We practice a healthy mix of action, education, and discourse. We demonstrate our support for a cause we believe in, enlighten the public through forums (both online and in the flesh) and lectures, and simply hang out and give voice to our opinions.
When we believe in something, we do our best to support and further it in the public sphere.
Freethought and education go hand in hand, and we dedicate plenty of our time to debunking myths, clearing up misconceptions, and refuting outright misinformation. We hold lectures and guesting at colleges, universities, and media outlets on a variety of free thought topics. We also serve as watchdogs, sounding off on public pronouncements rife with fibs and fallacies, and relaying the truth through our website and other social media.
We wouldn’t be where we are without our monthly meet-ups. Since April 2012, the Kenyan Freethinkers have been meeting every month for a few hours of friendly—and usually rowdy—discussion. Topics are varied, and often timely: the ethics behind the latest scientific discoveries, the consequences of certain current events, suggestions for improving our society on both small and grand scales, etc. Our meet-ups see an average of 30 attendees, which always include a handful of newcomers.
alphabrane
Harry
Greetings,
I’m sorry to cast cats amongst your pigeons, but i can tell you for sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the spiritual realm is real,
as real as you and me.You can take my word to the bank. And i don’t know this by faith, i state it as a fact.
Il make a point to come to your next meetup, but until then, i leave you with a quote.
‘The greatest trick the devil ever played is convincing the world that he does not exist’ – anon
Hello George, we look forward to seeing you in our next meeting. it will be on the 14th July. purpose to attend.
Where is the venue?
Chester house, club fiesta from 2pm.
Hi George, please bring along some of your friends. We will give you a very keen ear on that day. Looking forward to meeting you, and if you prove us wrong, i will personally bring down this website.
Okay, will make a point to come with a friend.
“In the beginning there was NOTHING!
Then nothing caused NOTHING to explode
in a very big bang!
Then out of the explosion of NOTHING,
Primordial soup was formed!
Then after millions & millions
& millions of years the primordial soup
eventually gave rise to you and me!”
That is EVOLUTION. The doctrine of the
religion called MODERN ATHEISM.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in
that than to believe in an ALMIGHTY GOD!
That is where you go wrong. atheism is not a religion and as such has no doctrine. you can believe in your god all you want. you need to understand what evolution is since from your comments above it appears you don’t know!
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DISAPPROVED BY SCIENCE!
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY summarizes a hypothesis (educated guess based on observation) or group of hypotheses. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. THEREFORE, THEORIES CAN BE DISPROVEN.
A SCIENTIFIC LAW is a theory that has been tested and is found to be true. It is a pattern found in nature that is universally applicable. Exam
ples are;
• The Law of Gravity,
• The Laws of Thermodynamics. (1st, 2nd & 3rd)
• The Law of Biogenesis. etc
Two of these laws outrightly contradict the theory of evolution. These are;
1). The second law of Thermodynamics; “the disorder in the universe always increases.”
This goes against the notion that evolution is a process of improvement that through mutations lead to a species called Homo sapien (MAN). In fact mutations (changes in the DNA) don’t lead to improvement but to diseases. E.g; Angelman syndrome DCP 15 Canavan disease 17p Coeliac disease Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease Color blindness P X Cri du chat D 5 Cystic fibrosis P 7q Down syndrome C 21 Duchenne muscular dystrophy D Xp Haemochromatosis P 6 Haemophilia P X Klinefelter’s syndrome C X Neurofibromatosis 17q/22q/? Phenylketonuria P 12q Polycystic kidney disease P 16 (PKD1) or 4 (PKD2) Prader–Willi syndrome DC 15 Sickle-cell disease P 11p Tay–Sachs disease P 15 Turner syndrome etc
2). The Law of Biogenesis; Attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). “That is, life does not arise from non-living material”, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.”
This again goes against the notion that chemicals of life formed from a big bang gave rise to life. Based on the serious unlikelihood that life came from non-living matter, two top scientists who are atheists RICHARD DAWKINS & FRANCIS CRICK (Co-discoverer of the DNA super helix) are quoted in saying that they believe that the first living organism came to earth from another planet! But then the question is, “where did life in that planet come from?” Since scientists agree that the universe had a beginning!
UNLESS THERE IS AN ETERNAL BEING WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ITSELF!
j.w You seem to have done a little research since our last discussion but i must tell you that you have failed again. If you used wikipedia, you would have found this definition for what scientific theory is [A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force]. You realize from the definition that they are not based on educated guesses as you would want people believe.
On the question of evolution there are three aspects; Evolution as a fact; Evolution as a path; and i think as a theory am not very sure. Now Evolution as a fact simply means change over time. If you dispute that, there is no way I can be of help. Theory as used in science means a way of explaining a fact or phenomena, so the theory of evolution is a way of explaining evolution. So what the theory/ law of biogenesis would be dealing with the evolution as a path. In fact your argument does not disapprove evolution, it tries to posit a path to the beginning of life. You should be aware that evolution deals with how life has developed. Biologists are trying to explain the source of life, and even though evolutionary biology is not my field, the problem has been that biochemical reactions unlike bones do not leave footprints that are easy to detect and then date. Do not lose hope though, we have made progress and we will soon be able to explain where and how life began. It may not happen in our generation but those who will come after us will have what we laready know and add on to that knowledge.So it does not disapprove evolution per se but an aspect, evolution as a path.
You at the end commit a philosophical suicide at the end of your comment by saying since the beginning or source of life has not been adequately explained, there must be a creator. But my friend, you know this argument was put forth by Aristotle in his, what is commonly called, Cosmological argument. And if you had been very diligent, you would have also seen the rebuttals for the argument.
When you say gene mutations lead to disease, here I agree with you, but you fail to realize that when this happens, those species die. If the conditions you so mention were favorable for survival, they would be in the majority not minority. So your argument fails to that extent. You realize that the number of people who suffer from colour blindness are far much fewer than those who do not. Natural selection means that the species that best adapts to it’s environment survives.
Which book of Richard Dawkins does he say that life started from a different planet.
Hello sir, I wish also hear from you on a different aspect, “THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE” Since you do not agree with the Genesis account and also subscribe to evolution I wish to know your thoughts on how the universe came to be?
very interesting question. I would like to refer you to read Lawrence Krauss on a universe from nothing then we can share the views.
But on side note, is it not enough that we are here? There are several theories on the origin of the universe. There are those who think it has always existed and another school that think it had a beginning at a specific time in space. all we can do is suspend judgement until more information is available.
j.w evolution is true whether you take it as so or not . I hope you don’t take the genesis account seriously unless that was meant to be a joke!
j.w – If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that rather than believing that the universe began with scientifically-verified quantum fluctuations, it is more logical to believe in magic – is that about it?
And what gave rise to your “ALMIGHTY GOD”? Was he created out of “NOTHING”?
(Don’t tell me, let me guess – “He always was!” – still more magic!)
He he he ………. I thought you are the ones who believe that DNA is a result of random, mindless, unguided processes and not an intelligent mind! Who then believes in magic! “Scientifically verified quantum fluctuations?” Don’t even go there if you can’t substantiate! Hawking for instance says that gravity created the universe out of nothing! but many other scientists say that even that statement is not scientific coz without matter there is no gravity! You guys are just funny!
“He he he?” J.W – REALLY?! What an adult way to begin a reply!
RE: “’Scientifically verified quantum fluctuations?’ Don’t even go there if you can’t substantiate!”
Here’s your substantiation!
Enjoy!
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
Mark Agutu Sir, Please allow me to say something on evolution. Evolution is a fact only as far as there is change over time WITH IN A SPECIES! With all due respect my friend, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that proves a species “evolving” to a “new” species. As a scientist with a background in biochemistry. There is something in biochemistry called “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY” This simply means that for instance in the case of “DNA REPLICATION” The process CANNOT OCCUR unless all the components necessary are available. Hence it is scientifically impossible for an organism to turn from a Prokaryot (simple celled organism) to a Eukaryot (Complex celled organism). About where Richard Dawkins said life came from another planet, just go to youtube and look for the documentary “EXPELLED” I wish to engage in no further arguments. My only appeal to you is that you may carefully and unbiasedly search out the truth of JESUS CHRIST. Please do it before you cross over (Die). I am not saying this to scare you but the truth is that ; JESUS CHRIST IS THE (ONLY) WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE! And He will JUDGE YOU! On the day of Judgement. Please don’t let pride or arrogance blind you! Its not a matter of winning arguments! Its a matter of your, my and our eternal destiny!
My name is Makagutu mot Mark Agutu
Well, you can have eternal destiny all you want and believe that jesus died for your sins. It appears to me however that you don’t seem to pay much attention when i tell you to go and read. Look for titles such as Birthing of the God-man and other examinations into the story of Jesus.
On the evolution question, since you have a background in biochemistry which, as an architect, I don’t have, I will ask you to look at Dawkin’s book titled the Ancestors Tale and Selfish Gene.
Why would you not want to continue with these arguments, I thought we are engaged in a learning process?
Pardon me for confusing your name. In deed we are learning Sir! I did not want to reply but please allow me. Sir if you are intellectually honest, you will agree with me that neither you or me has “CONCRETE PROOF” on either the existence or lack of existence of God! Hence in both Theism & Atheism, some degree of faith is involved. Now before you respond arrogantly please hear me out. So if you guys are truly free thinkers in the truest sense of the word, you will unbiasedly look at what each side has to say and make an informed decision from that. That is Free thinking. But Being dogmatic about the non-existence of God does not make you a freethinker but an atheist. I would like to logically submit to you the following; Many of the pple my atheist friends quote include Christopher Hitchens & Richard Dawkins. One is a journalist & the other is a geneticist(Am sure you know that). These pple may be at the top of their field but that does not make them more of an expert in the existence of God than you and me! Logically speaking. Dawkins for instance as a geneticist, studys how the genes are expressed and how these compares in different organisms(Highly simplified). Even if he was the best geneticist in the world or had the highest IQ in the world that doesnt in anyway make him an authority on whether God exists or not! WHO THEN CAN BE AN AUTHORITY ON WHETHER GOS EXISTS OR NOT? Please follow my argument, Christians teach that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. In His teachings He put a tamp of approval on genesis, the other books of Moses, the prophets and the psalms. So If it can be thoroughly proven historically without any shadow of doubt, that Indeed Jesus was a real historical figure and that he performed the said miracles, was crucified died and rose again and was taken to heaven, then that would mean that even the genesis account of creation is true since he refereed to it. So in short the existence of God lies in the AUTHENTICITY OF JESUS CHRIST. The authenticity of Jesus Christ then cannot be verified by genetics, evolutionary biology, astronomy, physics, biochemistry or any other hard science. The authenticity of Jesus can only be verified by SERIOUS, CAREFUL, THOROUGH & UNBIASED HISTORY OF ALL THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES. THIS INCLUDES BOTH EXTRA BIBLICAL AND BIBLICAL SOURCES! I have listened to many lectures by the pple I have mentioned and I can summarize then in this two things. 1) SHOWING DISAPPROVAL OF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE 2)SPECULATION ON HOW WE MAY HAVE GOT HERE. Am yet to hear of CONCRETE & EMPIRICAL PROOF that shows God does not exist.(I also don’t claim to offer CONCRETE & EMPIRICAL PROOF on his existence but like I have said Jesus Christ’s Authenticity is the KEY)
j.w, I am right to assume that by responding you would want us to engage further. If that is the case, then you will allow me to respond.
You have said many atheists friends of your quote Dawkins and Hitchens, but this conversation here has been between me and you and at no time have I quoted the above mentioned. That I think puts to rest that part. I must however add here that even though the late Hitchens was a journalist, he was well read in science, you may actually try and find that out.
You say, the existence of god lies in the proof that Jesus lived. Now I don’t know how much you have studied the historicity of Jesus. But if you have as I am doing then you will realize there is a problem with your belief in god. Historical studies in extra biblical and biblical evidence of Jesus paint a picture that leads to the conclusion, that he didn’t exist in the form people have been made to believe if he existed at all!. That aside, you must by now know the bible and especially the genesis stories were written by four different authors at different times and as such represent a collection of myths and legends.
Apart from those lectures, I want you to read the works of Albert Camus, Sarte, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and so on, then you’ll realize that maybe your friends have chosen the guys you mentioned because they are the ones that have read their books. In this case then your conclusion “1) SHOWING DISAPPROVAL OF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE 2)SPECULATION ON HOW WE MAY HAVE GOT HERE. Am yet to hear of CONCRETE & EMPIRICAL PROOF that shows God does not exist.(I also don’t claim to offer CONCRETE & EMPIRICAL PROOF on his existence but like I have said Jesus Christ’s Authenticity is the KEY)” is based on insufficient knowledge.
You said that as atheists we need to hear what the other side is saying, I can talk for myself, I do. What am not going to spend time doing is reading Strobel who have mentioned more than twice since we started this exchange. You can name others but not Strobel, I had given you my reasons for not reading him and if that is what you base your argument that we are not listening to the other side, then you are wrong again.
I hope to hear from you again soon.
Noel
Sir, I may not have time to read the book you suggested but let me say something. Purely scientifically speaking, in the scientific community there have been two prevailing theories about the universe. 1) THE STEADY STATE THEORY (It says in short that the universe has always been there. And this has been the prevailing theory for centuries. All the famous Greek philosophers held this view. 2) THE BIG BANG THEORY (This is a more recent theory and is based on new information that the universe is not static but is expanding at about 1/4 the speed of light. The logic here is that It began from a single pint smaller than an atom. Although this is now the most prevalent theory in sceince, no one can say where the point that exploded in the “big bang” came from!
EVOLUTION: My friend when you say evolution is true I am not sure what you mean! Please allow me to breakdown some terms.
1) MiCRO EVOLUTION. This is basically the development of genetic variation with in a species. I.e. Species develop several changes. But the key point to note is that they remain a part of that species! If you did some biology in high school, the definition of a species is animals that can mate to produce a VIABLE OFFSPRING! e.g two cows mate to produce a viable cow(that can reproduce). Whether one cow was a Boran and the other an Aberdeen Angus cow! From our observation, two animals of diff species can mate but NEVER produce a VIABLE OFFSPRING! e.g DONKEY+HORSE=MULE, or LION + TIGER = LIGER. In all these cases the offspring is NEVER VIABLE.
2) MACRO EVOLUTION. This notion states that one animal of a particular species develops gradually into a totally new species. Without being dogmatic and purely rational you will agree with me that these has not been observed. In case you are not aware, all LAWS OF SCIENCE first began as scientific theories, but after being OBSERVED, ASCERTAINED & PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT they became SCIENTIFIC LAWS. And EVOLUTION IS STILL A THEORY.
One key statement in evolution is RANDOM CHANCE! But if you study DNA replication even of a very simple bacteria it is nanotechnology that is more complex than even the most complex space shuttle that man has ever created. Even non-religious scientists have a hard time believing that such a complex structure came up as a result of pure chance! Thats why i told you (although you scoffed) that even Richard Dawkins has said that he thinks more intelligent “aliens” may have seeded the first life form on earth. I have the video interview and its on youtube!
ATHEISM IS AS MUCH BASED ON FAITH AS THEISM.
ATHEISM IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE(EMPIRICAL STUDY OF OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE) BUT IS BASED ON A PHILOSOPHY(AN ALREADY PRECONCEIVED SCHOOL OF THOUGHT. Thats why two molecular biologists will study the intricacies of DNA replication and one will attribute this magnificent nano machinery to an intelligent designer & the other will attribute it to RANDOM CHANCE! The observed the same thing but made different conclusions, not based on IQ but based on their philosophical inclination!
j.w if you look at my response on the beginning of the universe, I didn’t explain the theories by name, I did say there are those who believe the universe has always existed and those who think it has a beginning in time and space what you call the big bang theory. I also said until we have more information, we have at the moment to suspend judgement.
On evolution as fact, there is no doubt that it is and there is overwhelming evidence to support it.
I don’t know if you have time to read but since you seem to me to misunderstand what theory and evolution is, it would be a good idea to read Richard Dawkins book the greatest show on earth and Prof Jerry Coyne why evolution is true. Since I have R.D’s TGSoE, I can tell you there is no doubt in his mind about the fact of evolution. What we can’t answer at the moment is certainly how life began or where but only evolution can correctly explain how it has progressed unless you have a better theory.
Atheism is not based on faith. It is a lack of belief in the existence of gods. If you call that faith then, we can say bald is hair color if see what I mean. It is not based on a preconceived school of thought. On that you are wrong. I didn’t have a preconceived school of thought before I de-converted.
Unless you can name and provide valid citations, I don’t think there is any molecular biologist or evolutionist who would come to the conclusion that it is the working of an intelligent designer. Besides, to talk about an ID, you first must show that what you are talking about is designed.
Random chance is the beauty of life!
Hello sir! I see our discussion has moved from a scientific discussion to a philosophical one! but that’s ok. There is a very thin line between the two. Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking & others are among the most brilliant minds. And at the top of their fields namely Genetics & Theoretical Physics respectively. But this does not mean that if they make philosophical statements regardless of how they are convinced of it that its true! it s very very vital to notice the difference. Please allow me to take you through the basics steps of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. This is the conventional approach of empirically testing any hypothesis in science!
1) Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5) Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
5) Communicate Your Results.
Now lets see how this applies to the universe and evolution. For The UNIVERSE, It is now OBVIOUS That the universe is expanding(The galaxies are moving away from each other). That just logically means that it once started from a point. Thats why no serious astronomer or cosmologist any longer believes that the universe has always been there! It had a beginning. Besides even the energy of the sun is wearing out! So scientifically speaking, it could not have existed forever. (You can check this out).
EVOLUTION: Please follow me because this is where I lost you previously! Charles Darwin applied the scientific method to the organisms he observed, and made some VERY CLEAR conclusions. He observed NATURAL SELECTION as an agent of variation with in species based on FUNCTIONAL ADVANTAGE! He observed a species of birds and their differently shaped beaks. He noted that during scarcity only those whose beaks were adapted to get the available food survived and the rest died out! So one variation of a species died out and another part survived. But no new species per se arose! This is the only aspect of evolution that passed the test of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Having said that, it is true that during the last several thousand of years many animals have become extinct due to adverse environmental changes. In fact at one point the rate of extinction globally was 100 species a day! But this has not been shown by the scientific method or observed to give rise to a whole new species! All that are their are HYPOTHESES & THEORIES That can not be tested (I know that you may say that the biblical creation account also cant be tested by the scientific method but please follow my argument).
FIRST LIVING ORGANISM: In His hypothesis, Charles Darwin NEVER addressed the origin of the first living organism (Protist) that began evolving. His hypothesis only began with a preexisting organism! Because it is scientifically inferable that the universe had a BEGINNING, Then the question is, IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE AND THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, THEN WHERE DID THE FIRST ORGANISM COME FROM?” One prevailing theory in the last few yrs was a version of spontaneous generation called “BIOCHEMICAL PREDESTINATION” This claimed that a galactic explotion (or big bang) may have given rise to amino acids. This amino acids it was postulated that they have unique affinity to each other that could cause them to line up(by RANDOM CHANCE) and give rise to functional protiens. These proteins in turn gave rise to the first organism that began evolving! This notion initially caused a lot of excitement in the scientific community! This Theory broke down when it became very apparent that no protein could assemble into a protein without the “guidance” of DNA! So most scientists do agree that very empirically, DNA PREDATES THE FIRST ORGANISM! So the new question is what are the odds of DNA developing from “RANDOM CHANCE” ? Let me not give you my own mind. please look at what some to notch scientists (not necessarily chrisitians or theists) have said!
“NO MATTER HOW LARGE THE ENVIRONMENT ONE CONSIDERS, LIFE CANNOT HAVE HAD A RANDOM BEGINNING. TROOPS OF MONKEYS THUNDERING AWAY AT RANDOM ON TYPEWRITERS COULD NOT PRODUCE THE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE, FOR THE PRACTICAL REASON THAT THE WHOLE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO CONTAIN THE NECESSARY MONKEY HORDES, THE NECESSARY TYPEWRITERS, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE WASTE PAPER BASKETS REQUIRED FOR THE DEPOSITION OF WRONG ATTEMPTS. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR LIVING MATERIAL.”
“THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE SPONTANEOUS FORMATION OF LIFE FROM INANIMATE MATTER IS ONE TO A NUMBER WITH 40,000 NOUGHTS AFTER IT…. IT IS BIG ENOUGH TO BURY DARWIN AND THE WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. THERE WAS NO PRIMEVAL SOUP, NEITHER ON THIS PLANET NOR ON ANY OTHER, AND IF THE BEGINNINGS OF LIFE WERE NOT RANDOM, THEY MUST THEREFORE HAVE BEEN THE PRODUCT OF PURPOSEFUL INTELLIGENCE.” Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor at Cardiff University
“MATHEMATICIANS AGREE THAT ANY REQUISITE NUMBER BEYOND 10 to power 50 HAS, STATISTICALLY, A ZERO PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE (AND EVEN THAT GIVES IT THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!). ANY SPECIES KNOWN TO US, INCLUDING THE SMALLEST SINGLE-CELL BACTERIA, HAVE ENORMOUSLY LARGER NUMBER OF NUCLEOTIDES THAN 100 OR 1000. IN FACT, SINGLE CELL BACTERIA DISPLAY ABOUT 3,000,000 NUCLEOTIDES, ALIGNED IN A VERY SPECIFIC SEQUENCE. THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY WHATEVER FOR ANY KNOWN SPECIES TO HAVE BEEN THE PRODUCT OF A RANDOM OCCURRENCE—RANDOM MUTATIONS (TO USE THE EVOLUTIONIST’S FAVORITE EXPRESSION).”—I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.
“THIS MEANS 1 / 10 to power 89190 DNA MOLECULES, ON THE AVERAGE, MUST FORM TO PROVIDE THE ONE CHANCE OF FORMING THE SPECIFIC DNA SEQUENCE NECESSARY TO CODE THE 124 PROTEINS. 1089190 DNA’S WOULD WEIGH 1089147 TIMES MORE THAN THE EARTH, AND WOULD CERTAINLY BE SUFFICIENT TO FILL THE UNIVERSE MANY TIMES OVER. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DNA NECESSARY TO CODE 100 BILLION PEOPLE COULD BE CONTAINED IN ½ OF AN ASPIRIN TABLET. SURELY 1089147 TIMES THE WEIGHT OF THE EARTH IN DNA’S IS A STUPENDOUS AMOUNT AND EMPHASIZES HOW REMOTE THE CHANCE IS TO FORM THE ONE DNA MOLECULE. A QUANTITY OF DNA THIS COLOSSAL COULD NEVER HAVE FORMED.”—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 115.
“DNA IS LIKE A COMPUTER PROGRAM BUT FAR, FAR MORE ADVANCED THAN ANY SOFTWARE EVER CREATED.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead
“TIME IS NO HELP. BIO-MOLECULES OUTSIDE A LIVING SYSTEM TEND TO DEGRADE WITH TIME, NOT BUILD UP. IN MOST CASES, A FEW DAYS IS ALL THEY WOULD LAST. TIME DECOMPOSES COMPLEX SYSTEMS. IF A LARGE `WORD’ (A PROTEIN) OR EVEN A PARAGRAPH IS GENERATED BY CHANCE, TIME WILL OPERATE TO DEGRADE IT. THE MORE TIME YOU ALLOW, THE LESS CHANCE THERE IS THAT FRAGMENTARY `SENSE’ WILL SURVIVE THE CHEMICAL MAELSTROM OF MATTER.”—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 233.
“THE ESSENCE OF (THE) ARGUMENT…WAS THAT THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF THE HIGHER FORMS OF LIFE IS REPRESENTED BY THE NUMBER 10 – REPRESENTING THE SPECIFICITY WITH WHICH 2000 GENES, EACH OF WHICH MIGHT BE CHOSEN FROM 10 NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCES OF THE APPROPRIATE LENGTH, MIGHT BE DEFINED…THE CHANCE THAT HIGHER LIFE FORMS MIGHT HAVE EMERGED IN THE WAY IS COMPARABLE WITH THE CHANCE THAT ‘A TORNADO SWEEPING THROUGH A JUNKYARD MIGHT ASSEMBLE A BOEING 747 FROM THE MATERIAL THEREIN.’”
Anonymous, “Hoyle on Evolution”, Nature (November 12, 1981), p. 105
My friend, speaking very logically and reasonably anyone who has any basic knowledge on DNA regardless of whether they agree with the God of the Bible or the Koran or others will agree that it takes a lot more faith to believe that DNA arose as a result of RANDOM CHANCE than that it arose from a super intelligent mind! To say that DNA resulted from random chance is like saying that;
1) A DICTIONARY could result from an explosion in the printing press!
2) A ROLEX WATCH could arise from pieces of metal being hit together!
3) The KICC could arise from an explosion in the quarry!
My friend as much as these examples are highly improbable, they are dwarfed by the complexity of DNA. Just Imagine that YOU began as the size of a period(fullstop) at the end of a sentence but because of DNA, you are now a fully grown man and there is only ONE of you! If you believe that DNA arose from random chance, then YOU HAVE MUCH MORE FAITH THAN I COULD EVER HAVE!
j.w thanks for taking time to respond. First am not sure in my discussion where I turned to philosophy, but if clarifying a misconception on atheism is philosophy so be it.
In my post I did say the best we can do on the origin of life and the universe is to suspend judgement. I can’t for the life of me take god did it as an answer, NO! am done doing that. If as you would want to believe that god is the first cause as postulated by Thomas Aquinas, on of the church fathers, we will have infinite regressions on who caused god and so on. So your proposal is faced with more challenges than you’d dare imagine.
I see you have also taken time to educate me on the scientific method which I appreciate, but I do realize from your comments that even with so much knowledge you have refused to consider the evidence for evolution and dismiss it on grounds based on quotes by people who are ignorant of evolutionary biology and have not studied it. So here is a case where you are appealing to wrong authority[ forgive my going back to philosophy]. So as I am fond to say, please, quote on evolutionary biologist or molecular biologist who has dismissed evolution then we will have a debate.
Since you have mentioned it one of your quotes, I propose that you read the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins as well. As people who are committed to knowing, don’t be too fast to dismiss a detail you haven’t considered. It is bad for argument. I know I did that for Strobel but with good reasons.
I could be wrong, but I do think evolution doesn’t explain where life began but how it has progressed. I plan to read Darwin’s Origin of the Species to pick his mind on the matter then I probably would have more to say on the subject. You realize I told you my line of study is architecture and not biology so I have to study most of things to be able to respond to you intelligently. So you will forgive my gaps in the field.
Having dealt with that, I will now consider the creation story as it appears in genesis chapters 1 and 2 which if you have considered are different in detail. It proposes that god created a man and a female, after bringing other animals to existence through word of mouth. I want you to take time and explain to me how this would make sense in light of the following;
a. vestigial organs in different species
b. semblance in dna between different species
c. pseudogenes
among others.
I would also want you to tell me which of the 2 creation stories is the correct one and why. While answering this question, I would you to tell me also how old you think the earth or rather our solar system is. You might as you answer this question delve a bit and explain how gold is formed and if this would conform to a young earth. While at it, I for this I do not want a long explanation, I would want you to tell me what number, in your estimation, would be required to ensure the survival of a species. Lastly on the creation story, I would want you to suggest a date for the creation of Adam and Eve then we will continue the discussion.
Forgive the length of the post and if issues are mixed up but I hope you will find the time to respond in earnest as you have done consistently since we began.
Cheers
@j.w – As for your being a “bio-chemist,” I find it amusing on some of these sites, how some will inflate their credentials, so as to gain credibility!
Life is continually adapting to its conditions. When two groups of any given species are isolated from interbreeding between the groups, they will begin to encounter different, unique sets of conditions, to which they will adapt. Over time, those differences between the two groups will become so great that they can no longer interbreed, they have become separate and distinct species. The horse and the donkey are nearly there, as are the tiger and the lion – both groups can still interbreed, but the differences that have evolved between them, that there offspring are always sterile.
I suggest you focus your bio-chemist mind for a bit on an interesting article from The New Your Times, entitled, “Evolution Right Under Our Noses” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/science/26evolve.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), a scientific study of two groups of rats, isolated on two sides of the Hudson river, that are gradually evolving into two separate species. This from the article:
“White-footed mice, stranded on isolated urban islands, are evolving to adapt to urban stress. Fish in the Hudson have evolved to cope with poisons in the water. Native ants find refuge in the median strips on Broadway. And more familiar urban organisms, like bedbugs, rats and bacteria, also mutate and change in response to the pressures of the metropolis. In short, the process of evolution is responding to New York and other cities the way it has responded to countless environmental changes over the past few billion years. Life adapts.”
Feel free, j.w, to join us in the 21st century, whenever you’re ready –
I fully agree with you in the sense that members of different species will develop different x-teristics due to changes in genetics and environment over time! And I think I made that clear! My contention is that we all came from single celled protist which itself arose, DNA organelles, proteins, enzymes and all out of random, mindless unguided processes! I
But the process ISN’T unguided, j.w, it’s guided by NEED, by circumstance, by environment!
Imagine an antelope species, of the genus Climacoceras, on the plains of Europe, when a drought hits. All of the grass turns brown. Granted, there is still some food value in it, but trees, with their deeper root systems, are able to retain their green leaves, which contain more vitamins than dried grass. As there are constant, random variations in all species – i.e., some humans are taller than others, by the pure random chance of genetic variance – some of this antelope species have longer necks than others, and can reach higher on the trees for leaves. These members, being healthier and more robust than those less fortunate, with shorter necks, thrive to pass on their genes to their offspring, most of which have longer necks and the ability to continue passing that genetic trait to their offspring. The process continues, until we have the giraffe – a member of the antelope family, but a distinct species with necks far longer than those of the founding members of the species, and there was NO supernatural activity involved, only random mutations, the process of genetic inheritance, and the strong sex drive of a healthy animal.
I apologize for the rudeness in my response. In deed that is very interesting and scientifically sound video. Having said that let me be quick to add that scientific jargon should not replace common sense! He says the “nothing” that was in the beginning “weighed something!” If we take Einstein’s formula of E=MC2, anything that has mass also has energy and therefore it is not nothing! It is plain common sense that nothing does not have mass & weight unless it is something! He also admits that in the formation of the universe there was energy input, but where from? Am sorry it does not convincingly show that the universe began on its own without an external energy input (from God!). He also says that the universe was not created for us! But Bible doesn’t say it was? And it’s true we are very insignificant but God isn’t! He made it all! How awesome are His works! Yet He is concerned about insignificant human beings like us! How amazing!
Earlier you said that “it is not random and unguided but it is guided by NEED.” I wonder what needs “nothing” had so that it had to explode into the universe on its own. Does that even make sense?
@j.w – RE: “I fully agree with you in the sense that members of different species will develop different x-teristics due to changes in genetics and environment over time! And I think I made that clear!”
No, in fact THIS is what you made very clear:
“j.w says:
September 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm
“With all due respect my friend, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that proves a species ‘evolving’ to a ‘new’ species.”
And that simply isn’t true – I’m not accusing you of lying, I’m just saying you clearly don’t understand the facts.
@ archaeopteryx1.
Apparently there is no means in this format, j.w, to reply to some individual posts, so this comment willl likely go to the bottom of the stack – I just need you to know that it was made in reference to your comment, dated October 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm, in which you cited a number of “authorities” you claim refuted Darwinian evolution.
Before I go further, let me interject that in one of his posts, makagutu suggested you read the book, “Something From Nothikng,” byh Krause, to which you replied that you likely wouldn’t read it. Later, you suggested he read a book by Behe, and when he mentioned he wouldn’t have time, you accused him of not being interested in any points of view, other than his own – how hypocritical is that?
But back to my point – in your comment referenced at the beginning, you listed a bevy of authors who, you said, refuted Darwin. First, let me say that even if Darwin was completely wrong, and the fossil record proves he wasn’t, there is still no indication anywhere that a supernatural being that you choose to call “god” was responsible.
Clearly you have much more time on your hands than I, if you actually researched those authors in order to obtain the quotations you offered, but I suggest you simply got them off a religious website somewhere, or from a single religious book that claims Darwin was wrong and cites those authors as evidence.
In order to refute your stance, it would be necessary for me to investigate each and every one of them at length, and show where they are mistaken, and again, I must stress that I have neither the time nor the inclination to go to such effort for one who will continue to hold your beliefs, regardless.
However, I did take a moment out to investigate one of your claims at random – your choice of Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor at Cardiff University. Professor Wickramasinghe does not at all dispute Darwin, he simply believes that life originated off-earth and was randomly transported to this planet, and not by any supernatural being. Here’s what he has to say –
“After thirty 33 years of work as the professor of astronomy and mathematics, Chandra Wickramasinghe is the world’s leading exponent of the theory known as panspermia the science that teaches earth and other planets in the universe may have been seeded for life by microorganism-carrying comets.
“Before Chandra Wickremesinghe, scientists thought that huge obscuring clouds in deep space like the horse head nebula were made up of ice particles. But his untiring research showed the particles were mainly made of carbon – a form of a substance that was connected with life – a freeze dried dormant bacteria.
“Wickramasinghe calls them our genetic ancestors. When he first came out with this theory, extremely harsh criticism was leveled against him. Some even called the theory pseudo-science. Wickramasinghe thinks if there was no Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest astronomers of the last century, stood by him his theory would have certainly been put out of existence. He and the late Fred Hoyle were later awarded the Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science.
“To celebrate his new theories, the Cardiff university was holding a scientific seminar to discuss the new view of the world of science that boldly said that life did not start in a primordial soup spontaneously here on earth as believed earlier, but it started 4000 million years ago on comets and traveled through space to earth and countless other planets.”
I’m getting tired of playing with you j.w – believe what you like, if you haven’t the courage to face the truth, and when you die, you’ll do so believing the fairy tale that you will be resurrected and live happily ever after. Fortunately for you, you will never know how mistaken you were.
Further, j.w, upon closer inspection, I notice that all of the authors you cited in your comment, wrote their books in the 1980′s! THIRTY YEARS AGO! Just imagine, how much science knows now, than it knew then!
Imagine this, j.w – a giant, empty building, the size of a football field, entirely dark, except for a single light bulb burning in the center. As Humankind discovers more and more information about Life and the formation of the universe, other light bulbs go on, illuminating more of the interior of the building. The majority still lies in darkness, representing all of the things we don’t yet know, but each piece of knowledge illuminates still more. And the beauty of it is, that when asked a question for which no answer has yet been found, I can honestly say, proudly, “We don’t know yet, but in time, we will!” – I have no need to fill in those gaps in our collective knowledge with, “God did it!”
Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best:
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on.”
Hi again. I have also read a bit of Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell. The argument is generally the same. About the authorship of the Torah. Moses wrote it. The only bit that someone else (Joshua) wrote was the account of His death- DEUTERONOMY 34. Once again I insist that the authenticity of Jesus Christ will settle everything. Please let me suggest a man that is arguably the most authoritative person in terms of research on the CRUCIFIXION, BURIAL, DEATH & RESURRECTION OF JESUS. Professor GARY HABERMAS. This guy is a History professor. He was a believer but began to doubt his faith based on the claims of evolution. He then spent over 10 yrs to carefully research this issue. many of His debates where He presents all the evidence available are available on Youtube. One of the guys He debated is the renowned atheist Professor ANTONY FLEW who after carefully examining thi evidence actually became a follower of Jesus Christ And faced a lot of back lash from the atheism community claiming that he had become senile! Please watch the videos and debates on youtube. Another guy that rightly gives a counter argument to Albert Camus, Sarte, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell among others is RAVI ZACHARIAS. His talks are also available on youtube. An sure you will find him very intellectually stimulating.
forgive my advertising, but you could visit my blog at maasaiboys.wordpress.com or click on my avatar I think it will lead you to the blog! Hope you find time to visit.
Morning Sir, I trust you are well, Please allow me to SPECIFICALLY address the issues you have raised.
1) VESTIGIAL ORGANS IN DIFFERENT SPECIES.
For a long time, the concept of “vestigial organs” appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as “evidence” of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance “vestigial organs” as important evidence of evolution.
The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These “non-functional organs” were in fact organs whose “functions had not yet been discovered.” The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists’ long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article “Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?” published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.312
A scientific study of the myth of vestigial organs: “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional.
The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim’s list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a “vestigial organ,” was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997:
Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer’s patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection.313
It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx.
2) SEMBLANCE IN DNA BETWEEN DIFFERENT SPECIES.
My friend When you look at that similarities between the different models of the Mercedes Benz do you conclude that they all evolved by random unguided processes from the same ancestor over a long period of time or do you conclude that they have the same manufacturer?
2) PSEUDOGENES.(JUNK DNA)
For a long time scientists thought that these were functionless because they did not seem to code for any FUNCTIONAL proteins. But Modern science has revealed that these sequences play very vital REGULATORY FUNCTIONS! Hence there is no such thing as junk DNA.
3) SCIENTISTS (Molecular biologists, Zoologists, Biochemists etc) AGAINST THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.
My friend it seems you have only been listening to one side of the discussion. There are many biologists who are not necessarily Christians who do not ascribe to the evolutionary hypothesis of RANDOM CHANCE. Though they may not be as loud as Dawkins! Instead of giving you a just long list let me refer you to a documentary that some of these scientists have put together and they address this issue. It is readily available on YOUTUBE. It is called; “INTELLIGENT DESIGN-UNLOCKING THE MYSTERIES OF LIFE!”
When you have watched it, let me know then I will address the issue you have raised of the seeming discrepancy btn Genesis 1 & 2
j.w, thanks again for your response, I think in my response you skipped the part that says am architect not evolutionary biologist, but don’t worry I will look at what the other side is saying on evolution and get back to you. As for now I am not going to comment on the responses you have till I have acquired more evidence to refute your claims.
If you haven’t noticed, I don’t refer you to videos since unfortunately I don’t have time to look for them. I have all the time before I quit this blue ball to read so just refer to a particular book I will read, make my conclusions and come back to you.
I don’t think my watching the video is related to you answering my questions on Genesis 1 and 2 so please just respond to them.
Sir, I surely hope that this discussion is motivated by a sincere search for “THE TRUTH” and all the evidence that supports it! And not just clinging to a preferred outlook on life and looking for everything that agrees with us! I believe that “THE TRUTH” is very vital and has eternal implications! If you are right as an atheist then being a follower of Jesus am to be the most pitied person on earth (As Paul says if the resurrection is false!). But If indeed there is an intelligent designer, then my friend there are consequences. Sorry to say this, but I think if you really sincerely were searching out the truth and you have access to the internet, you would surely spare an hour to look at the video what I am proposing! Again you also dint answer my question whether you believe that DNA is merely a result of MINDLESS, RANDOM CHANCE!
j.w, I think I have been very consistent in answering your questions without ever trying to evade any and where I don’t know I have said so. About DNA occurring by mindless random chance, why not?
Just an observation, you don’t have to cap your responses, i still can read without caps. That said, you are yet to answer my one question that I have asked since we started this discussion.
If I am sincere about searching for the truth, I have said I don’t have time to watch youtube videos [my internet bandwidth is quite low] but I can read. So I ask again refer me to a book I will read and get back to you. I don’t think my not watching a video is evidence am not after truth!
I think you are implying Pascal’s wager in telling me I’ll be damned if there is a god. Well that doesn’t worry me any bit.
Now please do answer my questions on genesis, I will in not a long time respond to all the questions you have asked on evolution at least to the best of my ability.
Hello sir. My sincere apologies for offending you by capping my responses. In deed you have done well to answer my questions. I was not attempting to threaten you with Pascal’s wager. I was simply trying to point out the logical conclusion of both our schools of thought and how am convinced finding the truth between these two world views is of uttermost importance. Without insulting you sir, if you think that such a complex code like dna which is much more complex than any computer program ever created came from random chance. Yet no organism no matter how simple can exist without it. Then you are a man of great faith. (Some can even say blind faith). Just imagine this, If you walked along the beach and came across in the sand the inscription “makagutu” you would immediately ascribe that piece of information to an intelligence & not to a random movement of the waves on the beach. Dna is the longest word, about 3.5 billion letters all in the right specific order. Not to mention all the enzymes & proteins needed for its transcription (decoding). I think it is more intellectually satisfying to ascribe such a complex code to a mind. We have not even spoken of the nano technology that guides the cell processes of every cell. Each cell function having a specific machinery to direct it! Did you know even a simple bacterial cell is more complex in its functionality than the most complex computer we have? Random chance? I don’t think so sir! Please think about it. I understand that you may not be able to watch youtube videos. There are many books I can recommend by acclaimed biologists. Here are just a few.
1) Darwin’s Black Box. Free Press, 1996.
2) Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute), September 25, 1999.
3) The Edge of Evolution. Free Press, June 2007.
Once you have read even the first one only, let me know. I give you my word I will address your concern on genesis 1 & 2.
j.w before I must apologise for again am not going to read Dr. Behe’s book. You know the reason reviews exist is to allow you make an informed decision when you decide to read a scientific book. Looking at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html, http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html; these reviews show that it would almost irresponsible of me to waste further time reading Dr. Behe’s book.
You need no research to answer my questions on genesis 1 and 2 since these are things you have believed as long as you have been alive. Why are you putting it off?
Hello sir, I thought “free thinking” entailed carefully examining both sides of the discussion and then making a personal independent informed decision. I guess I was mistaken. It seems you have given others the responsibility of deciding for you what is rational and what is not! Personally though a born again Christian I have taken time to find out both sides of the discussion and I don’t shy away to listen to talks by Dawkins, Hitchens and the like. All I can say is am sorry you cannot read Dr Behe’s book. Anyhow concerning your specific question about genesis, and the age of the earth, I will answer you but before I do, let me say, that I do believe both science and the Bible are not in conflict but complementary. More than once, Where the Bible has been categorically clear about something, Science followed later in the same direction. One example is on the beginning of the universe. Here the Bible is clear and categorical that “in the beginning God created!” Scientists and philosophers (including all the famous Greek philosophers) for millennia scoffed at that claiming that the universe was always there! It was only in the 1930s that it became clear to the universe that the universe had a beginning and the big bang theory was formulated. Having said that, I wish to be quick to add that “science can correct theology (pple’sthinking of God) but it cannot correct the word of God!” Many atheists like saying that the Bible is wrong because the church of old believed the earth is flat and that the earth was the centre of the universe and even persecuted Galileo for saying otherwise! But the question is, where did the church get that from? Is It in the Bible? The answer is no! the truth is, that thought was propagated by the ancient Greek philosophers and the church wrongly adopted that as God’s truth. But The Bible never says that the earth is flat or that the earth is at the canter of the universe! About Genesis 1 and 2. These are two accounts of the same story sir. If you read the Bible more you will find this writing style is common. For example, the books of Kings & Chronicles are stories of the same Israelite kings but with different emphases. Another good example is the Accounts of Jesus genealogy in the books of Matthew & Luke. Some pple have even tried to discredit the bible claiming that these two genealogies are different hence a big error. But on closer look one will see that one account follows Mary (mother of Jesus) to David & Abraham and the other follows Joseph to King David and Abraham. Hence two perspectives of the same story.
You have asked me to “suggest a date” for the creation of Adam and Eve. Here again the Bible does not say so if I suggest, that will be purely guess work. Others have tried to do this but the Bible has not said. What the bible is categorical and I can boldly stand on is that. Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth and they came after the rest of the creation. That is what is clear in the Bible!
j.w, first I want to start by a definition of freethinking as found in War and Peace by Tolstoy …Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless……that said, do you know why peer review exists in science? You can take offense for my not reading the funny guys you suggest I read. If I have free time on my hands I will read Behe and other creationists but as for now, there is this really interesting book, The Egyptian book of the dead, that am reading and I can’t leave it to read Behe or Johnson or whoever else you want me to read. You seem to read Dawkins and so on and then misrepresent them.
I think you are confusing matters here. When atheists say the bible is wrong they are referring to things in the bible that are wrong like Matthew’s virgin birth, Noah’s ark and so on . I can’t list them all here. We say religion is not compatible with science and give the case of Galileo and others during his time who faced the wrath of the church, we refer to the restricting of scientific thought in the muslim world and so on. Please don’t mix matters here.
I am not going to comment on your response on genesis because you have explained nothing in that long response of yours. If you read the bible more it is not that it is a style, no no that’s not it! It’s a case of copy paste and or misrepresent. So open your eyes my friend and apply yourself to some thought and you’ll find that it is inconsistent, wrong and at most times preposterous! Which god is the bible word of? is it the same word with that of the quran or the jewish texts? how do we know which is the correct version among the many versions?
No Jew would give his lineage through the mother. Look even at the Josephus in the Antiques of the Jews. Don’t make excuses for an inconsistent tales told by ignorant pastrolists living in the palestinian plains 2k years ago. And again I think you have not read the comment by Nick on the authorship of the gospels and why jesus story is both a fraud and a fabrication. Please, for the sake of argument, it is only fair that you read it. Seriously, he didn’t refer you to books as I do. He put it here for you!
so was Adam and Eve created as adults with all the manuals on sex, behaviour, tool making, cooking, making fire and so on? You say the bible doesn’t say when the earth began and that I agree with you. But you can infer this date. And if we are generous it is not more than 10k years. Why do I say this, Luke in the lineage of Jesus presents a number of generations back to the time of Adam. And if we add the 2k years since the alleged death we have just a few years to creation of the earth.
As I have always said, you can believe what you want to believe but you can’t classify it as science or an explanation of the observable universe.
Again, not sure how this “REPLY” process works, I only know, j.w, that I seem not to be able to reply directly to your comment, dated October 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm – you know, the one in which you chided makagutu for not reading Behe, after you declined to read his suggested Krause –
In that comment, you said:
“Many atheists like saying that the Bible is wrong because the church of old believed the earth is flat and that the earth was the centre of the universe and even persecuted Galileo for saying otherwise! But the question is, where did the church get that from? Is It in the Bible? The answer is no!….The Bible never says that the earth is flat or that the earth is at the canter of the universe!”
And once again, you were wrong! In the book of Joshua, the Israelites were fighting and killing everyone in sight, as they do in most of Joshua, and in this particular instance, they nearly had their enemy beaten, but feared that if they didn’t finish the job, if they had to retire because of darkness, the enemy would have a chance to regroup and come back stronger the next day. So what happened?
Joshua 10:13 – “So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”
Now the sun, we now know, does in fact move around the disk of the galaxy, once every billion years or so, but that has no effect on sunrise and sunset here on earth. What DOES cause sunrise and sunset here, is when the earth rotates, exposing fresh portions of itself to the sunlight. The only way the sun standing still would have any effect on the length of daylight here on earth, would be – dare I say it? – if the sun revolved around the earth!
Put that “molecular biologist” mind of yours (you know, the one that begins comments with, “he, he, he” – yeah, that really sounds like something a molecular biologist would say!) and actually read some facts instead of all of the religious junk that seems to occupy the majority of your time.
J.W., I must point out that you are wrong. It is almost certain that the Torah was not written by Moses. Many biblical and linguistic scholars agree that these five books were written over several hundred years by at least five authors, J, E, P, D and R. Look up the term “The Documentary Hypothesis” of the old testament.This happened from about 900 BCE to about 400 BCE. There were multiple rewrites and revisions, some of which happened during the Babylonian exile and continued up to the reign of King Josiah. The scholars arrived at this conclusion after careful linguistic analysis of the original texts, which show variations in content, dialect and terminology that can only be attributed to texts written in different periods. They also studied the narrative flow of the books in isolation, and similarities when compared to other contemporary books, such as Ezekiel and Jeremiah. In addition, by studying the prevailing political situation at the time, namely the two states of Israel and Judah, political motives identified in the texts also helped to identify different authors and periods. I think that you may have over relied on on tradition in the Jewish and Christian faiths about Moses writing these books.
As to the claims of the authenticity of Jesus settling everything, I disagree. I have answered this question on a post you made in the “About Us” page on this site. You may want to read that as well. Basically, I just argue that while the existence of Jesus can be verified from sources other than the bible, this does not prove his divinity. The only thing that can be said for certain is that he lived in the area of Galilee some time in the 1st century AD. There has been no serious evidence presented for the resurrection of Jesus, apart from that in scripture, which in itself does not meet the standards of objectivity. All the accounts of this resurrection were written by followers of Jesus, who cannot be said to have had no interest in the matter. We cannot therefore just accept their version of events as being objectively written.
Finally, conversions happen all the time. Just because one atheist embraces Christianity, it does not mean that Christianity is right. I am sure there are others who become atheists after considering the evidence. It does not mean atheism is right either. The only thing that determines what the truth is are facts supported by evidence. And therein lies the problem with religion. It makes too many unsubstantiated claims, totally lacking in evidence. Where claims made are inconsistent or simply untenable followers are asked to practice faith. This is why an atheistic view will always be more satisfying to those who are skeptical of believing anything without evidence. While I agree with you that the existence of God cannot be disproved, it cannot also be proved. There is no experiment designed that can prove one case or the other. So the only truly objective position is agnostic. However, the quality of both the evidence and arguments supporting both sides is not equal. Atheists will always prize reason above faith, and reason will always seek the truth.
Before you say there is no serious evidence on the resurrection, please check out Professor Gary Habermas on youtube. He presents clearly the evidence for the resurrection and even participates in debates about the same.. If you indeed are a free thinker you will check out the videos before you respond ignorantly. Cheers!
J.W., I am not sure how exactly you arrived at the conclusion that my response to your last posting was “ignorant”. To some extent, we are all ignorant. But being ignorant is not so much a bad thing as being unwilling to learn. I always try to keep an open mind when examining any point of view. Even if I do not agree with it, I find that I usually learn something new. As for your other remarks, you do not seem to reply to any of the points I made previously, you just ask me to listen to Professor Habermas, assuming that I wrote my previous comments from a position of “ignorance”.
I had actually heard of Professor Habermas before, a while back when I was reading about famous christian apologetics. I have also read about his debate with Flew. While I am no expert in the field of the historicity of Jesus, I do have some interest in it and have tried to learn what I can about it. I have access to a transcript of parts of the interview that list the foundations Habermas bases his arguments on. He calls them “facts that virtually all critical scholars admit to.” This is the starting point for his arguments about the resurrection of Jesus. Briefly, they are:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing His life had ended.
4. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later (He clarifies that this view is not as widely held as the others).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. They thought Jesus appeared to them.
6. Because of these experiences, they were transformed from doubters into bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection.
7. This message was the center of preaching in the early Church.
8. This message was especially proclaimed in the environs of Jerusalem where Jesus died and was buried just shortly before.
9. As a result of this preaching, the Church was born and it grew.
10. Sunday became the primary day of worship. And that’s significant for Jewish believers.
11. James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also “believed” that he saw the resurrected Jesus.
12. A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience which he likewise “believed” to be the appearance of the risen Jesus.
Notice how at least 5 of these statements are not verifiable facts, but are statements about the states of mind of various followers of Jesus. These are numbers 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12. They only tell us what the disciples felt, or believe they saw, at the time. Habermas argues that something must have happened because of the explosive growth of christianity after these events, and the fact that many disciples who were former non-believers were ready to die – and indeed died – for their beliefs after their conversion. It is possible to believe completely in something and be totally mistaken, even by large groups of people. I am no expert on group hallucination, but there is an excellent review of Habermas’ “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus” by Professor Robert M. Price. Price is a professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus. He is also a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and significantly is also a former Baptist minister. Nicholas Covington, an author, also provides a rebuttal to the argument against mass hallucinations in his article “Jesus’ resurrection and mass hallucinations.”
Also notice that all accounts of the resurrection in the gospels are by followers of Jesus. And I repeat that there is no eyewitness evidence other than that in Paul’s letters, and to a lesser degree the some of the gospels, all of which were written decades after the fact. Even Paul’s letters, which provide the earliest written account of the resurrection, are written over 20 years after the death of Jesus. Essentially, all Habermas’ arguments derive from the new testament. So, how can it be proved that these are true accounts of what happened? By using circular reasoning. “Why is this story true?” “Because it is written in the book.” “Who wrote the book?” “The disciples did.” “But how do we know they are telling the truth?” “It must be true because it is in the book.” There are no non-christian eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. The most often cited non-christan sources are Tacitus (approx 55-120 AD) and Josephus (approx 37-97 AD). Both of them lived after the death of Jesus and therefore their accounts of events are not first hand. There are other sources, but many of them were Christian writers or followers of the apostles. Again, these accounts were written decades after the death of Jesus. In “A Resurrection Debate”, Professor G.A. Wells (a published scholar with degrees in philosophy and natural science) argues against the reliability of the gospels and the accounts of Paul, as well as taking a look at some of the non-christian evidence for the resurrection from the debate.
Habermas also gives a lot of attention to the claim that some disciples were “converted” after having personal experiences with the resurrected Jesus. I mantain that this proves absolutely nothing. It is not evidence of anything supernatural. Many people claim to have fantastic experiences every day. There is probably someone somewhere in the world having an extraordinary experience right now. The founder of Mormonism Joseph Smith converted based upon a personal encounter with the angel Moroni. The founder of Islam Mohamed converted based upon what he perceived as a personal encounter with the angel Jibril. Many Roman Catholics have converted based upon personal encounters with Jesus, Mary and the many saints they believe in. Protestants convert based upon personal encounters with the Holy Spirit and with Jesus. For all these cases the evidence is always anecdotal, never empirical. So who do we believe? Why are the claims of the disciples superior to those of Joseph Smith? Or anyone else who thinks they have seen a vision for that matter?
Oh, and on another matter, you say that Anthony Flew, after debating with Prof. Habermas and examining the evidence “became a follower of Jesus Christ.” This is simply not true. Flew did indeed become a theist, but in the sense of the Aristotelian God, that is God as a first cause. He does not accept the idea of an afterlife, or of God as the ultimate source of good. In a December 2004 interview with none other than Prof. Habermas, Flew states that, “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins”. Also, remember that Flew’s debate with Prof. Habermas took place in 1985. Flew converted in 2004, 20 years later, at the age of 81. Were there other factors apart from that debate that made him change his mind? Probably. But he did not convert to Christianity.
On the accusations of Flew being senile, you be the judge. The following is a sample of his views on the origin of life from 2004 – 2007.
October 2004 – “My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.”
December 2004 – “I now realise that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.” Incidentally he blamed his error on being “misled” by Richard Dawkins.
2007 – “…the latest work I have seen shows that the present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of abiogenesis to get the job done”
Now, Professor Habermas is obviously much more widely read and experienced in this field than I am. He has spent over 35 years in this field, and is therefore an authority on the history of the new testament. But there are obvious flaws in his approach. And he is not the only scholar in this field. For every scholar that agrees with him there are others, equally distinguished, who do not. What I have done is try and understand the arguments for both sides and then apply reason to find the truth. Can that be called ignorance?
Actually Nick, it is believed that King Josiah wrote Deuteronomy himself. As for the four Gospels, they were all written anonymously, beginning 50 or so years after the date that Yeshua would have died, if he ever lived, so we have no way of determining who they were, how reliable they were, what their motivations might have been, or anything about them really. It wasn’t until the middle of the 2nd century AD that the Church decided to arbitrarily award the titles of “Matthew,” “Mark,” “Luke” and “John” to the Gospels.
I sincerely apologize for referring to you as ignorant! In deed you are much more informed than I am! Please allow me to respond to the issue of other supernatural experiences and what makes the disciples experience superior! I wish to inform you that in addition to the existence of God! Satan also exists! Satan can also counterfeit visions and spiritual experiences but they will not uplift Jesus! That’s what to watch for! they may all acknowledge Jesus, but will refute His divinity, him being the son of God or him being the only way to God! The Spirit of God through the apostles warns severally on this! Here are examples;
“And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve” ” Corinthians 11: 14-15.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” Galatians 1:8.
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” 1 John 4:1-3.
Among others! Many of these visions, e.g. Jibril, Mary, etc were actually real visions! But every vision is to be verified by the word of God! That’s how you know what is of God and what is not!
J.W., thanks for the apology. Even if we disagree, I am sure there is something we can learn from each other. Now, I do not believe in the existence of Satan, the same way that I do not believe in the existence of God. Also, the way that you quote bible verses to prove your case is exactly the same way that a Muslim would quote the Qur’an to prove his. Any other adherent of any other religion would similarly quote his or her sacred text.
I do not disagree that you completely believe what you say about your faith. But you must realize that all other people of different faiths completely believe in theirs as well. Since these religions give conflicting accounts of what they say is the truth, they cannot all be right. Some must be wrong. But we cannot tell which is the right one because all use their holy books to say that they are right. So we cannot accept the claims of any religion over another. This, in my view, is the problem with religion.
Hi, Thanks for your feed back. I fully agree with you that since the many religions differ in their fundamental teachings, they cannot all be right! That is why I believe that only one of them is right! This is not because of “blind faith” but because of careful assessment of a number of them. Allow me to compare the two that you have mentioned, ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY. There is a big difference. The Bible was written by about 40 individuals over a period of 1600 yrs none of whom was aware that they were compiling the Bible at the time. The Quran was dictated by a being that appeared to Mohamed whom he was initially convinced was a DEMON until his liberal misinformed christian wife convinced him that it must have been the angel Gabriel! With all due respect, I am convinced that it in deed was a demon! The sole authority and channel of revelation in Islam is the prophet, hence there is no way of anyone else corroborating his revelations! Jesus on other hand said He came in the authority of the many prophets of old and many times quoted them in his sermons. Even the apostles (e.g. Paul & Peter) would correct each other on doctrinal issues! Jesus Said that you shall know a tree by its fruit. I further believe that you can judge a religion by what the founder TAUGHT and EXEMPLIFIED! Lets briefly examine These two founders! Mohamed’s revelations many times seemed only to favour him as an individual.For instance, he had more than 10 wives yet he said allah said men ought to have only up to 4 wives. Also he came up with the revelation of Hijab only after he snatched his step son’s sons wife coz she was indecently exposed. He had such an insatiable sexual desire that, he marries a girl at six yrs, it is also written that he could have sex with all of his wives in one night! I cant help to see the connection of this perversion and the revelation that 70 virgins await any man who will kill non-belivers in the name of allah. Just to mention but a few of his very questionable teachings and conduct. Jesus Christ on the other hand, His teachings and conduct were impeccable. in fact more than once He dared his enemies to mention any wrong thing he had done! And he was faultless! But this or the evidence i have discussed previously is not what sets the Bible above the rest! What puts the Bible & Christianity clearly as the only truth is PROPHECY! By this I mean telling the future with amazing accuracy before it happens! look at what God says by the prophet Isaiah!
““ONLY I CAN TELL YOU THE FUTURE BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS. EVERYTHING I PLAN WILL COME TO PASS, FOR I DO WHATEVER I WISH.” Isaiah 46: 10
“WHO THEN IS LIKE ME? LET HIM PROCLAIM IT. LET HIM DECLARE AND LAY OUT BEFORE ME WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE I ESTABLISHED MY ANCIENT PEOPLE, AND WHAT IS YET TO COME–YES, LET HIM FORETELL WHAT WILL COME.” Isaiah 44:7.
The Bible is about one third PROPHECY. (This ranges from; 1) the coming of the messiah with amazing specificity, 2) the pple of Israel 3) the history of world empires! Not the QURAN, THE HINDU VEDAS OR EVEN BUDDHIST WRITTINGS can claim this. time fails me to go into details but I will just mention two. In DANIEL which was written over 500 yrs before Jesus in the reign of the Babylonian empire under king Nebuchadnezzar, God Through Daniel gave the clear succession of the world empires that would interact with the Jewish pple up to the end of time. He clearly prophesied the succession as, BABYLON > MEDO-PERSIAN > GREECE > ROMAN EMPIRE. etc.
One final example is the JEWISH RACE. My friend have you ever met a caananite, on a jebusite? God Prophesied that when his pple broke his commands he would scatter them literally all over the world! And would then gather them back to their land and they would keep their language! (Isaiah 11:12 among others) like the bible says, they were literally scattered to all the continents of the world and after 2000yrs, has began bringing them back. i know this is a politically thorny issue but it fulfillment of prophecy!
Now allow me to put a disclaimer, I believe there are two spiritual forces GOD & the DEVIL. Only God is OMNIPRESENT (ALL knowing). Though the Devil also can inspire some degree of prophecy by involvement of spirits! Thats why pple who get involved in the occult e.g Psychics, hypnotists, witches etc can get some information about individuals that they could not have normally known but the spirits they invoke know about the individuals that consult them. Among the most famous occultists in history include NASTRADAMUS & EDGAR CASEY among others!
I apologise beforehand that this response will be quite long, I can’t make it any shorter though so please bear with me and I hope to hear from you again soon.
j.w I realize this discussion has been going on for a while. You see every time you start a new reply I don’t get notification so the best is to follow one chain that way it doesn’t take long before I get back to you. That said, I can now deal with issues here.
First I see my friend Nick has responded to the many claims you are making and am just going to continue. But before I do that I notice you have explained omnipresent as all knowing; all knowing is omniscient.
I have seen your dismissal of Islam, I don’t know why you haven’t considered Judaism? HAve you considered the ancient religions among the Egyptians for example? And if the same method you have used to dismiss their claims don’t you think the same can be said about christianity?
Now there are things you mention as prophecy in the bible. First biblical scholars like the esteemed Prof Robert Price and others have shown that most of this are reported after the event and can’t be treated as foretelling and the verses you take to be referring to Jesus do not actually refer to him but to the dying and rising god the israelites believed in. On the question of land belonging to the jews, if you follow from genesis, you’ll find these are matters of dreams. Jacob dreams he has been given land so we can’t say they have a legitimate promise besides my friend Nick already mentioned that you can’t keep referring to the bible to prove your case. It does you no justice and doesn’t help your case.
I lack a belief in the existence of god[s] since there is no evidence to support their existing and further I could say am agnostic since the nature of god is unknowable. That being said, I think the arguments for atheism make more sense to any rational person and should thus be the default position.
You say jesus [if he existed] was exemplary, he calls people dogs, snakes and promises those who do not believe in him eternal damnation; unless you tell me this is ok I find your claim absurd and unbelievable unless you are cherry picking those parts you find to further your course. On the same matter, jesus[ if he existed] doesn’t teach anything new. All the sayings that have been attributed to him originate from either the Torah, Iliad or the OT and thus anyone could have said them and therefore that can’t be used to prove his existence.
Buddhism is a religion, if we consider it so, without a god and I think we can’t include it here. Now that you have, I will mention that the Buddha himself was an atheist. You can look for that in the writings of Buddha.
Since the question of Flew has been fairly dealt with by Nick, don’t you realize also in the same measure there are people who de-convert from their religions. So de/converting is not proof of either non/existence of a deity. Though I must add Flew didn’t believe in the christian god but on the Aristotelean god who is the first cause and can’t be said to be still existing.
I have told you in a different thread on this site that in as much as I love you tube, I prefer to read and make my conclusions. You realise apologetics will always defend their faiths however irrational. So widen your library to include books written by non- believers you sure will learn a lot.
The question of biblical authorship has been addressed by Nick and I will just mention something else. Since you insist that the authenticity of Jesus will settle everything, if the epistles are written before the gospels, how is it that Paul doesn’t quote Jesus if this could help settle a doctrinal issue. My friend Nick believes that Jesus was a historical figure, a position I don’t share with him. The evidence for a historical jesus is so weak, it’s safe to assume he didn’t exist and that is my position. I want you to spend some time and read Robert M. Price book The Christ Myth and it’s problems but before that spend time and consider these link http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/book.html. Once you have read and have a proper rebuttal please do come and I ask of you to not ask me to read Strobel or CS Lewis for proofs!
Greetings,
Last time i had promised to come to your meetup and tell u about my paranormal experiences, i was unable to attend. Anyway, id like to take this opportunity to promise you that i will attend a latter meetup , but until then,
See this site, http://www.yourghoststories.com/real-ghost-stories.php , thats food for thought.
Id like you to ponder over this.
I do not Doubt the Biblical story of creation, neither do i discount evolution. I could give you evidence of both, but since i am dealing with ‘Free thinkers’ who seem to have a bias to athism, il dwell on creation.
Kindly have a readthrough of the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability ,
then id like you to ask yourself 1 question.
Are we here on earth because there are perfect conditions for life, or are these perfect conditions present here because we are here, Think about it.
wachugamaina, I will keep you up dated on our next meet-up and the invitation is open to you and your friends. If you spend quite sometime on the internet, you must have heard of the doctor who came from a coma and reported he had seen heaven. You might just want to read first his experience then the critique so far and you will then compare it with what you call paranormal experience.
Free thinking and atheism are unrelated, that said I would like to know how you reconcile your belief in creation and also not discounting evolution.
To your last question, is it not enough that we are here? We/ all life have evolved to survive here and I think life would have evolved to survive on another universe, you or I can’t tell if there isn’t life anywhere else.
Unfortunately, Makagutu, if you’ll look carefully at J.w’s last post, no “Reply” button follows it, so if I want to comment on his post and not have my comment buried somewhere, I’ll need to piggyback onto yours, using your reply button.
J.w, one of your primary claims for the Bible is it’s “prophecy,” that it predicts “the coming of the messiah with amazing specificity.” Yeah, well, let me tell you how that works. You read everything you can find on ancient prophesies, then you write a fictitious story about a man and you make sure his birth and life fit all of the prophesies, even if you have to bend logic and the truth to do it. For example, he needs to live in Galilee, yet he needs to be born in Bethlehem, so you invent a Roman census, for which there is no record in Roman historical annals anywhere, and you bend logic to say that the family had to travel all the way to Bethlehem, the supposed birthplace of Joseph’s father, to be counted – voila! Prophecy fulfilled!.
Imagine any major city – I don’t even have to know which one, pick a city, any city – common sense tells you that a considerable number of the people who live in that city, were not born there, but currently work there and/or operate businesses there. But imagine the government issues an edict – each male must take his family, and walking or on donkey-back, must travel to the city of their birth, to be counted. What happens? A considerable number of business close, as their owners make the long journey to be counted. Other businesses must close, because with so many of their employees leaving to make the journey to be counted, the businesses can no longer operate until they return. Now governments operate by raising taxes on income, but no taxes can be earned when businesses are closed or employees are earning no money, walking back and forth to another town to be counted. What is a better plan? Romans were very logical and business-like, wouldn’t it make far more sense if they hired census-takers to go from town to town, taking the census, while all businesses stay open and all employees working?
Of course it would – but it wouldn’t fit the prophecy “with amazing specificity,” would it?
So am I right to assume that you believe that DNA resulted from random chance? Please answer me on that! And if its yes you have no choice but to concede that you position is equally based on faith! And very great faith! Like I said. Instead of referring me to books written by top scientists that contain more philosophy than science, lets talk about facts! I have tried to give you facts on evolution but you keep making the blanket statement that “There is overwhelming evidence on evolution!” Please lets discuss specific facts that you claim exist in evolution! the problem with pple like Richard dawkins is that they already have a preconceived philosophy(not wanting to be answerable to any supreme being) and they use they platform to make very unscientific statements that CANNOT be backed by the scientific method. Yet pple take it as science yet they are purely personal opinions! By the way Antony Flew (a “Richard Dawkins” of a previous generation) became a theist after studying the marvels of DNA! He did not find it even remotely intellectual to believe that such a complex piece of nano technology could have arisen by RANDOM CHANCE! Iam amazed that you wish to “suspend judgement” on information that is already in the public domain! Please consider what some other scientists have said below;
“WE TAKE THE SIDE OF SCIENCE IN SPITE OF THE PATENT ABSURDITY OF SOME OF ITS CONSTRUCTS, IN SPITE OF ITS FAILURE TO FULFILL MANY OF ITS EXTRAVAGANT PROMISES OF HEALTH AND LIFE, IN SPITE OF THE TOLERANCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY FOR UNSUBSTANTIATED JUST-SO STORIES, BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRIOR COMMITMENT, A COMMITMENT TO MATERIALISM.
IT IS NOT THAT THE METHODS AND INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENCE SOMEHOW COMPEL US TO ACCEPT A MATERIAL EXPLANATION OF THE PHENOMENAL WORLD, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT WE ARE FORCED BY OUR A PRIORI ADHERENCE TO MATERIAL CAUSES TO CREATE AN APPARATUS OF INVESTIGATION AND A SET OF CONCEPTS THAT PRODUCE MATERIAL EXPLANATIONS, NO MATTER HOW COUNTER-INTUITIVE, NO MATTER HOW MYSTIFYING TO THE UNINITIATED. MOREOVER, THAT MATERIALISM IS AN ABSOLUTE, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.” Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist
“THAT THERE IS INDEED A LIMIT UPON SCIENCE IS MADE VERY LIKELY BY THE EXISTENCE OF QUESTIONS THAT SCIENCE CANNOT ANSWER, AND THAT NO CONCEIVABLE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE WOULD EMPOWER IT TO ANSWER. I HAVE IN MIND SUCH QUESTIONS AS: HOW DID EVERYTHING BEGIN? WHAT ARE WE ALL HERE FOR? WHAT IS THE POINT OF LIVING?” Sir Peter Brian Medawar OM CBE FRS (1915 – 1987), British zoologist & Nobel Prize Winner in Physiology or Medicine 1960.
j.w, I realize you have a short memory. I said I can read well without caps. Please keep it at that.
Why are you misrepresenting me? I said we must suspend judgement on where and how life originated. That is not the question of evolution but abiogenesis which is still a new field in science. All the propositions science has made are provisional and can be revised if we acquire more evidence. Now tell why suspending judgement here is wrong? Why would DNA not form by random chance? My friend archy has responded to this in one of the threads here. Did you read it or do you just like to pretend you haven’t seen it.
You say I refer you to science books that contain more philosophy than science. I am not sure you read the Greatest Show on Earth or Why Evolution is true, if you did then I don’t know what to say about your power of comprehension and decoding information. I can’t help you on that.
When you say evolution doesn’t follow the scientific method, tell me does creation story follow? Can it be tested? Is it falsifiable? Is it repeatable? So unless there is cognitive dissonance on your part, we are not helping each other. I don’t really care whether you read the books I tell you read just as you don’t really have to care whether I read the religious apologists you keep proposing.
On Flew, I and other commentators on this thread have told you he never became a theist. He became a deist and even if this were so, it doesn’t make theistic belief true! It doesn’t add an iota of truth to the existence of a god or gods. It only means a person can be a theist, polytheist, atheist or deist or whatever else you can conceive in your mind. And to take this argument to a logical conclusion, would it mean then if a person deconverts, then god doesn’t exist? You can’t have it one way.
Sir Peter whatever his other names lived and studied in 1960s, we are 52 years later and science has made head ways in understanding our observable reality. Now either you are living in the 21st century or you have your life set in a period 6BCE when people had no understanding of the observable universe.
And as my friend archy told you, when you are ready to join us in the 21st century, feel very welcome. We will be waiting with open arms to welcome you!
Here’s a little something you might enjoy, j.w – pop some popcorn, sit back, relax and enjoy –
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&w=420&h=315%5D
@j.w – Sorry, really don’t like this format – posted a video the other day, but it won’t accept another one now – try this:
Excellent video archaeo, will share it.
Unfortunately, Nick, I can’t respond to your comment directly because it has to sit in comment purgatory until someone REALLY important decides it’s OK to allow it to be published, but as regards sharing the video, go crazy!
arch
The beauty of the rational mind, J.w, for those who have yet to acquire one, is that it is able to say, “We don’t know yet, but we will continue research and the accumulation of information, and quite possibly, one day, we will.” The rational mind is also capable of saying, “Up to a certain point, we believed theory A to be true, but new evidence has indicated that we now need to amend that theory, we’ll call it A1.” The irrational mind says, “God did it, case closed – it doesn’t matter HOW much new evidence you uncover, as I said, case closed.” With the rational mind, the case is always open, with the irrational mind, the case is always closed.
When you look at a glass, J.w, that contains water, rising from the bottom to the mid-point of the glass, would you say that the glass was half-full, or would you say that it was half-empty? The Rational mind would say that the glass is always full. Sometimes it is filled entirely with water, other times, entirely with air, and there are yet other times when it is filled with varying percentages of water and air, but it is always full.
You quoted Medawar as asking, “SUCH QUESTIONS AS: HOW DID EVERYTHING BEGIN? WHAT ARE WE ALL HERE FOR? WHAT IS THE POINT OF LIVING?”
We have scientific theories as to how everything began, theories that fit the evidence we currently possess, and describe the world as we observe it to be. As new evidence accumulates, our theories will either be further confirmed, or altered to conform to the new evidence, but the case, as I said, will never be closed, but rather always receptive to new information.
As for, “WHAT ARE WE ALL HERE FOR? WHAT IS THE POINT OF LIVING?” – those are philosophical questions that have no evidentiary answers. Nature’s only reason for our being is to breed and perpetuate our species, which is why we, and flowers, begin dying shortly after we have passed breeding age. Of all of the animals, we – to the best of our knowledge – are the only ones that trouble ourselves with such questions, the others are content to simply “be.” But if we feel we must have a purpose, it is one we will have to seek for ourselves, by looking into our minds, rather than into some holy rulebook. You certainly appear to have found yours.
makagutu,
My point is people around the world experience supernatural encounters, ghosts daemons, which-craft you name it, you just need to do a few google searches to be convinced ama visit a haunted place or a local which doctor for that. There is no doubt that these things exist, hell I’ve personally seen a daemon WITH MY OWN EYES.
So id like you to explain these supernatural phenomena with your theory of evolution.
or will you tell me that there are no supernatural phenomena?
Now if you let me explain evolution using the story of creation, which btw is believed by most contemporary religions, hence my statement “We pray to the same God” .
See,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
or any other version of the bible really.
Now please note these phrases…
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
etc..
Do you see anywhere that reads that the second day was the next day?
now see
http://creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years
here note
Answer: 2 Peter 3:8–9 reads:
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’
now finish off by reading 1 Corinthians 13:12
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A12&version=KJV
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Now, My point is that religion and Science do not conflict in any way, I mean I dont say the big bang Theory dint happen, but if it did it could not possibly have been spontaneous, must have been commissioned.
If you ever read the bible, you will notice an interesting trend with Jesus Miracles, they were natural.
As in Jesus did not say Habra Kadabra and A drum of wine appeard, he turned a drum of water into wine.
He did not make fish and Bread apear from nowhere, he multiplied existing fish and bread.
Elijah made the widows oil multiply and many more stories.
Im saying is that If God created the heavens and the earth, they did not just apear from nowhere, could the Big Bang theory be how they apeared when The bible says God Created the Heavens and the earth?
Think about It
Georgr, I can’t help but laugh at this comment. Which god do all of you worship. And anyone can interpret the genesis story as they like. You can’t however say that one day is like 1000 days or vice versa and then move to say that on the seventh day he rested. Did he rest on the 7000th day or when? Do you see my problem. And by the way I read the bible almost on a daily basis.
Science and religion conflict all the time. There is no time in the history of mankind they have been bed fellows. If there has been a time in human history where they have been in the same bed, the church has always had an upper hand and if you have evidence to the contrary I will gladly change my position.
Please describe how this demon looked like. Evolution doesn’t explain appearance of supernatural phenomena, that is in the field of study of mind and consciousness. Evolution explains how life has progressed and if you have a better explanation be free to present it.
I think you need to read the previous comments on this thread on the historicity of jesus before you start mentioning his miracles.
Georgr, there are no supernatural events, only people who believe in supernatural events.
As for the beginning of the universe, that has already been discussed, and there’s no need to rehash it – I suggest you look back through the thread for that discussion. Watch the Krause video, the link is offered.
At, Archaeopteryx1, Sir I am fully aware of the account in Joshua where the sun stood still and also the other account in 2kings 20: where the clock went back as a sign to King Hezekiah. But I don’t see where this means the earth is flat or the sun goes around the sun. That’s your own wrong interpretation. When I say “time flies” Do i mean that time has wings or time has mastered the l was laws of aerodynamics? No! That’s just a figure of speech. Also during the muslims’ month of ramadhan(I know you are not a theist but allow me to use this example) when after the news bulletin the fasting time table comes up indicating sunrise and sunset, Does that mean that because we say the sun rises we are claiming that the sun revolves around the earth. I don’t think so. Its just for communication purposes. So i maintain. “Science can change theology but it cannot change the word of God!” If God could create the world from “nothing” (and not the nothing that has “mass” that Lawrence Krause talks about) Is it then a big deal to stop time or reverse time? No its not. Also let me add that the Bible is not a Science text book, or a history text book per se. Indeed it contains every field of human interest: Science, arts, history, philosophy, economics etc and it is accurate every time! God did not intend it as a text book only to be understood by scholars. God Wanted the message of the salvation of mankind to be understood by everybody! From the most learned to the most illiterate. From a nursery school child to a university professor. That’s Why even in an intricate account like the beginning of the universe, its just simplifies it. The main aim of the Bible is to answer, the questions that science cannot ever answer even in a million years! Namely:
1) Who am I?
2) Why am i here?
3)Why is there evil in the world?
4)Is what we see & experience all there is to life?
5) What really happens to us after death?
6) Will we all give an account of our lives to God?
My friend, when one has had an encounter with the risen Jesus Christ Like I and many thousands have,one never remains the same! Its not just a matter of winning an argument but its a matter of an encounter with God! If you are honest you will agree, that even the most brilliant and outspoken Atheist or humanist, cannot tell you for sure that there is no life after death! There is only one human being ever who died and rose again never to die again! The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a verifiable historical fact with up to 500 witnesses! many of whom died not just for “blind faith” but for what they saw! Please my friends don’t be deceived by the so called “new atheism” There is nothing new about it! It is just an old lie! Please search out the truth for yourselves because only the truth will set you free! Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life!
Clearly j.w, you are content with your delusions and would rather not be confused with any nasty old facts, but before I leave you to wallow in your ignorance, let me at least answer one of your questions for you:
“3)Why is there evil in the world?”
Your own god can answer that, and has:
Isaiah 45: 7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
At least he’s honest about it –
archaeopteryx1 Sir, A text taken out of context is a pretext! Nobody can be argued into believing in Jesus as their Lord and savoir. One has to encounter Jesus for himself. So i don’t expect to argue you into Christianity. My aim was to show you and your friends that Christianity is the most rational world view. Just think about this, you and your atheist friends speak with a lot of certainty that there is no afterlife! And where did you get that notion? From other atheists and humanists who themselves have never died! So any opinion they have on the matter cannot be substantiated whatsoever! Jesus Christ is the only person whose details of birth, life, manner of death (even centuries before crucifixion was invented) and resurrection was prophesied long before they all happened! This is what Paul says about it “For He(God) has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:31. Not only was His life prophesied centuries before, but there is compelling evidence and eye witness account to anyone who objectively wishes to check it out: RESURRECTION? FACT or FICTION: Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law & co-founder of Harvard Law school, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, on
ce and for all, to expose the “myth” of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:
“it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . .”
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).
My friend if you were going to lokichogio and didn’t know the directions, Isn’t is just common sense that you would seek directions from someone who has been there! You would not take anyone seriously who purported to know the way yet they hadn’t been there! But that is what atheists are doing? believing that there is no life after death but the people who tell them this have never died and come back to verify their claims! With all due respect, isn’t that the delusion? My Friend Jesus Christ is the only one who died and is now alive! I don’t think am deluded in believing in Him?
1) The Historical evidence of His Life, Death & Resurrection is just compelling!
2) The accuracy and veracity of the Biblical prophecies about Him(Centuries before) are just unusual.
3) The Impact of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. (And here I don’t mean those who have disobeyed Jesus’s Commands and committed atrocities in His name!)
4) The Philosophical relevance of the scriptures is just divine!
5)And the most important for me,is the personal encounter with the Gospel of Jesus Christ about 9yrs ago that radically transformed my life! I know I am not the same!
j.w – RE: “Jesus Christ is the only person whose details of birth, life, manner of death (even centuries before crucifixion was invented) and resurrection was prophesied long before they all happened!”
The fictional character of Yeshua (not “Jesus”, which would have been the Greek translation of his actual Hebrew name) was invented, using the Old Testament “prophecies” as a foundation for the myth. The OT says that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but there is no Roman record of any census having been ordered, that required people to travel to their birth towns to be counted, which wouldn’t have made any sense anyway. But those who concocted the New Testament, created a story that had Yeshua born there, in order to appear as though the Messiah prophesy had been fulfilled. [You might be interested (but I doubt it) to learn that Horus, the Egyptian son of the god Osiris, was born of a virgin, in a manger, and was visited by three kings - what a coincidence!]
Pure fabrication, with no evidence whatsoever to support it.
Your serve –
Here is NON-BIBLICAL evidence for JESUS CHRIST
Wow. I can see the debate has been raging for a while now. J.W., by any chance are you on the KFT or FIKA Facebook pages? I as because I’ve noticed someone posted something that was exactly like one of your posts here. The one that says something like
“…RESURRECTION? FACT or FICTION: Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law & co-founder of Harvard Law school, was one of the greatest legal minds…”
Is that you?
Nick, I will probably hazard a guess that it is him. And I would rather we call this a conversation not a debate. and why does he get all these creationist videos? he must have a lot of time in his hands to search and watch creatins like he is
@Nick – I’m not sure that “debate” is the most appropriate term here – debates generally involve two people of relatively equal abilities, and when it comes to debate, j.r here, is a double amputee, without a leg to stand on –
RE, The prophecy of Daniel, as to “the exact day Yeshua (Jesus, in Greek) presented himself as king”: there is no historical evidence that Yeshua ever lived, much less “presented himself as king” on a specific month, day and year. There ARE however, indications that writers and editors of the New Testament used the prophecies of the Old Testament to concoct their stories. For example, the OT predicts that the “Messiah” would be born in Bethlehem, so a “Roman census” was invented to explain how Yeshua could be from Nazareth, yet born in Bethlehem. There is no record – and the Romans were meticulous record keepers – of any such census. Further, such a census would make no sense – what would it serve for the males of the country to go to the city of their birth to be counted? Business would come to a standstill, as families left their homes to slowly travel to other cities all over the land, stay to be counted, then slowly return on foot or on donkey-back..
The New Testament built its stories to conform to Old Testament prophecies. This film – a waste of an hour and 14 minutes – takes the rantings of John in the NT book of Revelation, and streeeetches the imagination to make those appear to have come true in modern terms.
If one is to speak of prophecy, why is it that most Christians find ways to gloss over the most important prophecy of all? Yeshua prophesied all of the things that would happen before he returned, and went on to say (Luke 21:33): “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” How did THAT prophesy work out for him? After 2100 years jw, do you think it’s safe to say that they’ve passed away?
I’m not wasting another 47 minutes and 33 seconds on still more fabrication!
He he he … Isn’t it funny that you label something a “fabrication” without even checking it out! Well, truth can’t be forced on anyone. The real free thinkers. Those who want to objectively look at both sides of the argument and make their own independent decisions will look at it. For your information the narrator was an ardent atheist until he came head on with the information He shares! Its for someone to hear him out and make a personal and independent decision!
@JW – RE: “Isn’t it funny that you label something a “fabrication” without even checking it out!”
Well, having watched an hour and 13 minutes worth of fabrication by this guy, and be offered an opportunity to spend 47 and a half more, watching the same guy, what would lead me to believer his attitude had done a 180 degree turn from the making of the one video, to his making the other?
If I spend 47 1/2 minutes on the 2nd video, to “check it out,” and come to the same conclusion, will your magic god give me my 47 1/2 minutes back? Didn’t think so –
Jw – you spend 10 minutes locating a comfirmationally biased video on some theist website, and I spend an hour or two researching for information to debunk it – hardly equitable. Possibly – what am I saying? – PROBABLY you have little else to do with your time, but I do.
The first thing I noticed in the video, besides the fact that it was yet another waste of time, was that the men gathered in California were all already of like mind before they came there – no one, it appears, was invited who had a contrary opinion. One, I noticed, was an instructor at Lehigh, in Bethlehem, PA, a town founded by Moravian missionaries. Lehigh itself was founded by a grant from an industrialist, Asa Packer, who donated the money for, “the intellectual and moral improvement of men in the Lehigh Valley” – I don’t imagine it would take a great leap of faith to imagine that the atmosphere at Lehigh is more than a bit theistic, and I suspect one has to be a theist to gain employment there..
I’ll just look at one point they made, having no more time than that to waste – they based their belief in a “designer” on the concept of “irreducible complexity,” and used as an example, flagella, with their “amazing” (their words) motor, saying that the motor had to have been present in the flagellum originally, not coming together in bits and pieces over time as evolution would suggest, and used as an example that flagella had tails, that, without the “motor” would have been immobile. Well, sperm have tails, and no “motor,” yet they swim and navigate, so that argument is moot. Another thing they fail to consider, is that many parts of living organisms have multiple functions, or at least the ability to adapt from one usage to another – an example of this would be the feet of the other three great ape species, they’re made like hands, for grasping branches, but when the ancestor of the fourth species, Man, took to the ground, gradually, over vast amounts of time, those hand-shaped feet evolved to become the feet we have today, great for walking, but not so good any longer for grasping branches. The component parts of the flagellate “motor” could have already evolved into place, but served other functions until, in some cases, they came together, changed function, and became the flagellate “motor.”
Now really,I have no more time to chase down and eradicate your fantasies – get a real life.
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryhx
My friend Archaeopteryhx, With all due respect. Truth is truth whether it is captured in a book or in a video. Truth is truth whether it is spoken by a primary school pupil or a university professor! Likewise a lie is a lie whether spoken simply by a toddler or coated with scientific jargon by a triple PHD university professor! For your information, A person’s inclination to Atheism I have noticed is not only backed by so called scientific evidence. It is determined by i) Personal Choice & ii) Social factors. I have seen these when I have presented very credible, Scientific and historical information that discredits evolution and proofs of Jesus Christs life, teachings death & resurrection. Also went ahead to answer their questions but they still dint budge. Then it stuck me! An atheist not only becomes an atheist coz of scientific or intellectual reasons but coz of personal reasons. Such as wanting to be in charge of their own lives and resenting the idea of being answerable to God one day! because that is the only other alternative! That is why people will become militant! But Truth is truth my friend! Whether the majority follow it or not! Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life!
archy, here is a case of trying to get milk from a stone. You will use so much energy and get nothing. I don’t think there is any progress we are making here. we disapprove one group, he gets still another creationist video and i think we have better things to do, don’t we? like you finishing genesis or something of that kind
I consider myself well-chided:)
https://vimeo.com/44641877
@J.W – One can’t argue with the statement, “Truth is truth,” any more than one can that, “Green is green,” but as for truth, so far you haven’t shown me any.
@archaeopteryx1, Sir Truth is what is backed up by evidence! Atheism and especially evolution which is a core belief for atheists has no scientific basis and lacks empirical evidence! It very true what Charles Darwin’s friend said; “Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.” Sir Arthur Keith.(Evolutionist)
@j.w – RE: “It very true what Charles Darwin’s friend said”
If you’re referring to Keith’s statement that special creation is unthinkable, you and I are finally in agreement!
It is only unthinkable to a narrow mind which will become dogmatic about a theory despite the overwhelming lack of evidence and the immense improbability of it!
I would wish to attend to your monthly forums one day.
Hey, we had a meeting this past Sunday. You missed! Anyway, we are organizing an event in December.
Hi Harry, I think it would be a lovely idea to organize a joint event with the guys of freethought uganda. It would be very interesting.
When is the next meetup. I’d love to attend.