Questions for Jesus-Freak

[Beleth]

How do evolutionists respond to the zero likelihood of life arising by chance? [...] The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on. We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance.

This is Creationist Claim CB010.2, "the most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."

Again, a complete refutation may be found at the link provided.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on.

This is false. Natural selection can act on things as simple as crystal structures. The assumption that proteins had to come about by pure chance is not a part of evolutionary theory. The author of the article seems to either erroneously assume, or deliberately falsely assert that natural selection cannot operate on a molecular level that is much simpler than the proteins mentioned.

At least you're citing your references.

 

[RandFan]

So what you are implying is that Christians beat their wives?

NO! I've been as direct as I can. I think women are as entitled to freedom as anyone.

Unlike you I was raised in a home that was based around Christ

I was raised in a home that was based around Christ.

I now am in the process of teaching my kids on how to teach all women with respect and dignity...

So long as they are subservient.

 

[bignickel]

I could point out that the usual creationist canard of 'evolutionists can't explain this aspect of the creation of life' has nothing at all to do with evolution (which only deals with the evolution and change in EXISTING life through Natural Selection)...

but Foster and Beleth went ahead and posted refuting arguments anyway. Nice job. That's like winning the World Series and scoring a touchdown after reaching home plate.

 

[RandFan]

I will never defend a man who "claims" to be a Christian and beats his wife. There are people who claim to be Christian and yet do horrible things, I will not defend them nor would I expect you to defend all atheist (don't know for sure what you are) that do horrible things.

Without getting into beatings which is a valid discussion the point is making women subservient. It's a disgusting notion. And just because you can find examples where people love each other and are "happy" doesn't justify it. I can find Muslim couples who are "happy" even though the husband beats the wife on occasion. The point about beatings is an extreme to illustrate the bankrupt notion that because you love your wive and have a happy marriage justifies your behavior.

I'm libertarian and believe that people should live the way they want. If one person wants to be subservient to another I think they should have that choice. However I think any propagandized notion of women being subservient is pernicious. Not all women want to be subservient. If they are Christian they might not have much choice.

 

[bignickel]

Maybe I haven't been perfectly clear on this issue...I have no problem with evolution being taught in public schools as long as they teach FACTS and show the different sides to the theory. I do have a problem with them teaching things as FACT when indeed it is not and force feeding students this THEORY as the only way things could of happened.

Here here! I quite agree! And worse, they're teaching this so-called 'Germ Theory of Disease'... what about the other side? Why don't schools teach the 'Evil Spirits Theory of Disease', which has been used by mankind for thousands of years, and still believed in many parts of the world. The 'Germ Theory of Disease' is ONLY a theory, after all...

Definitely: teach both sides, and let the students decide. And while we're at it, I'm very suspicious of this so-called 'Calculus'....

 

[RandFan]

and I could say thoroughly debunked by http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
but all this would prove is that there IS two sides of the story and I think both should be taught.

Yes. There are TWO sides of the story. Both are not equal.

There are two sides as to whether the earth is flat.
There are two sides as to whether the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Evolution is a fact. A reasonable and intellectually honest person cannot look at all of the evidence and conclude that evolution is not a fact. There is just too much of it.

 

[jesus_freak]

I'm libertarian and believe that people should live the way they want.

Ok lets say someone wants to look at naked pictures of 13 year old boys online...should they do that?

 

[jesus_freak]

A reasonable and intellectually honest person cannot look at all of the evidence and conclude that evolution is not a fact.

Well I think that a reasonable and intellectually honest person cannot look at a peanut, a rock, an octopus, a turtle, and a human and think we all have a common ancestor.

 

[jesus_freak]

Would you support the position taken in UAE?
Not replied to.
No.
Do you see any difference between the reason for their position and yours?
Not replied to.
Stated your position but made no comment as to whether the reasons differ and how, if at all.
ummm...I think I answered this when I said both sides should be taught.


Are you comfortable that Islam in the UAE has achieved what xians similar to yourself hope to achieve in the USA?
Not replied to.
More specifically it would be the well funded ID movement that you have strongly indicated you agree with and support by using their arguments.
Once again, I think both should be taught.


Are you happy to copy their example?
Replied that do not, which is a puzzle as your arguments, quotes and constant reference directly or indirectly to ID rhetoric and scripture indicate the opposite.

I have tried to be polite, if I have failed, my apologies.

Any spelling, grammar or other errors are not my fault.

Goddidit.

I didn't know I had to go through each one for you, I thought I answered all of them earlier...sorry

 

[RandFan]

Ok lets say someone wants to look at naked pictures of 13 year old boys online...should they do that?

I don't advocate illegal or unethical behavior. Child pornography is illegal. I hope that clears that up.

 

[jesus_freak]

Hey by the way I am all for science...I work in electronics which involves a little science, I go to a doctor when I am sick, my wife works in a hospital, and when my kids need antibiotics I am all for it, when my grandpa was cured of cancer I was very thankfull for science,and I am even using a computer beleive it or not which I think originated with some science...Do I think that all this means science or scientist have all of the answers? Nope...do I think that sometimes what science claims as fact is sometimes wrong?yes...Do I think that science overall is a good thing? you betchya...But I still think that it is ok to dissagree with theories that despite what some of you say cannot be proven, especially the origin of life and the age of the earth.

 

[jesus_freak]

I don't advocate illegal or unethical behavior. Child pornography is illegal. I hope that clears that up.

So in a country that may legalize child pornography it would be ok?
Do your morals come from what the government legalizes?

 

[RandFan]

Well I think that a reasonable and intellectually honest person cannot look at a peanut, a rock, an octopus, a turtle, and a human and think we all have a common ancestor.

"A rock"? JF, do you know what a straw man argument is? No one is saying that rocks are an ancestor to humans. This is a dishonest alusion. If you had said chemicals I would argue but not find the claim deceptive.

In any event, knowing so much as we do about genetics and the fact that we shre much of the same genetic code with all other living things then there is no basis for a reasonable and intellectually honest perons to not believe we all have a common ancestor.

Again, there is just far too much evidence.

Let me give you some examples. When the periodic table of the elements was first concieved scientists were able to use it to predict that science would discover new elements. Science then went out and fulfilled the predictions.

When DNA was unlocked science predicted a great many specific things would be found through research in DNA. Science then fulfilled many of those predictions.

You might as well say that the theory of the periodic table of the elements is false.

 

[jesus_freak]

"A rock"? JF, do you know what a straw man argument is? No one is saying that rocks are an ancestor to humans. This is a dishonest alusion. If you had said chemicals I would argue but not find the claim deceptive.

I'm sorry if this is a strawman...I was taught that life was formed when it rained for millions of years on a rock creating a pre-biotic soup that eventually lead to life being formed...so in theory what I got out of it was that we came from a rock...Some more questions I always had were where did the rock come from and what caused the rain.
But you are saying that the rest of the things I listed all have a common ancestor, is that correct?

 

[RandFan]

So in a country that may legalize child pornography it would be ok?

It wouldn't be ok for me. I would find it disturbing and would work to change the laws.

Do your morals come from what the government legalizes?

No, and thank god they don't come from the Bible.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.--Psalm 136:9

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. --Exodus 31:15

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:13

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31

Where do your morals come from? Hopefully not the Bible.

 

[RandFan]

But I still think that it is ok to dissagree with theories that despite what some of you say cannot be proven, especially the origin of life and the age of the earth.

It's ok to diagree with science. But I'm sorry, Science can't prove germ theory, DNA, or, in fact, most theories that you take for granted any more than science can "prove" evolution. And they can "prove" it by any reasonable standard.

The ability to make predictions and then set out and prove those predictions is just too powerful. There are just too many of those predictions that have been demonstrated.

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry if this is a strawman...I was taught that life was formed when it rained for millions of years on a rock...

If that's the case then I have no doubt you can demonstrate this somewhere. Surely it's on the Internet, right?

...Some more questions I always had were where did the rock come from and what caused the rain.

What relevance does this have with the question at hand? If you are seriously interested let me know and I will dig up some answers for you.

But you are saying that the rest of the things I listed all have a common ancestor, is that correct?

Yes, absolutely. You agree that we share much of the same genetic code, right?

 

[Beleth]

I'm sorry if this is a strawman...I was taught that life was formed when it rained for millions of years on a rock creating a pre-biotic soup that eventually lead to life being formed...

Really? I was never taught that. I was taught, however, about a guy that rounded up two, or fourteen depending on who was telling the story, of each animal in the world and put them all on a boat. And I was taught about a guy who talked to a bush that was on fire but didn't burn. And I was taught about a woman who had a baby without having had sex. And I was taught about how that baby grew up and visited America.

Now, all of those things are absurd, of course. Except the visiting America part. That was possible even 2000 years ago. So I believe that could have happened. But the rest? Pull the other one.

 

[H3LL]

Hey by the way I am all for science....

No you're not.
Your arguments, if they were to be seriously considered, undermine the very principles of scientific endeavour.

I work in electronics which involves a little science.

Quite a lot really and none of it came from scripture.
God seemed to have forgotten to tell us about electricity. Very careless. That science was born from long and hard evidence based study and research.

I go to a doctor when I am sick.

He will not be getting any new and efficacious drugs with ID as a tool. As I mentioned above, even if ID is correct (it's not), it is useless. Has no practical application. Evolution does.

my wife works in a hospital

ID is useless there too. Evolutionary theory (theory as in science not theory as in guess) is providing her with the drugs that she may be giving to her patients. Next time a patient of hers dies from an infection, think to yourself how evolutionary theory helps us to fight the organisms that are evolving Resistance to current products. Understanding the mechanism of the organism's evolutionary process helps us fight them.

ID doesn't, never has, never will. It isn't science.

and when my kids need antibiotics I am all for it.

I suggest that you hope that none of your children ever become sick from an organism that has evolved Resistance to current treatment.

ID will not save them. It can't, hasn't and won't.

Knowledge of evolution and the scientific process may help them.

when my grandpa was cured of cancer I was very thankfull for science.

What in ID or creationism helped the process of helping your grandfather? Nothing! Zilch! Zip! Nada!
It's worth repeating again (and again).

IF ID or creationism is correct (it's not), it has no practical use. Better to use something that in your ill-considered opinion is wrong, but works, than something that in your ill-considered opinion is right, but doesn't work.

ID = Nice story and useless
Evolution = Nice theory and practical

Do I think that all this means science or scientist have all of the answers? Nope....

Anyone with any understanding of science would not say so.

Science changes as new evidence is found. Science never stands still and never says something is certain. Just the best explanation we have to describe what is observable.

Xian scripture is FIXED in the Bronze Age, and ID is a very thinly disguised propaganda exercise based on scripture. No evidence, however compelling would seem to change scripture or ID.

Science does not have all the answers......Keep looking.
Scripture does not have all the answers....Stop looking.

But I still think that it is OK to disagree with theories

Disagreeing is wonderful and should be your most precious, human attribute.

Some scientist spend their whole life trying their hardest to disagree with other scientist, the more famous, the better. A scientist disagreeing with E=mc² is fine. If he finds the evidence to support his disagreement he will be more famous than Einstein and in time, he will be remembered and Einstein forgotten. (Can you remember the scientist before Einstein who didn't quite get it right?).

I would hope that your fondness to disagree with evolutionary theory would extended to reading what you like to hear from ID. The key is evidence.

Why is it that you will not attempt to or are fearful to disagree with scripture?

that despite what some of you say cannot be proven, especially the origin of life and the age of the earth.

Ignore what we say...Look at the evidence from multiple sources. Does it support what is said or not?

This is why ID failed so badly for me. An interesting story. I checked it out. The evidence was not there and what there was was proven to be deliberate, intentional, wilful lies.

If you take nothing away from these threads, please, please, please take this and accept it as true.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.

Never has and never will. Only in the imagination of the ignorant, deluded or liar.

...Do I think that science overall is a good thing? you betchya...

It is the stated intention and purpose of those funding and promoting ID to attack all the sciences. Evolution is the beginning.

Quote from their own strategy (Google "Wedge Project" to find multiple sources):

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (My bold)

Say goodbye to ALL the sciences that you consider to be:

a good thing? you betchya...

should they succeed.

Bye to effective doctor...
Bye to effective nurses...
Bye to effective hospital...
Bye to cure for evolving microbe...
Bye to effective computer...
Bye to effective electronics...
Bye to your job...

Will you reconsider your support for ID when it gets personal?

.