered to.

So my question is, how else would you define a lifeform that is outside of time, to generate a lifeform that operates within the time dimension if not if "Lifeform A created Lifeform B"?

I've got a quick point to raise...

In Biology, the first thing we learnt was the Law of Biogenesis. Which Simply put life comes from life.

So let's for a moment put that in part logic/math terms. n implies existance of n-1.

Now if we switch over to purely mathematics, there is a well known proof that there is no actual number for infinity. The Proof which uses the Induction method goes something like this... ( a minor change step 3 is usually prove true for x=n+1, the effect of this is that's we've changed the proof from positive infinty to negative infinity)

Step 1 (Prove something that's basic maths for when x=1.. in this case that x-x=0)

1-1=0

therefore x-x=0, when x = 1

Step 1 has been proven, for this step it doesn't really matter as long as it's a fundamental mathematic operation.

Step 2 (Assume True for x=n)

n-n=0

Step 3 (Prove True for x=n-1)

n-1 - (n-1)=0
n - 1 - n + 1=0 (-(n-1) expanded
n-n = 0 (-1 + 1 cancel each other out and equal 0)
n-n=0 as we have assumed

Step 4

As we have proved tha x-x=0 is true for x=1, we have no proved it true for 0 (1-1), -1 (0-1), -2 and so we have proved there can be no negative number that is negative infinity because there will always be a number below it.

.....

Taking this back into it's Biological context... by maths we have just proven that there has been infinite amount of life. As there can be no "starting lifeform" as there always should be one before it. Thus even if it was the earliest moments of creation/big bang then it existed without a llifeform progenating it (abiogenesis), At least within normal bounds. but for a moment let's ponder a hypothetical. And I'll start by asking a question.

What does the "n-1" mean in this biological context? It means a life form that exists (or existed) independently of the n lifeform but the n lifeform was derived from it, so how can we make it so logically life can exist without breaking this rule. We have to apply it in a context where the entire 'n-1' context is meaningless.

And the only place I can think of is outside normal bounds, infact... outside of time itself. If time doesn't exist then the whole concept of before and after are melded together into... eternity. So then if indeed I am right and the first lifeform exists outside of time, then surely the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... 100th could very well exist within time and the law of biogenesis is adhered to.

So my question is, how else would you define a lifeform that is outside of time, to generate a lifeform that operates within the time dimension if not if "Lifeform A created Lifeform B"?
isnt that a lot of BS to go through just to suggest that there must be an ultimate creator?

i havent been in school in a very long time but im pretty sure that there is a theory of spontaneous development of simple life.

So my question is, how else would you define a lifeform that is outside of time, to generate a lifeform that operates within the time dimension if not if "Lifeform A created Lifeform B"?

there is no way to define this life form. it does not exist in our realm of existence.

your post implies nothing but that there "must have been" some original life (which must also have had some life that it came from) but nothing about what that lifeform would be like.

I've got a quick point to raise...

In Biology, the first thing we learnt was the Law of Biogenesis. Which Simply put life comes from life.

So let's for a moment put that in part logic/math terms. n implies existance of n-1.

Now if we switch over to purely mathematics, there is a well known proof that there is no actual number for infinity. The Proof which uses the Induction method goes something like this... ( a minor change step 3 is usually prove true for x=n+1, the effect of this is that's we've changed the proof from positive infinty to negative infinity)

Step 1 (Prove something that's basic maths for when x=1.. in this case that x-x=0)

1-1=0

therefore x-x=0, when x = 1

Step 1 has been proven, for this step it doesn't really matter as long as it's a fundamental mathematic operation.

Step 2 (Assume True for x=n)

n-n=0

Step 3 (Prove True for x=n-1)

n-1 - (n-1)=0
n - 1 - n + 1=0 (-(n-1) expanded
n-n = 0 (-1 + 1 cancel each other out and equal 0)
n-n=0 as we have assumed

Step 4

As we have proved tha x-x=0 is true for x=1, we have no proved it true for 0 (1-1), -1 (0-1), -2 and so we have proved there can be no negative number that is negative infinity because there will always be a number below it.

.....

Taking this back into it's Biological context... by maths we have just proven that there has been infinite amount of life. As there can be no "starting lifeform" as there always should be one before it. Thus even if it was the earliest moments of creation/big bang then it existed without a llifeform progenating it (abiogenesis), At least within normal bounds. but for a moment let's ponder a hypothetical. And I'll start by asking a question.

What does the "n-1" mean in this biological context? It means a life form that exists (or existed) independently of the n lifeform but the n lifeform was derived from it, so how can we make it so logically life can exist without breaking this rule. We have to apply it in a context where the entire 'n-1' context is meaningless.

And the only place I can think of is outside normal bounds, infact... outside of time itself. If time doesn't exist then the whole concept of before and after are melded together into... eternity. So then if indeed I am right and the first lifeform exists outside of time, then surely the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... 100th could very well exist within time and the law of biogenesis is adhered to.

So my question is, what life form could it be that is outside of time, if it isn't a creator-god?

Your variables are wrong, and your definitions are weak.

'Life from life' requires that life be equal to life, which means - every value must be the same as every other value - and that clearly isn't true.

Why is that a problem?

Because your math only holds true if the life BEFORE the current variable being assessed, is identical in value.

If, instead, we assume a value (let's assume a billion, for the sake of complexity), tracking back through an evolutionary process - as well as just back through chronology - we notice that our definition of the variable life tends towards zero.

In other words, at some point, there was a 'lifeform', where the term 'life' was debatable - a zero (or, at least, non-integer) value.

Reasonable? Sure - we have just such entities today, in the form of viruses.


Incidentally - it looks to me like you misunderstood the 'law of biogenesis'. You're talking (I assume) about the concept that COMPLEX forms do not spontaneously arise out of the environment. It doesn't mean all life, ever, must have derived from an earlier life.

I believe in and worship the Goddess. Intelligent Design is not science. Whether or not we were created or are the children of mere chance, science requires a testable hypothesis and the use of existing evidence. ID is beyond unscientific.

And how does evolution qualify as science? Any hypothesis that has been tested has failed to produce life, and there's no evidence since no "transitional" fossils have ever been found.

And that's the problem with the 'fossil gap' idea. Just because you haven't found bones that show every single transition, doesn't mean those transitions MUST not have existed, any more than a failure to find six billion human fossils a million years from now would be evidence we don't exist now.

True, but demanding that they MUST have existed without any actual evidence is just as great a mistake. Hmm... believing in something without evidence to support it... sounds like a faith/religion to me.


To be clear, I chose the "Religious/ID is not science" option, because I don't think that science can prove the origins of life. Whether ID or evolution, both must sometimes be taken on faith.

And how does evolution qualify as science?


Because the observation was first, followed by the theory, followed by attempts to experimentally verify it, followed by revision of the theory.

It's almost definitive as 'science'.


Any hypothesis that have been tested have failed to produce life,


Which wouldn't be 'evolution'.


...and there's no evidence since no "transitional" fossils have ever been found.


And this is rubbish. It relies on defining 'transitional' as something weird - either 'every-SINGLE-step-of-the-process' (which would be unrealistic), or 'something-half-way-between-a-bat-and-a-banana' (which would just be nonsensical).

Instead, if you use the phrase 'transitional fossil' to mean 'intervening-form-between-two-other-forms', there are thousands of examples.


True, but demanding that they MUST have existed without any actual evidence is just as great a mistake.


No one is demanding that. It wouldn't be scientific.

But if you look at a set of fossils, and find what looks like a chain of 6 or 8 connected stages, only, it looks like their should be a ninth in there somewhere... it's not unreasonable to suspect that there MIGHT be, and you just haven't found one yet, or none were fossilised.


Hmm... believing in something without evidence to support it... sounds like a faith/religion to me.


Which is why I didn't advocate it.


To be clear, I chose the "Religious/ID is not science" option, because I don't think that science can prove the origins of life. Whether ID or evolution, both must sometimes be taken on faith.

Not even vaguely true.

ID (or creationism) has to be taken on faith, because it cannot be scientifically assessed. Evolution can.

no "transitional" fossils have ever been found

http://www.phyletisches-museum.uni-jena.de/images/archaeopteryx_berlin_1864.jpg

Oh God. *adds to list of people on NSG not to take seriously*

That list must be getting fairly long now.

Ashmoria & GnI:

There is a belief, yes. Hypothesis, yes but I wouldn't say theory.

What are Simple life-forms? Have we observed spontaneous generation of life in nature? Have we any evidence at all to support life (even microbes) not being derivations of an already existing pattern?

And to say that there must of been "Simple Life" that could of come from the mud is an unsupported unscientific cop-out that is the height of hypocrsy. As far as I'm concerned there is only life, this life could take many forms, though at it's fundamental core is still life and so is comparable.

Viruses are not alive, that is also something that I learnt in year 11/12 biology. They in certain circumstances mimic life but really are just stray genetic material that take control over a living host. It's like a factory that creates equipment used a factory, the factory equipment aren't a factory but when placed in a factory with other other equipment can create new goods. Viruses are essentially factory equipment designed to create itself, but they need the processes and resources of an already existing factory to actually do anything.

In other words, at some point, there was a 'lifeform', where the term 'life' was debatable - a zero (or, at least, non-integer) value.

Umm.. not really. 0 doesn't mean anything by it self, in this case any number is just a comparrison between of the appropriate generation -123 and 123 are merely 246 generations apart and the 0th generation and 123 are merely 123 generations apart. Think of it as tracing a family tree back each "-1" is simply finding who progenated that, and a "-10" is finding who progenated, the proginator who... etc back 10 generations.

Basically the fundamental difference is "Simple" Lifeforms... You believe they exist i don't. I believe that they are un-scientific and only exist as a way to explain away God.

And anyway at it's fundamental core we can never really know what happened for the origin of life, it happened too far in the past for us be 100% certain how it SCIENTIFICALLY happened. We could perhaps believe different things, conjecture about it, or maybe in the future sometime we will be able to create life out of component materials but will that really tell us the origin of life? Sure it tells us that life could be formed from it's component parts, but will we ever be sure that it was because of some natural process or some being outside of time?

One more thing, I don't think we can know what such a being would be like, as per my current understanding of M-Theory (Which I admit is severly limited) If someone is outside of time they are outside all the other dimensions as well, just as dimensions restrict ability for movement/ability (as seen from our knowledge of the first 3 physical dimensions) then imagine what this being could do. God would certainly be an apt description of any such being.

http://www.phyletisches-museum.uni-jena.de/images/archaeopteryx_berlin_1864.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

Hope this helps...

It isn't a direct transitional fossil, though to quote a bit from the conclusion "an echo of the actual event"

It's hardly conclusive evidence but I admit it does lean that way.

Buddha was an atheist, man.

Technically, no. Buddhism, essentially allows for higher and lower levels of reincarnation. That means anything from insects to humans to earth spirits to Devas AKA gods. There's no one mighty creator god in the Buddhism aspect, but it doesn't preclude higher levels of existence that would commonly fall under godly beings.

Furthermore, given that Buddha talked a lot about reincarnation, his previous lives as various entities, godly and otherwise, it's hard to give credence to the atheist claim.

Sorry, good try. But do some research. The Archeopteryx has been discredited as a transitional fossil for some 20 or so years. Yet still feature in many biology textbooks as an example transitional fossils. Go figure.

no, it really really hasn't. you are mistaking 'transitional fossil' for 'direct ancestor of modern birds'. it is probably not the latter, but it is clearly and obviously the former. anyone who told you otherwise was lying to you.

to say that there must of been "Simple Life" that could of come from the mud is an unsupported unscientific cop-out that is the height of hypocrsy

except for the fact that its really quite easy to make the basic chemical components of life under a wide range of conditions. we aren't just saying it - we've got evidence and theoretical justification.

no, it really really hasn't. you are mistaking 'transitional fossil' for 'direct ancestor of modern birds'. it is probably not the latter, but it is clearly and obviously the former. anyone who told you otherwise was lying to you.

Okay, let's say it is the direct ancestor of modern birds. You've got to ask the question where did the Archepteryx come from? Is there any reason why that answer can't be "It was created"?

except for the fact that its really quite easy to make the basic chemical components of life under a wide range of conditions. we aren't just saying it - we've got evidence and theoretical justification.

Yes, except that is not what I said. The components of life are one thing, making them into life itself is somethin else all together.

You may have all the components in the exact chemical form, and enough quantities to make a car... but that doesn't mean you can easily make a car, you need the equipment to mold and shape them correctely, do things in an order so that so that the car doesn't fall to bits while you are doing it and have a design to build from.

EDIT ADDED CONTENT:
As for Equipment for possible "molding of shaping" through natural processes: unknown (possible but extremely unlikely)
As for Order of components: extremely extremely unlikely but with billion year time frames as posited by evolutionists - possible
As for Design: Randomly. it's just not going to happen...

Technically, no. Buddhism, essentially allows for higher and lower levels of reincarnation. That means anything from insects to humans to earth spirits to Devas AKA gods.
But they are mortal, though long-lived, creatures, and really can't be compared to "God" in the Abrahamic sense. That kind of concept is thoroughly absent.

But they are mortal, though long-lived, creatures, and really can't be compared to "God" in the Abrahamic sense. That kind of concept is thoroughly absent.

i don't think we can rightly go around calling everyone who believes in supernatural beings of various sorts that happen to be non-abrahamic 'atheists'

But they are mortal, though long-lived, creatures, and really can't be compared to "God" in the Abrahamic sense. That kind of concept is thoroughly absent.

Well of course. It's only the Abrahamic religions that have the idea of a godly entity being an immortal, invincible, all powerful being transcending time and space. Every other mythology and religion had gods being thrown down, killed, etc, etc. For the purposes of mythology sets though, deva's were still gods, extremely long lived beings with immense powers. And of course, supernatural by definition.

Belief in them doesn't make one an atheist anymore than being an old school Norse gods worshiper an atheist.

Ashmoria & GnI:

There is a belief, yes. Hypothesis, yes but I wouldn't say theory.

What are Simple life-forms? Have we observed spontaneous generation of life in nature? Have we any evidence at all to support life (even microbes) not being derivations of an already existing pattern?

And to say that there must of been "Simple Life" that could of come from the mud is an unsupported unscientific cop-out that is the height of hypocrsy. As far as I'm concerned there is only life, this life could take many forms, though at it's fundamental core is still life and so is comparable.

Viruses are not alive, that is also something that I learnt in year 11/12 biology. They in certain circumstances mimic life but really are just stray genetic material that take control over a living host. It's like a factory that creates equipment used a factory, the factory equipment aren't a factory but when placed in a factory with other other equipment can create new goods. Viruses are essentially factory equipment designed to create itself, but they need the processes and resources of an already existing factory to actually do anything.



Umm.. not really. 0 doesn't mean anything by it self, in this case any number is just a comparrison between of the appropriate generation -123 and 123 are merely 246 generations apart and the 0th generation and 123 are merely 123 generations apart. Think of it as tracing a family tree back each "-1" is simply finding who progenated that, and a "-10" is finding who progenated, the proginator who... etc back 10 generations.

Basically the fundamental difference is "Simple" Lifeforms... You believe they exist i don't. I believe that they are un-scientific and only exist as a way to explain away God.

And anyway at it's fundamental core we can never really know what happened for the origin of life, it happened too far in the past for us be 100% certain how it SCIENTIFICALLY happened. We could perhaps believe different things, conjecture about it, or maybe in the future sometime we will be able to create life out of component materials but will that really tell us the origin of life? Sure it tells us that life could be formed from it's component parts, but will we ever be sure that it was because of some natural process or some being outside of time?

One more thing, I don't think we can know what such a being would be like, as per my current understanding of M-Theory (Which I admit is severly limited) If someone is outside of time they are outside all the other dimensions as well, just as dimensions restrict ability for movement/ability (as seen from our knowledge of the first 3 physical dimensions) then imagine what this being could do. God would certainly be an apt description of any such being.
fine but what does that say about GOD?

nothing.

it does not say that this "life prime" being was "god", that he was all powerful, all knowing, etc, that he did it on purpose, that he didnt have his own creator in yet some other universe event, that he survived his creation episode, that he still survives, that he knows anything about the earth and about us, that if he does have some knowledge that he cares or expects anything from us or that he could be bothered to control the development of life on earth, that he is in any way the god of the bible, that he is a trinity, that he had an only begotten son jesus, that we can get a blissful eternal life by worshipping him in the right manner,

or anything else that might enter your head.

i don't think we can rightly go around calling everyone who believes in supernatural beings of various sorts that happen to be non-abrahamic 'atheists'
They fit within what the Abrahamics mean when they talk about someone being "atheist": that is, rejecting their whole God paradigm.

You've got to ask the question where did the Archepteryx come from? Is there any reason why that answer can't be "It was created"?

other than the fact that that answer is just stupid, because it shares numerous 'primitive' features with theropod dinosaurs, thus we have good reason to think it descended from one of them. and we can do that on down the line for all life on earth (as best we can tell).

Yes, except that is not what I said. The components of life are one thing, making them into life itself is somethin else all together.

You may have all the components in the exact chemical form, and enough quantities to make a car... but that doesn't mean you can easily make a car, you need the equipment to mold and shape them correctely, do things in an order so that so that the car doesn't fall to bits while you are doing it and have a design to build from.

finding out how easy it is for the bits to form abiotically was actually something of a coup. people thought it would be much harder than it turned out to be. and we also have a number of potential routes from there. simple(ish) autocatalysing, self-replicating systems. we happen to not know enough currently, but the prelims look really fucking promising. now is certainly not the time to stop investigating and declare that beyond here there be dragons.

That list must be getting fairly long now.

Shorter than you might think. Most who make it on there dont stay long enough to get into the double digit post count.

For example, youre not on there.

They fit within what the Abrahamics mean when they talk about someone being "atheist": that is, rejecting their whole God paradigm.

yeah, but those guys are idiots

There is a belief, yes. Hypothesis, yes but I wouldn't say theory.


Does this connect to anything?


What are Simple life-forms?


I would assume they are 'life-forms', that are 'simple'.


Have we observed spontaneous generation of life in nature? Have we any evidence at all to support life (even microbes) not being derivations of an already existing pattern?


SPontaneous generation isn't evolution. You appear to be trying to cross-contaminate the two subjects to try to prove some point.


And to say that there must of been "Simple Life" that could of come from the mud is an unsupported unscientific cop-out


Not at all. I mean - if you expressed it in realistic terms, at least - what is 'life' but a collection of proteins?


...that is the height of hypocrsy.


Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. How can a field that basically says 'the evidence looks like...' be hypocritical?


As far as I'm concerned there is only life,


As far as you're concerned?

That sounds like an opinion - and carries all the weight that entails.


...this life could take many forms, though at it's fundamental core is still life and so is comparable.

Viruses are not alive, that is also something that I learnt in year 11/12 biology.


I don't think much of your education then.

The South African Journal of Science, for example, carried an article specifically targetting that gray area, entitled: "The classification of organisms at the edge of life, or problems with virus systematics" which cited the fact that viruses possess genes (and have a taxonomical genome structure) and evolve through natural selection.

It has long been established that viruses exhibit some of the usual considerations we use to define 'life'.


They in certain circumstances mimic life but really are just stray genetic material that take control over a living host.


Not at all. The fact that they evolve, immediately destroys that argument.


It's like a factory that creates equipment used a factory, the factory equipment aren't a factory but when placed in a factory with other other equipment can create new goods. Viruses are essentially factory equipment designed to create itself, but they need the processes and resources of an already existing factory to actually do anything.


By that argument, parasites are not alive.


Umm.. not really. 0 doesn't mean anything by it self, in this case any number is just a comparrison between of the appropriate generation -123 and 123 are merely 246 generations apart and the 0th generation and 123 are merely 123 generations apart. Think of it as tracing a family tree back each "-1" is simply finding who progenated that, and a "-10" is finding who progenated, the proginator who... etc back 10 generations.


I think you misunderstand. 1 would be our first generation - our first lifeform. Whatever comes before 1 (either a null value - not alive, 0... or a non-integer value - not what we usally accept as alive) isn't part of the trend in truest terms.


Basically the fundamental difference is "Simple" Lifeforms... You believe they exist i don't.


It's not a matter of 'belief'.


I believe that they are un-scientific


I 'believe' you lack the required attributes to make that decision.


...and only exist as a way to explain away God.


I think you are using 'god' as a way of explaining away simply not knowing something. Just because we're not sure where the first life comes from, it doesn't leap out that it must be 'god'.


And anyway at it's fundamental core we can never really know what happened for the origin of life,


Which is okay. Because it doesn't matter to the discussion of evolution.


...it happened too far in the past for us be 100% certain how it SCIENTIFICALLY happened. We could perhaps believe


Most of us aren't asking to 'believe' anything. We're happy to accept that we don't know, might never know... and then go ahead and look for possible explanations. No 'belief' required.


...different things, conjecture about it, or maybe in the future sometime we will be able to create life out of component materials but will that really tell us the origin of life? Sure it tells us that life could be formed from it's component parts, but will we ever be sure that it was because of some natural process or some being outside of time?


If we have a working model for the formation of the first life-forms, it doesn't mean there is no god. There isn't the conflict that you seem to invision.

On the other hand - if that model works, there's not a lot wrong with using that model till something better comes along.


One more thing, I don't think we can know what such a being would be like, as per my current understanding of M-Theory (Which I admit is severly limited) If someone is outside of time they are outside all the other dimensions as well, just as dimensions restrict ability for movement/ability (as seen from our knowledge of the first 3 physical dimensions) then imagine what this being could do. God would certainly be an apt description of any such being.

All entirely irrelevent.

There's no reason to imagine there is a 'god' in the machine. The idea of life occuring through some natural proces is functional, and elements of it can be verified. Some dodgy math isn't enough to suddenly impress a necessity for some mythical deus ex machina.

They fit within what the Abrahamics mean when they talk about someone being "atheist": that is, rejecting their whole God paradigm.

Well these sort of people are nuts to begin with, along with some rather abysmal understanding of the English language. Atheists after all, reject all forms of dieties, Abrahamic or not. Heretics are closer, but they probably don't want to be seen as a repeat of the inquisition.

They fit within what the Abrahamics mean when they talk about someone being "atheist": that is, rejecting their whole God paradigm.

WTF are you talking about?

i don't think we can rightly go around calling everyone who believes in supernatural beings of various sorts that happen to be non-abrahamic 'atheists'
Which, of course, is completely wrong on your part. "Supernatural" =/= "god(s)" unless you think "Ghosthunters" on SciFi channel is a religious show. Or unless you just arbitrarily assign definitions of words to suit your own arguments in disregard for what they actually mean and how they are actually used by everybody else on the planet. EDIT: A person who believes in god or gods is a theist. A person who does not believe in god or gods is an atheist, even if he does believe in ghosts or ESP. You can be a Buddhist and still be an atheist. Shit, you can be a Tantric Buddhist and buy into all that yogi sorcery and still be an atheist, if you want to be.

Everything you have said about religion in this thread has been wrong, FS, while everything you have said about science has been, mostly, right. I wish you would stick to what you know.

Shorter than you might think. Most who make it on there dont stay long enough to get into the double digit post count.

For example, youre not on there.

Aww I feel special I'm sure there are times when I have been close.

Which, of course, is completely wrong on your part. "Supernatural" =/= "god(s)" unless you think "Ghosthunters" on SciFi channel is a religious show. Or unless you just arbitrarily assign definitions of words to suit your own arguments in disregard for what they actually mean and how they are actually used by everybody else on the planet. EDIT: A person who believes in god or gods is a theist. A person who does not believe in god or gods is an atheist, even if he does believe in ghosts or ESP. You can be a Buddhist and still be an atheist. Shit, you can be a Tantric Buddhist and buy into all that yogi sorcery and still be an atheist, if you want to be.

Everything you have said about religion in this thread has been wrong, FS, while everything you have said about science has been, mostly, right. I wish you would stick to what you know.

um, you'll note that my objection was that we cannot call every person who believes in non-abrahamic supernatural beings 'atheists'. this in no way implies that it is impossible for there to be some that could justly be thus characterized.

the buddhist cosmologies includes supernatural entities that clearly fall within the cross cultural scope of 'gods'.


you have been in the wrong in this argument from your very first (indirect) response to me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227608&postcount=148), where you mistook my claim (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227404&postcount=144) that biologists are among the most atheistic group of people on the planet for a claim that the majority of them are atheists* and failed to grasp the fact that i was talking about arguments for the existence of god rather than reasons why people like believing in them. and it only got worse from there.

* and then you have refused to recognize that you ever made this error, despite repeated attempts to explain it to you on my part, which just reinforces my view that you are a really sloppy thinker, especially when you get pissed off at me for whatever reason.

Why don't you tell me what it is that you expect me to see? If it is not esoteric then you should have no problems in find the words huh.
Well, sure, I just didn't have the time then.

So go out on the street and look around. Open your eyes. What do you see? Unless you live in some wilderness, your sight will be full of man-made objects.

And now let's take two of them for an example.


This one comes from Modena. It has a 4.7 liter engine producing 450 horsepower, the carbon fiber body and being named "Competizione" in its name clearly hints the highest aspirations, and with its carbon fiber body it's worth 265,000 dollars.
And how does it race? Let's see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uB-UqgqnqI (scroll to the end).
It did it in 1:38.2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml) - the slowest ever power lap if excluding trucks and classics.
It's a product of art and passion.

And this one comes from Stuttgart. It has a simple 3.6 liter flat-six with 380 horsepower driving its simple steel body, so was only worth a bit over $100,000. But how does it run?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6IjOmouRl0 (scroll to the end)
It lapped the track in 1:27.2 in the wet and 1:22.3 in the dry. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml)
How come?
That's what intelligent design can do.

And these lap times are a solid and incontestable evidence in its favor.

*snip*

Nice, clever boy.

I think it's bad to be close minded about intelligent design because God loves us and to not acknowledge his work seems mean.

Does this connect to anything?

Yes, to a statement Ashmora made.


I would assume they are 'life-forms', that are 'simple'.

Way to some something, without saying anything. Please note the capitalisation. What makes a life-form 'simple'? How would you scientifically define it?

SPontaneous generation isn't evolution. You appear to be trying to cross-contaminate the two subjects to try to prove some point.

You are correct, good thing I'm talking about ID apposed to an undesigned origin for life. Evolution is about how organisms change from generations to another. ID is about origin of life, evolution is about what happens after life starts to exist.



Not at all. I mean - if you expressed it in realistic terms, at least - what is 'life' but a collection of proteins?

From Scientific point of view, life is more about the reactions of proteins with each other, the reactions analgous the they physical actions and reactions required to drive a car but infinitely more complicated.


Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. How can a field that basically says 'the evidence looks like...' be hypocritical?

Then I'm sure you'd be happy to provide any evidence that points to the existance of life that formed from a non-biological source?


As far as you're concerned?

That sounds like an opinion - and carries all the weight that entails.

Yes, it is an an opinion, but so is your opinion that simple life exists. Let's try find and some evidence to support such existance of simple life, eh?


I don't think much of your education then.

The South African Journal of Science, for example, carried an article specifically targetting that gray area, entitled: "The classification of organisms at the edge of life, or problems with virus systematics" which cited the fact that viruses possess genes (and have a taxonomical genome structure) and evolve through natural selection.

It has long been established that viruses exhibit some of the usual considerations we use to define 'life'.

Not at all. The fact that they evolve, immediately destroys that argument.


While I concede virus exhibit some of the usual considerations of life (this was apart of my education), the point is that life is a reacton. Without an alreafy living cell viruses cannot exhibit any reaction at all. And your point about evolving. As this happens while the virus is inhabiting a living cell the point is mute. Can a virus evolve without inhabiting an already living cell? no Can a virus exhibit any signs of life while outside a living cell? no.


By that argument, parasites are not alive.


Parasites may feed off a living host but they have life independent of their hosts. Viruses don't. A Parasite may die without a host (because it can't feed) but that is totally different to the relationship of virus and the host. A virus without a host is essentially nothing, a parasite without a host is starving but it is alive.

Parasites and viruses are totally different in this respect.


I think you misunderstand. 1 would be our first generation - our first lifeform. Whatever comes before 1 (either a null value - not alive, 0... or a non-integer value - not what we usally accept as alive) isn't part of the trend in truest terms.
So where did this "first generation come from" It either was either formed from non-life or came from a being outside of time. So far I have seen no evidence to support the former, I have provided mathematical evidence to support the later.


It's not a matter of 'belief'.

Yes it is, it's a matter of what you believe where the first geenration of life on this came from. A singular event that cannot be determined without a reliable record of events.


I 'believe' you lack the required attributes to make that decision.

That is your right


I think you are using 'god' as a way of explaining away simply not knowing something. Just because we're not sure where the first life comes from, it doesn't leap out that it must be 'god'.

I have presented why I believe in a creator-god, a reason that is logical, and is well presented, I disagree with your assertion but that is only my opinion, and I won't argue that point.

What I will say is this, "though neither does it leap out that it must be from a non-living source." We aren't sure and those are the only 2 really valid options. Yet never the less they are valid options and it comes down to 'which one do you believe.' ?

Most of us aren't asking to 'believe' anything. We're happy to accept that we don't know, might never know... and then go ahead and look for possible explanations. No 'belief' required.
But then again we do believe. I believe something different to you, that's the nature of believe. Belief is by it's very nature is about subjects. There might be chair and I might very happily believe that chair will hold my weight but until I sit on it. I won't know.


If we have a working model for the formation of the first life-forms, it doesn't mean there is no god. There isn't the conflict that you seem to invision.

First I want to point out there is difference between "meaning there is no god." and "there is no creator-god". Though I do agree with that statement. I said on this before. Even if there was life created in a lab, that can't determine whether it was by natural processes or by a supernatural hand.


There's no reason to imagine there is a 'god' in the machine. The idea of life occuring through some natural proces is functional, and elements of it can be verified. Some dodgy math isn't enough to suddenly impress a necessity for some mythical deus ex machina.
First of all... The maths ain't dodgy. I used assumptions, I thought were obvious and it's about the assumptions that for the most part we've directly or indirectly discussing, but saying the actual mathematics is dodgy. Sorry, but your just plain wrong.

I realise that perhaps it's excerise in futility, by posting what I did I wanted to explain a logical foundation for my belief. I doubt I wil change your mind but I hope it would at least make the concept of believing in a creator god as having at least a little bit more credible.

*snip*Nice car choices.

I'd rather have this (http://cycleposers.com/images/stories/bike_pics/suzuki/2008hausabusa.jpg), though.

um, you'll note that my objection was that we cannot call every person who believes in non-abrahamic supernatural beings 'atheists'. this in no way implies that it is impossible for there to be some that could justly be thus characterized.

the buddhist cosmologies includes supernatural entities that clearly fall within the cross cultural scope of 'gods'.


you have been in the wrong in this argument from your very first (indirect) response to me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227608&postcount=148), where you mistook my claim (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227404&postcount=144) that biologists are among the most atheistic group of people on the planet for a claim that the majority of them are atheists* and failed to grasp the fact that i was talking about arguments for the existence of god rather than reasons why people like believing in them. and it only got worse from there.

* and then you have refused to recognize that you ever made this error, despite repeated attempts to explain it to you on my part, which just reinforces my view that you are a really sloppy thinker, especially when you get pissed off at me for whatever reason.
A) I did not make the error you claim because I never made the argument you claim. My argument has always been that your original argument was irrelevant and wrong-headed because it exists for no reason but to justify your original attempt to flamebait religious people.

B) You specifically stated that you do not think we can classify people who believe in supernatural beings as atheists. NOW you want to clarify it by specifying that Buddhism includes beliefs in gods and those are the supernatural beings you meant. YOU obviously failed to make your argument correctly in the first place, yet you want to blame that on me somehow.

C) You still fail to acknowledge that Buddhism does not REQUIRE belief in god(s), so that you cannot make a blanket statement that being a Buddhist makes you a theist or that no Buddhists can be atheists. Atheism and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive the way Christianity and atheism are, and if you were not still ignoring what I actually post in this thread in order to throw specious arguments at me, you would know that I had said as much to you long ago.

A) I did not make the error you claim because I never made the argument you claim.

you are an intellectually dishonest hack. i just linked to the posts, everyone can see. but hey, just for kicks, let's actually quote the relevant bits.

beyond that, we have the empirical evidence that those who study evolution are pretty much the most atheistic group of people on the planet besides physicists.

2) The claim that there is empirical evidence that the majority of people who study evolution are atheistic is unsupported.
gee, look at that. almost like someone completely misread what was written and now refuses to back down. weird, eh?

B) You specifically stated that you do not think we can classify people who believe in supernatural beings as atheists.

i don't think we can rightly go around calling everyone who believes in supernatural beings of various sorts that happen to be non-abrahamic 'atheists'

damn that tricksy 'everyone' qualifier!

C) You still fail to acknowledge that Buddhism does not REQUIRE belief in god(s)

alright, then let us draw the distinction this way. buddhism the abstract philosophy, defined in terms of just the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path, is silent about whether there are any gods, and whatever the case they are irrelevant to the task at hand. buddhism the thing that millions of people believe in is fucking rife with them.

quit your bitching.

you are an intellectually dishonest hack. i just linked to the posts, everyone can see. but hey, just for kicks, let's actually quote the relevant bits.


gee, look at that. almost like someone completely misread what was written and now refuses to back down. weird, eh?





damn that tricksy 'everyone' qualifier!





quit your bitching.
It's so much fun when you cherrypick from your own posts in the very same thread they are posted in, as if no one can read back and see the full comments in context. It's also amusing when you heap personal insults on top of them, as if that adds anything to your empty remarks.

I stand by every word I have posted in this thread, and every word I've said about my own argument and about yours. Anyone who wonders which of us is blowing smoke out their ass on the subject of religion is free to read and judge.

So where did this "first generation come from" It either was either formed from non-life or came from a being outside of time. So far I have seen no evidence to support the former, I have provided mathematical evidence to support the later.

is that what you thought you were doing? really? because on this end it came out as nonsense.

maybe the tubes got clogged?

Ben Stein has a collection of wonderful arguments for intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Also some wonderful arguments against evolutionary biology. Most of them coincide with my earlier statements concerning the mathematical probability of undirected mutation.

Example, citing a molecular biologist in Expelled:
There are a minimum of 250 different complex proteins required to achieve self-sustaining, replicating single celled organisms. The chance that single-celled life alone could have been achieved without a designer is statistically zero. A failure in the random mutation of any one of those 250 proteins would preclude the coalescing of the cell.

I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.

This post is rated EF

Ben Stein has a collection of wonderful arguments for intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Also some wonderful arguments against evolutionary biology. Most of them coincide with my earlier statements concerning the mathematical probability of undirected mutation.

Example, citing a molecular biologist in Expelled:
There are a minimum of 250 different complex proteins required to achieve self-sustaining, replicating single celled organisms. The chance that single-celled life alone could have been achieved without a designer is statistically zero. A failure in the random mutation of any one of those 250 proteins would preclude the coalescing of the cell.

I'll speak the truth again, loud and clear:
We're fighting a propaganda war being waged by the evolutionists, a loud and vocal majority, who are only a majority because parents who didn't care what their kids learned allowed generations of kids to be taught a lie. Such a loud and vocal force has no qualms about manufacturing evidence and using broken logic to support it's claims, has no qualms about supressing the individual rights of real scientists to protect it's failing empire, and, as evidenced by this board, has a strong tendency to fall back to personal attacks when confronted with a scientific argument.

PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION: Life must have started some way. We have a theory. So far our theory can not be disproved. We have this mountain of evidence that supports our theory.

PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION: Pics or it didn't happen. In the absence of indisputable evidence which is impossible to obtain, I find no alternative but to assume God did it. I back this belief up with no evidence. If you say it's unscientific you're a hater.

alright, then let us draw the distinction this way. buddhism the abstract philosophy, defined in terms of just the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path, is silent about whether there are any gods, and whatever the case they are irrelevant to the task at hand. buddhism the thing that millions of people believe in is fucking rife with them.

Tibetan Buddhism is not silent on the matter. It quite openly does not believe in a creator.

Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides. Therefore, with this conviction I try to have closer ties with scientists, mainly in the fields of cosmology, psychology, neurobiology and physics.

Tibetan Buddhism is not silent on the matter. It quite openly does not believe in a creator.

The Dalai Lama, based on that snippet, is talking about the Abrahamic interpretations of a god.

On a lighter note...

http://cectic.com/comics/093.png

The Dalai Lama, based on that snippet, is talking about the Abrahamic interpretations of a god.

and he seems like a good guy, so he probably doesn't really think himself to be an incarnate deity, like his more traditional followers often do.

The Dalai Lama, based on that snippet, is talking about the Abrahamic interpretations of a god.

"Theory of god" and "creator" sound like pretty open definitions to me. And since the thread is ostensibly about intelligent design, disbelief in a creator seems pretty conclusive.

and he seems like a good guy, so he probably doesn't really think himself to be an incarnate deity, like his more traditional followers often do.

That is indeed true.

I tell ya...Im sick of the argument...Its been going everywhere...for so long...

I say...If you want Evolution, stick with what your school says...If you want Intelligent Design....Listen to your church says...

Make your own decision for yourself, and stop trying to force your beliefs on someone else...

"Theory of god" and "creator" sound like pretty open definitions to me. And since the thread is ostensibly about intelligent design, disbelief in a creator seems pretty conclusive.

Hindu mythology has a creator god, true, but it has a plethora of other gods who aren't related to such things.

Chinese mythology also has a lot of gods and goddesses who have nothing to do with creating the universe (Kuan-yin for example) and even had cases of mere mortals ascending to immortality and divinityhood.

You don't have to be a creator to be a god, not by any number of religions. In fact, you don't even have to be immortal, since I can point to at least one which had a god being killed, by a sprig of holly no less. You simply have to exist on a separate plane of reality, supposedly wield supernatural powers, and have worshipers, more the last part than anything else really, although belief is usually enough.

These things aren't the same as politics, though.Perhaps not, but them being used to restrict the free flow of science most certainly would constitute politics messing with science.
And how does evolution qualify as science? Any hypothesis that has been tested has failed to produce life, and there's no evidence since no "transitional" fossils have ever been found.You need to educate yourself on the issue.

"Theory of god" and "creator" sound like pretty open definitions to me. And since the thread is ostensibly about intelligent design, disbelief in a creator seems pretty conclusive.

the buddhist digression here isn't directly about intelligent design. it sprang from my claim that there historically were not significant numbers of atheists until after the scientific revolution. it was then claimed that buddhism doesn't require a belief in gods (and presumably therefore there were significant numbers of atheists before the scientific revolution). while i immediately conceded the former part of that, the parenthesized part seems a bit of a major fucking stretch to me. it certainly doesn't follow as a matter of pure logic - even if we accept that both buddhism doesn't require gods and buddha was himself an atheist.

I assume that since religion is a hominid invention, it must have occured sometime after we evolved some sort of sapience. Back then, there was a majority of atheists.

the buddhist digression here isn't directly about intelligent design. it sprang from my claim that there historically were not significant numbers of atheists until after the scientific revolution. it was then claimed that buddhism doesn't require a belief in gods (and presumably therefore there were significant numbers of atheists before the scientific revolution). while i immediately conceded the former part of that, the parenthesized part seems a bit of a major fucking stretch to me. it certainly doesn't follow as a matter of pure logic - even if we accept that both buddhism doesn't require gods and buddha was himself an atheist.
The bolded part indicates the point at which your argument became based on your own assumption rather than what the other person actually said. I never made a connection between whether Buddhism requires its followers to be theists and a presumed number of ancient atheists. I stated that atheist philosophy was not unknown before the scientific revolution as you had suggested it was, and I stated as a separate point entirely that Buddhism does not require theism.

The fact that Buddhism does not require theism has nothing at all to do with historical atheism, but it does counter your claim that Buddhists cannot be called atheists. They can, if they are atheists.

So, Buddhism =/= theists and how many atheists did there used to be, are two separate issues.

Also, what GoG said. In fact, I've heard some athiests assert that, in as much as religion is a social construct, people have to be taught to believe, so lack of belief (i.e. atheism) is the default setting of the human mind. If that is so, then I would think that, once upon a time, and at various times in various places, atheism would have been the norm. (Note: I don't actually agree that lack of belief is the default human setting, but I'm just presenting the point for the sake of the argument.)

I assume that since religion is a hominid invention, it must have occured sometime after we evolved some sort of sapience. Back then, there was a majority of atheists.

haha, nice. though i'm not sure it is really true to the spirit of the thing to call, for example, hamsters 'atheists'. so the question then would be "did the emergence of belief in deities/superhominid powers that needed to be appeased through rituals/whatever happen significantly after the mental ability to contemplate such beliefs evolved and had become fixed, or did they arise effectively together?" because it is possible that as soon as someone had the ability to attribute things to gods, they did. moreover, it is possible that they convinced their fellows to adopt religion before they would have had the capacity to come up with it on their own.

unfortunately this seems a bit tough for us to figure out from here, so point conceded. read my earlier claim accordingly.

Then I'm sure you'd be happy to provide any evidence that points to the existance of life that formed from a non-biological source?


Are you not paying attention? Did I say that?


Yes, it is an an opinion, but so is your opinion that simple life exists.


Simple life does exist. That's not an opinion.


While I concede virus exhibit some of the usual considerations of life (this was apart of my education), the point is that life is a reacton. Without an alreafy living cell viruses cannot exhibit any reaction at all. And your point about evolving. As this happens while the virus is inhabiting a living cell the point is mute. Can a virus evolve without inhabiting an already living cell? no Can a virus exhibit any signs of life while outside a living cell? no.

Parasites may feed off a living host but they have life independent of their hosts. Viruses don't. A Parasite may die without a host (because it can't feed) but that is totally different to the relationship of virus and the host. A virus without a host is essentially nothing, a parasite without a host is starving but it is alive.

Parasites and viruses are totally different in this respect.


You're not arguing with me here. Viruses are accepted as having SOME of the 'attributes of 'life'. I've presented some of them for your consideration, so you understand why the science community considers them a gray area.

It's not up for debate - it doesn't need your approval.


So where did this "first generation come from" It either was either formed from non-life or came from a being outside of time. So far I have seen no evidence to support the former, I have provided mathematical evidence to support the later.


No, you haven't. You presented some dodgy math, some hokum assumptions, and drew a ridiculous conclusion from it.


I have presented why I believe in a creator-god, a reason that is logical,


It isn't logical. The mathematical model tends towards zero. There is no logic involved in assuming that two converging lines will somehow pass one another.


...and is well presented,


The layout was very pretty. It was clear and easy to read. Unfortunately, it was also crap. A good presentation of crap is still crap.


But then again we do believe.


You believe. I have no beliefs on the matter.


First of all... The maths ain't dodgy.


Yes, the math is very dodgy.


I used assumptions, I thought were obvious and it's about the assumptions that for the most part we've directly or indirectly discussing, but saying the actual mathematics is dodgy. Sorry, but your just plain wrong.


The assumptions were insupportable, but the math was dodgy in isolation from that fact.


I realise that perhaps it's excerise in futility, by posting what I did I wanted to explain a logical foundation for my belief. I doubt I wil change your mind but I hope it would at least make the concept of believing in a creator god as having at least a little bit more credible.

Which is irrelevent. We're not arguing about whether a creator god is credible (it's not, of course - otherwise it wouldn't be a creator-GOD... the whole POINT of creator GODS is that they are IN-credible), we're arguing about whether there is any evidence for such, and - specifically, whether there is any science behind the prospect of ID.

There isn't any evidence behind the idea of ID. There's no scientific evidence for a creator god. Your math model is about as likely to change minds as Pascal's famous Wager. In other words, people who already believe could use it as a justification of their belief, but it's not a good logical argument.

The bolded part indicates the point at which your argument became based on your own assumption rather than what the other person actually said. I never made a connection between whether Buddhism requires its followers to be theists and a presumed number of ancient atheists. I stated that atheist philosophy was not unknown before the scientific revolution as you had suggested it was, and I stated as a separate point entirely that Buddhism does not require theism.

if that is not what C meant by his introduction of siddhārtha gautama to the discussion, then i fail to see the relevance of their response to my claim at all. and i don't like to assume that people are incapable of keeping up with an argument until there is good reason to do so.

i said there were effectively no atheists before the scientific revolution. see the word 'effectively'? it means that there may have been a couple from time to time, but they did not make up a significant portion of the population. C claimed that the buddha was an atheist (which i still claim is debatable and is in fact debated, not least by the bulk of buddhists that appear to disagree with that assessment). i responded by pointing out that buddhism, the historical set of religious systems, is rife with deities. after you whined about me not knowing anything about anything, i explicitly allowed that we might rope off a more abstract entity of philosophical buddhism which does not contain any deities, thus allowing there to be atheist buddhists in principle (which i have never denied).

The fact that Buddhism does not require theism has nothing at all to do with historical atheism, but it does counter your claim that Buddhists cannot be called atheists. They can, if they are atheists.

the point is, historically they weren't.

In fact, I've heard some athiests assert that, in as much as religion is a social construct, people have to be taught to believe, so lack of belief (i.e. atheism) is the default setting of the human mind. If that is so, then I would think that, once upon a time, at at various times in various places, atheism would have been the norm. (Note: I don't actually agree that lack of belief is the default human setting, but I'm just presenting the point for the sake of the argument.)

from what we've seen of how humans operate, it takes intellectual effort to not create deities. while it is epistemically proper to default to non-belief, we as a species aren't very good at it when it comes to gods and powers and such. its just part of how our minds want to work. which isn't to say that we come into the word with descartes' clear and distinct idea of god or anything, but that the proclivity for religion is there, and it can be filled out either by being taught some set of beliefs or by making them up as you go (though it wouldn't be stated like that by the people in the process of doing it).

I say...If you want Evolution, stick with what your school says...If you want Intelligent Design....Listen to your church says...

AFAIK very few, if any, churches preach Intelligent Design.
Sure, quite a few teach there was a Creator (or Creators) - but very few speak of things like irreducible complexity, design inference and so on.

Which is good, because that drivel belongs neither in houses of sciences nor houses of religion. It just belongs in a place where we store compulsive liars.

You are correct, good thing I'm talking about ID apposed to an undesigned origin for life. Evolution is about how organisms change from generations to another. ID is about origin of life, evolution is about what happens after life starts to exist.

This is not strictly true. Proponents of ID point to specific portions of various types of organisms that they do not believe could have possibly evolved. However, they don't necessarily dispute the fact that there is evidence for some of those organisms well before others.

As such, what ID generally argues for is intervention of some intelligent being along the way, as well as the creation of the first life.

While I concede virus exhibit some of the usual considerations of life (this was apart of my education), the point is that life is a reacton. Without an alreafy living cell viruses cannot exhibit any reaction at all. And your point about evolving. As this happens while the virus is inhabiting a living cell the point is mute. Can a virus evolve without inhabiting an already living cell? no Can a virus exhibit any signs of life while outside a living cell? no.

Do not confuse having taken high school biology with actually understanding biology. The truth of the matter is that the classification of viruses as life or non-life is in dispute.

And viruses, if classified as life, would certainly not be the only form of life that lies dormant until the conditions under which they can reproduce, etc. are met. Multiple forms of life do so.

What I will say is this, "though neither does it leap out that it must be from a non-living source." We aren't sure and those are the only 2 really valid options. Yet never the less they are valid options and it comes down to 'which one do you believe.' ?

Let's say those are the only two valid options.

Only one can be scientifically investigated. Thus, only one can be used as a scientific hypothesis.

First I want to point out there is difference between "meaning there is no god." and "there is no creator-god". Though I do agree with that statement. I said on this before. Even if there was life created in a lab, that can't determine whether it was by natural processes or by a supernatural hand.

We could form scientific theories right back to the instant that the universe came into existence and still never disprove the existence of a creator god.

As such, claiming that any scientific hypothesis or theory is meant to disprove or argue against the existence of such a deity is silly. That simply isn't how it works.

Perhaps not, but them being used to restrict the free flow of science most certainly would constitute politics messing with science.


Depends on how you use the term, really.

Generally, when I complain about "politics messing with science", what I'm complaining about is politicians who don't know or care about the actual science fearmongering to get votes. It has nothing to do with ethics, etc. Those absolutely should be an integral part of the practice of science.

Of course, I don't know if this is necessarily what the person who brought it up was saying.

Proponents of ID point to specific portions of various types of organisms that they do not believe could have possibly evolved.
To my knowledge, the only argumen tin this direction is the long-discredited flagellum argument.

Do you know of any others?

To my knowledge, the only argumen tin this direction is the long-discredited flagellum argument.

Do you know of any others?

Humanity, generally.

Humanity, generally.
I've never heard an IDer state this explicitly... and anyway, it's a relatively easy claim to disprove.

To my knowledge, the only argumen tin this direction is the long-discredited flagellum argument.

Do you know of any others?

They claim all sorts of things. The flagellum is one. Some still try to use the eye. The existence of multicellular organisms. The incorporation of mitochondria and chloroplasts. I've heard all of these argued as being impossible as results of evolution.

I've heard all of these argued as being impossible as results of evolution.

But the ID crowd always refuses to answer me when I ask them why such things can not be the result of the great God Atum autofellating :( Or from the Heaven and Earth making love...

As if religious beliefs that predate their own and have lasted for thousands of years do not matter..

i said there were effectively no atheists before the scientific revolution.

a more interesting line of attack on this claim might have something to do with the cārvāka philosophical school in ancient india, which i know very little about but which i am told was explicitly atheist and was so on philosophical grounds much like those which undermined the arguments for the existence of god in the western tradition. i have no idea how widespread it was, and i'm not sure anyone else does either. it's apparently one of those traditions we know only from opponents calling it stupid.

...but which i am told was explicitly atheist and was so on philosophical grounds much like those which undermined the arguments for the existence of god in the western tradition.
Aye, seems similar to Epicurean thought.

Depends on how you use the term, really.

Generally, when I complain about "politics messing with science", what I'm complaining about is politicians who don't know or care about the actual science fearmongering to get votes. It has nothing to do with ethics, etc. Those absolutely should be an integral part of the practice of science.

Of course, I don't know if this is necessarily what the person who brought it up was saying.I know, wording was off. I felt it prudent to point out that a blanket statement condemning politics messing in science was inaccurate.

i said there were effectively no atheists before the scientific revolution.

So, theists were responsible for the scientific revolution?

So, theists were responsible for the scientific revolution?

of course

So, theists were responsible for the scientific revolution?

Theists and mystics were quite significant, yes.

So, theists were responsible for the scientific revolution?

Yes, yes they are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei).

Yes, yes they are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei).
And so on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes)...

And so on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes)...

etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon)

So, from this we can see that religion and science need not be in conflict.

So, from this we can see that religion and science need not be in conflict.

and yet as science developed, atheism and agnosticism among its practitioners rose. science and gods are not inherently mutually exclusive, as i said in my first post on the subject and repeatedly there after, but there is an intellectual tension between them that needs resolving. since the positive arguments for gods have been undermined, and scientists 'have no need for that hypothesis', and intellectual culture has gotten rid of the social pressure requiring religious conformity in the interests of free thought and the pursuit of knowledge, giving up on the gods is easier than it would be otherwise.

a but there is an intellectual tension between them that needs resolving.


Why? Isn't dialectical tension a good thing?

So, from this we can see that religion and science need not be in conflict.

Correct. Dogma is a much bigger problem.

Originally Posted by Free Soviets
i said there were effectively no atheists before the scientific revolution.
a more interesting line of attack on this claim might have something to do with the c?rv?ka philosophical school in ancient india, which i know very little about but which i am told was explicitly atheist and was so on philosophical grounds much like those which undermined the arguments for the existence of god in the western tradition. i have no idea how widespread it was, and i'm not sure anyone else does either. it's apparently one of those traditions we know only from opponents calling it stupid.
Except that, notwithstanding your magical invocation of the word "effectively" as if that somehow transforms the whole concept, your assertion was and is both wrong and pointless.

Also, I suppose it would have been nicer for you if others had chosen the line of attack you would have preferred, but I don't really see how it would have turned out differently, since you have basically responded to all the other counter arguments and examples by, more or less, calling them stupid, too.

But since there was something you were hoping for that you didn't get, I will say that I'm sorry that it did not occur to anyone to take the line of attack that involved something nobody knows anything about.

Also, I suppose it would have been nicer for you if others had chosen the line of attack you would have preferred

only in the sense that the argument might have been productive, rather than you embarrassing yourself over and over. dude, i just pointed out that there might actually have been an actual group of atheists with some real prominence in the world. in so far as this is true, i would have to modify my claim. all you've done is whine ineffectively while badly misunderstanding the english language.

Correct. Dogma is a much bigger problem.

Nah, Dogma (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dogma_(film)) gave us some good quotes:

"I just think it's better to have an idea. You can change an idea; changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it."

only in the sense that the argument might have been productive, rather than you embarrassing yourself over and over. dude, i just pointed out that there might actually have been an actual group of atheists with some real prominence in the world. in so far as this is true, i would have to modify my claim. all you've done is whine ineffectively while badly misunderstanding the english language.
OK, you've repeated that silly joke of yours -- what, 5 or more times now? And you have yet to show that it's anything but a sad little joke of a wisecrack. So, since you apparently have nothing else to add, I'm going to check you off in the "done" column now. Like I said before, I stand by every word I have posted here, and if anyone wants to judge for themselves whether I'm on or off the mark in saying that (a) you don't understand anything about the religions you have talked about, (b) your argument is flawed to the point of being nonsense, and (c) that it exists for no reason but as an attempted justification for an early flamebait, then I invite them to read the thread, because it's all there. That is all I have to say to you, other than I have no intention of letting gross inaccuracies slide by without comment, even if that comment is just "yo, you did it again."

OK, you've repeated that silly joke of yours -- what, 5 or more times now?

what 'silly joke'?