I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,

Yeah, they don't seem to be posting here.
Thank you for your interesting comments
and for your contribution to the thread.

JAG

 

What "scientific" evidence did Columbus address/produce before he sailed?
Was he a scientist?

 

You're welcome.
You're modest.
I have read your posts.
You have had a very unusual life.
_______

Yah, "pubs and alcohol" , , , I smiled.

Best.

JAG


``

 

Actually not true. There was more of a belief in a geocentric universe than there was in a flat earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

But settled science is rarely settled science. As someone else noted earlier, later science has overturned earlier science many times.

 

What's that got to do with the price of eggs?
I'm asking you to produce scientific evidence that refutes the ToE. You'll have to do better if you expect to debate me on the subject.

 

Not all. My religious beliefs aside, I am willing to accept that they could be wrong in the detail and that there is no theological aspect to ID. I am willing to accept any proof that my beliefs are wrong, be it the actual religious ones, or the non-religious ones. No one has provided any such proof. Then again, I recognize that I have nothing that other would accept as proof of my beliefs, nor to I attempt to force them upon other. Discuss them, of course, but not impose.

 

What kills me is those who are either/or. As if it were not possible for both to be true. And keep in mind I am referring to the most generalized forms of creationism/ID.

 

And my answer is below...

No evidence is needed for the possibility that your science could be wrong...
all that is required is for you to state the obvious...just say "I don't know".
Can you do that?

 

But I do know and claiming no evidence is needed to refute the ToE is intellectual dishonesty. You want to debate then answer the question.I'm asking you to produce scientific evidence that refutes the ToE.
Can YOU do that?

 

In many cases where "settled" science was overturned, these examples are from centuries ago, and we really didn't have the scientific community or a rigorous scientific method (e.g. geocentric universe). Even compared to 50 years ago, the scientific method is being applied a lot more rigorously and a lot more is expected of publishing scientists.

And many of these modern examples of "settled" science didn't have a lot of evidence, were in relatively new areas, or were relatively new ideas. Scientists were sure about them, but suffered from hubris.

Additionally, even the most settled scientific theories are open to revision and modification as we learn new facts and details. For example, the theory of gravity is actually technically wrong in many cases and wrongly predicts the orbit of Mercury. The Theory of Relativity fixes those mistakes. But the theory of gravity is still right for most cases and wasn't thrown away completely.

Even the theory of evolution has been modified as we learned about genetics and mutations. We also learned that evolution isn't gradual and often moves in leaps and bounds over short time periods. Evolution has mountains of evidence, but the theory is always being improved incrementally.

And even if some foundational theories with a ton of evidence get completely overthrown, this is extremely rare. Its very unlikely that the theory of gravity, relativity, atoms, or evolution will be refuted because of the amount of evidence they have.

 

I actually agree that ID is proposed without any religious beliefs inserted. But it still lacks any scientific evidence while the theory of evolution has mountains of evidence. It has also been refuted by observation.

 

There is not one thing that actually refutes ID in any form, from God to computer simulation. And as noted, there is also nothing that makes ID, generally speaking, mutually exclusive with Evolution. Granted, there are those who believe in certain specific things that make the two mutually exclusive. But Creation via Evolution is just a valid a belief.

 

ID is a hypothesis proposed by Michael Behe that all life was created by a designer in their present form. This contracts the Theory of Evolution that claims all life evolved from a common ancestor. It also claims that irreducible complexity makes the evolution of complex features impossible. This has been refuted by scientists many times.

Now the general idea of intelligent design (as opposed to Behe's hypothesis) can be consistent with evolution as long as evolution is the creator's tool. But there is no evidence of the involvement of a creator so this is a purely religious faith-based belief with no foundation in scientific evidence.

Creation isn't as valid as a belief as evolution because it has no evidence whatsoever while evolution has a lot of evidence collected over 150 years of science.

 

Lol.... if you wish to condemn me for "intellectual dishonesty" I will not contest it.
If nothing I said to you makes any sense...I will gladly surrender to your superior intellect

 

Darwin's greatest accomplishment was to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a creator or other external agent.

 

If that's all you've got, surrender accepted.
Cheerio

 

You, and others, might find this interesting , , ,

The Opera Scalia And Ginsburg , , ,
Start quote.
Scalia v. Ginsburg, sometimes known as Scalia/Ginsburg, is a 2015 comic opera by
Derrick Wang about the relationship between Supreme Court of the United States
Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It premiered at the Castleton Festival.


The comic opera is about the relationship between Supreme Court of the United States
Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[2] The work balance the personalities
of the two justices, Scalia's bombastic temperament versus Ginsburg's more demure
nature,[3] reflects their public disagreements versus their private friendship,[4] and
highlights their shared love of opera.[5] The two justices often dined and attended the
opera together,[6] and performed as supernumeraries in a 1994 Washington National
Opera production of Ariadne auf Naxos.[7]

The play starts in the Supreme Court Building with Scalia confronted in the courtroom
by the "Commentator". The Commentator has supernatural powers and seals the
room, stating "No man shall enter." Once the room is sealed, Scalia is forced to defend
his approach to the law and may only escape by passing three trials. Ginsburg, not a
man, breaks into the courtroom to defend her friend Scalia and insists on taking the
trials alongside him. The opera ends after the two undergo the trials together.[1]
End quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalia_v._Ginsburg


JAG


``

 

`
The Cost Of Being A Disciple , , , Luke 14:25-35
{below}

Yeah you would.
You would have to surrender your intellect.

But once you sincerely surrendered it -- it
would be given back to you.

Here is the Christian principle: You will
lose that which to keep and you
will keep that which you lose.

That same principle put another way , , ,

You will keep what you give to God
and you will lose what you refuse to
give to God.

Here is the New Testament passage that
clearly teaches this principle:

The Cost Of Being A Disciple Of The Lord Jesus , , ,
Give it a slow careful read , , , its interesting , , ,
{and its short and to the point}

"Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and
children, brothers and sisters — yes, even their own life —such a person
cannot be my disciple.

And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and
estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?

For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees
it will ridicule you,30saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.

“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit
down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one
coming against him with twenty thousand?

If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off
and will ask for terms of peace

.In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot
be my disciples.

“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?

It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.
“Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”
Luke 14:25-35

________________________________________________________

The Lord Jesus obviously did not mean a man had to literally hate
his father and mother --- rather He meant "hate" them relative to one's
love for God -- that is to say, one cannot put their love for their parents
above their love for God -- otherwise their parents become more important
than God and in that sense the parents become "God" to the man who
loves his parents more than he loves God.

Anything you love MORE than you love God, becomes your true God,
for example one's Intellect can easily become his true God.

___________________________________________________________

Back to you having to give up your intellect , ,

Repeat , , ,
Yeah you would.
You would have to surrender your intellect.

But once you sincerely surrendered it -- it
would be given back to you.

Here is the Christian principle: You will
lose that which to keep and you
will keep that which you lose.

That same principle put another way , , ,

You will keep what you give to God
and you will lose what you refuse to
give to God.

_______________


On Christianity if you refuse to surrender your intellect to God,
you will eventually lose your intellect which you clearly and
obviously love very much. Nothing wrong with loving one's
intellect if he loves God MORE than he loves his intellect.

But if he loves his intellect MORE than he loves God, then his
intellect has become his God and this will result in the eventual
destruction of the human person ---- the "perish" of John 3:16,
and he will lose that which he refused to give to God, in this case
the Intellect.

But the good news is that if one will turn to God in faith and be
willing to put God first in everything, then God will give back to
him that which he was willing to give to God.

This is what the New Testament teaches in Luke 14:25-35 and
in many other places as well.

You lose what you keep.
You keep what you lose.

Best.

JAG

PS
"So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."___The Lord Jesus John 8:36
Free to really and genuinely enjoy one's Intellect and everything else too.

PSS
"He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-how will he not
also, along with him, graciously give us all things?"___Romans 8:32
God loves to give gifts to His People --- AFTER they put Him First Place in
their lives.


``


``

 

For goodness sake. Why should one lose their intellect. There are millions of elderly whose intellect is not impaired, and many Christians whose intellect has been impaired by disease.

 

Now I find that humorous. There’s a couple reasons why I never ran for public office despite a couple attempt to persuade me to do so, that and I’d refuse to yield my honor and integrity (probably a mistake, I could have done far better financially than I have considering how politician’s earnings seem to defy logic.

 

An Taibhse,
Thanks for reading my post.
Give it some serious thought in the days ahead.
What I wrote is the truth.
The New Testament does teach what I wrote so I didn't "make it up."

Also , , ,
You can retain your honor and integrity and still come to Faith in God.

Then this , , ,
You know enough about Christianity to know that I have an obligation
to at least try to get you interested in exercising Faith in God , , ,/Big Grin
{ Matthew 28:16-20 }

By the way, I read every word of your Part {1}, {2}, and {3}. That was quite
a read.

Best.

JAG

 

I have been told by believers I am stupid for not believing. This is the first I have been told I must suspend my intellect to believe.
And, to surrender what little intellect I might have would be dishonest in the extreme and thus would be be a violation of my honor and integrity. Nothing is worth that; not even my life.
As for your obligation, life is short, I’d advise expending your energy on someone willing to suspend their intellect and not waste their energy on a rational sinning skeptic such as I. You might as well be trying to convince me the Easter Bunny will visit me again if only I will think like a child again.

 

What is tough to grasp is infinity.

If you had a bucket full of dice, and shook the bucket and poured the dice onto a big table, how many tosses would it take to come up all sixes?

Quite a lot, an astronomically large number, but there is a number. If there is a number for a pair of dice, there is a number for any number of dice..................................


GIVEN INFINITY, i.e., given enough time and enough tosses, it is inevitable that all sixes from that bucket will turn up. Maybe it will take a billion years, but it will happen.

See, all that needs to be true, given infinity, if it is POSSIBLE for all the dice in the bucket to turn up all sixes.

First thing to understand is that, compared to infinity, ALL numbers are small. ALL numbers are infinitesimally small compared to infinity, no matter how big they are to humans.

I hear the argument that for life ot exist as it does on earth, and astronomical number of things had to be just right in order for life to exists as it does today, including the moon, which wasnt there when the earth was formed.

What people fail to understand is that the 'astronomical number' only seems big to humans. To the universe, it's not so big at all. To infinity, it's even a very small number, indeed. In order to understand or grasp that there is no god, you have to expand broaden your horizon, broaden you capacity to imagine infinity and possibility..

See, all that is possible, given infinity, is INEVITABLE.

It only needs to be possible. If something is possible, given infinity, it is inevitable, just as it is true that there is odds number that a pair of dice will turn up sixes, and if there is an odds number for a pair, there is an odds number for multiple pairs, no matter how many. Extrapolate that to life on earth. It's just a bigger number.

Now, YOU cannot happen into existence suddenly ( without a mother to produce you ).

But a very tiny thing, a one celled creature, or precursors to one celled creatures might be possible, amino acids, etc., to be cajoled into existence in some primordial soup, with a bolt of lightening, all the right chemistry, etc, is definitely possible Once a one celled creature is started, the next step is replication. If one started, more will come eventually by the same process, then it's a matter of time nature will produce one that can replicate, that is when evolution starts, and then at that juncture, we are on our way, all it takes is a lot of time. And, one thing nature has plenty of, is time. . As I understand it, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life started some 4 billion years ago.

Now, as for 'brains' 'eyeballs', even fingernails, nerves, and all the complex things inside our bodies and that of animals, the genetic line negotiated many things that are complex, long ago into lesser organisms and lessor organisms just passed their successful traits on.

The whole idea of 'intelligent designer' as the rationale for the existence of God is a half baked solution, and a half baked solution is no solution at all.

So, you (those who believe in God ) are uncomfortable with the idea that something cannot come from nothing, so it has to be created.

But, who created God? Did God come form nothing? See the problem here? You are not okay with a watch coming from nothing, but then you accept that God can come from nothing. Well, if you can accept that God came from nothing, what is the problem? if you can accept God from nothing, why not a watch from nothing? You've accepted that God comes from nothing. See? Believing in God doesn't actually logically solve the problem whereby a God is needed to solve the riddle of existence.

See? The whole premise of God isn't even logical, when you scrutinize it.

The ONLy reason Gods exist is because of the poverty of man's imagination.

From where I sit, the whole idea of "God" does not sense whatsoever.

Evolution makes far more sense.

But, I'm not entirely an atheist, either. Lenin for example, wouldn't accept the idea of an eternal soul, or that the essence of life is spiritual, but I do.

See, I don't believe in a personal god, but I believe there is a spiritual basis to life. I believe in reincarnation. But, I don't make the mistake of claiming they are nothing more than belief, I don't claim they are facts, and of course, I could be wrong on these points.

In fact, the only thing I am absolutely certain of is I really don't know, nor do you, the answers to the mystery of life.

Why not just accept that life is a mystery, and celebrate life as it is?

"Live is not a mystery to be solved, life is a mystery to be lived" --- ancient proverb.

 

You Are A Man Of Great Faith , , ,
That up there is a Faith Based Belief.
You don't KNOW that what you wrote is actually true.
You can NOT prove that what you wrote is actually true.

When you first read what you wrote, it sounds "brilliant"
and the first impression on the mind is "Yeah that sounds
like it would be true" --- but that does not mean that it is
true.

Here is what you can NOT prove to be true:
Your astronomical number plus infinity will eventually
produce an entity as complex as a Working Rolex Watch.

Take your dice thingy, and increase the number of dice to where
the complexity is equal to the complexity of a Working Rolex Watch,
say 100 billion dice. You can NOT prove that if you keep throwing
100 billion dice on the ground long enough that all 100 billion dice
will eventually come up six's. Even if you kept doing that for all
Eternity -- you can NOT prove that all 100 billion dice would come
up six's. To assert that they would eventually come up six's is a
Faith Belief.

I Already Know That Natural Processes Can NOT
Produce A Working Rolex Watch , , ,
Regarding the Working Rolex Watch: I am using the Rolex ONLY
to represent the highly complex, and I am NOT saying that natural
processes can produce a Working Rolex Watch -- so there is no need
for you to point that out.

Also , ,
The Human Person, the Human Eye, the Human Brain, the Earth,
and the Universe all together can be far MORE COMPLEX than a
Working Rolex Watch. You do NOT, , , KNOW , , that they are not.

And it is more than reasonable to believe that they all together ARE
much MORE COMPLEX than a Working Rolex Watch.

For All You Know We Need 100 Trillion Dice , , ,
Regarding the 100 billion dice: You do NOT know what the level of
complexity actually is with regard to the Human Person, the Human
Eye, the Human Brain, the Earth, and the Universe. So? So you do
NOT know that my 100 billion dice actually represents the true
complexity of the Human Person, the Human Brain, the Human Eye,
the Earth, and the Universe --- that means that you do not know that
we don't actually need 100 trillion dice instead of 100 billion dice.

For All You Know We Need 500 Trillion Dice , , , ,
One mere bucket full of dice does not represent the complexity of
a Working Rolex Watch. Lets go with 100 trillion dice. And for all
you actually KNOW --- we might need 500 trillion dice. You simply
do NOT know , , , what the actual complexity level is for all that
exists. And if you claim you do know, then you are speaking as
a Man Of Faith -- and not speaking as a scientist.

Faith.
That claim is a Faith Based claim.
You can NOT prove that with Empirical evidence.
You are a Man Of Great Faith.

For All You Know We Need 900 Trillion Dice , , ,
I repeat for emphasis sake , , ,
One mere bucket full of dice is not enough to represent the complexity
of the Human Person, the Human Brain, the Human Eye, the Earth,
and the Universe and all the laws and all the intricate complexity of
everything that exists. Lets go with 100 trillion dice., , ,

, , while keeping in mind that we might actually need , , ,

, , , 500 trillion dice , , ,

, , ,or , ,

, , for all you actually know , , ,

, , we might need 900 trillion dice to equal the intricate complexity of
the Human Person, the Human Eye, the Human Brain, the Earth, the
Universe and all that is within all of that.

You can NOT prove with Empiricism that if you tossed 900 trillion dice
in the air enough times for all Eternity --- that all 900 trillion dice would
come up six's , , ,

You could not prove that with Empiricism if your life depended on you so
doing , , ,

Or if you were offered $100,000,000 to prove it.

You are a Man Of Great Faith

JAG

_______________


PS
Thank you for your comments.
You post was well-written and interesting.
Thank you for your contributions to the thread.
I plan to make additional comments on your post later.


``

 

You can have both God and Evolution.
Significant numbers of people believe in Theistic Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

I do not say Theistic Evolution is true or false.
I do not know.
Neither do you.
Nobody knows.
But if your Evolution is correct, then God used that
process. Note that I said "if" your Evolution is correct.

You can not prove Evolution is true in the sense
that human's ancestors originally crawled up out
of the Primordial Slime or Primordial Soup, at
some point the size of a speck, later to become
the size of a dime, later to become the size of a
golf ball, later to become Bullfrogs or whatever,
later to become Monkeys or Chimps, later to
become "George W. Bush."

~ a speck
~ later the size of a dime
~ later the size of a golf ball
~ later to become Bullfrogs {or whatever}
~ later to become Monkeys or Chimps
~ later to become "George W. Bush's"

You could not prove with Empirical Evidence that
"George W. Bush" originally started off as a speck that
crawled up out of the Slime, or wiggled up out of the
Slime, or was washed up out of the Slime -- if your
life depended on you proving it. If you believe it,
then you are a Man Of Faith.

__________

So What? , , , Who Cares? , , ,
Evolution is not a crucial issue for the Christian anyway.
Millions of us say you have NOT scientifically proved
that "George W. Bush" started off as a single-celled
speck that "came up out of the Slime" -- but even if
you do, one day, prove that it happened that way,
so what? Who cares? We will forever believe in the
God that created the Human Person, the Human
Brain, the Human Eye, the Earth, the Universe, and
all that exists --- how He did it, is interesting but it has
zero to do with our Faith in God.

"Have Faith in God."___The Lord Jesus {Mark 11:22}

JAG


``