A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

No, free will is an illusion, even if your God myth is correct. Your second question is poorly asked, the answer is no. Your third question is foolish and again poorly asked and the answer is no, yet strangely for you if is yes. And the last Austin's answer is no, yet for you it is oddly yes again.

Try to ask questions without false assumptions buried in them.

If free will is an illusion, jump off a cliff now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but being a “scholar” don’t mean that “scholar” don’t make mistakes or isn’t biased.

Being a scholar don’t mean the person being objective or impartial.

I am not saying scholarship is bad. The “good” or “bad” scholarship can happen, but what make bad scholarship is the lack of objectivity, and the “scholar” don’t have verifiable sources, verifiable data or verifiable evidences that could back up his or her scholarship.

What make creationists bad with biblical scholarship or with science, is that they allowed their religious belief to bias the conclusion, because the conclusion reached is based on belief and faith, regardless if the evidences are stacked against their views.

Their views have already been decided, disregarding the evidences.

The scholars cited at Wikipedia aren't discussing evolution, but the historicity of Jesus. The scholars include VIRTUALLY ALL scholars on this important subject.

If you want to discuss evolution:

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

· Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

· Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That’s not free will.

Your idea of free will is rather perverted, where the threat of punishment could dictate a person’s decision.

If I am go to art gallery, to look at some paintings, I am...or at least “I should be”...free to choose which paintings that I “like” or “dislike”, without promise of reward and without the threat of punishment. That’s free will.

But imagine there’s a guard, police or soldier holding assault rifle aimed at you, while you decide if you like or dislike the paintings. Dislike any of the paintings and the gunman will shoot you. That’s not free will, Billiardsball.

That’s gunman in the art gallery is like your inane boss scenario. If the boss can pressure a person to decide, with threat to a person’s safety or person’s life, then your boss analogy is more like a tyrant than that of free will being exercised.

Your scenario of free will with reward and threat/punishment is seriously perverted Machiavellian.

The Bible's description of free will:

A mentor gives you hundreds of opportunities to learn, fail and grow. He has provided a safe way for you to complete your training. COMPLETE IT.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think his entire quote addresses that:

"I was and still am, to some extent, a dialectical materialist and I also think there are some ironies in the universe as well as in history. But to say, “Of course we have free will, the boss says we’ve got it,” is to make a mockery of the whole concept and it’s also to invite the question what kind of tyranny is this that you want? You want an all-supervising, all-deciding person. I asked you first, what sources of information so you have about this person’s existence that I don’t have, that are denied to me? I’d like to know. And second, why do you want it? Why do you want to arrive at a terminus of unfreedom where there is a celestial authority upon whom all things depend and from which all things flow? Why do you want that and how on earth do you know that there’s any case to be made for its existence?"
Hitchens Debates Transcripts: Hitchens vs. Wolpe, New Center for Arts and Culture

I don't have an all-supervising, all-deciding person. I have free will to operate under the Creator of natural law.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't have an all-supervising, all-deciding person. I have free will to operate under the Creator of natural law.

So you say. Tell me, what happens to you if you don't do what the Creator wants of you, after you die?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand. You are saying that "Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain..." is equivalent to: "VIRTUALLY ALL scholars accept this based on CRAP EVIDENCE."

Right, even by historical standards the evidence for Jesus is rather crappy, to say the least. It is largely the bias for him that sways many. It is also why the Jesus mythicists are gaining, not losing credibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If free will is an illusion, jump off a cliff now.

Another logical fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have an all-supervising, all-deciding person. I have free will to operate under the Creator of natural law.

You believe that you have free will, even though your myth tells you that you do not. How ironic.

 

[gnostic]

The scholars cited at Wikipedia aren't discussing evolution, but the historicity of Jesus. The scholars include VIRTUALLY ALL scholars on this important subject.

If you want to discuss evolution:

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

· Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

· Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?

What in the bloody hell are you talking about???!!!

I am talking about what constitutes “history”, and how you would verify text as fiction and not fiction. I was talking about independent texts and archaeological evidences, are two ways of determining historicity or myth.

I wasn’t talking about evolution or biology at all. Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was talking about evolution?

 

[Bear Wild]

The scholars cited at Wikipedia aren't discussing evolution, but the historicity of Jesus. The scholars include VIRTUALLY ALL scholars on this important subject.

If you want to discuss evolution:

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

· Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

· Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?

You simply have no understanding of natural selection. Coelacanths and horseshoe crabs have remained the same for so long because natural selection has selected for conserved form in their environmental niche. The greater the consistency in an environment the less selective pressure to change as predicted by the evolutionary theory. The greater the change or diversity in the environment the greater the change as predicted by evolutionary theory.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you say. Tell me, what happens to you if you don't do what the Creator wants of you, after you die?

That's a final, binding decision, not what you wrote: "...all-supervising, all-deciding person." Plus YOU get to make GOD's decision for Him! (Trust or don't trust Jesus.)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Right, even by historical standards the evidence for Jesus is rather crappy, to say the least. It is largely the bias for him that sways many. It is also why the Jesus mythicists are gaining, not losing credibility.

I wrote: "I understand. You are saying that "Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain..." is equivalent to: "VIRTUALLY ALL scholars accept this based on CRAP EVIDENCE."

Let me emphasize, I wrote, "...YOU ARE SAYING..."

You disdain all scholars in multiple disciplines who, "applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain", why?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Another logical fail.

You did not jump off a cliff, since you replied. Why did you CHOOSE not to do so?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You believe that you have free will, even though your myth tells you that you do not. How ironic.

A fraction of Christians believe free will doesn't exist. A fraction of humans believe the same.

Most atheists insist it doesn't exist, since they feel this absolves them of moral accountability before God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wrote: "I understand. You are saying that "Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain..." is equivalent to: "VIRTUALLY ALL scholars accept this based on CRAP EVIDENCE."

Let me emphasize, I wrote, "...YOU ARE SAYING..."

You disdain all scholars in multiple disciplines who, "applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain", why?

The problem is that if use that phrase there is no "standard criteria of historical evidence" for Jesus that is not crap evidence. Your endlessly repeating a phrase that you did not understand will not help you. You seem to know that my claim is true since you cannot post any reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did not jump off a cliff, since you replied. Why did you CHOOSE not to do so?

Because I understand free will and you do not. Your own book of myths tells you that you do not have free will. Why do you believe in it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A fraction of Christians believe free will doesn't exist. A fraction of humans believe the same.

Most atheists insist it doesn't exist, since they feel this absolves them of moral accountability before God.

Wrong again, anything that you claim about atheists is wrong and worse yet it only is projection. Christians such as you try to absolve themselves of moral accountability before God. Your religion is based upon that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What in the bloody hell are you talking about???!!!

I am talking about what constitutes “history”, and how you would verify text as fiction and not fiction. I was talking about independent texts and archaeological evidences, are two ways of determining historicity or myth.

I wasn’t talking about evolution or biology at all. Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was talking about evolution?

No problem. We can use "independent texts and archaeological evidence" as you wrote, to verify the Bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You simply have no understanding of natural selection. Coelacanths and horseshoe crabs have remained the same for so long because natural selection has selected for conserved form in their environmental niche. The greater the consistency in an environment the less selective pressure to change as predicted by the evolutionary theory. The greater the change or diversity in the environment the greater the change as predicted by evolutionary theory.

There are multiple millions of species on Earth now. Which one or two of them is showing this change currently, based on any pressure or set of pressures?

But don't tell me, "Too slow to see", because that sounds like a just-so story, or magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No problem. We can use "independent texts and archaeological evidence" as you wrote, to verify the Bible.

It fails when that standard is used. Some cities are shown to have possibly existed, but many very important claims, such as the Genesis myths and Exodus are refuted by those standards.