• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Part 2, an attack on creationism

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
In the spirit of getting this debate back on topic...

Orthodox said:
Creationists like to imply that the "odds" are so steep against abiogenesis that the only reasonable explanation for life's beginnings is an intelligent designer.

This is quite true, and quite disturbing. What abiogenesis means, is that organic materials can form from inorganic materials, aka, amino acids (the building blocks of protein) can spring from rocks. Sounds pretty improbable, right? Wrong! Scientists have been playing around with abiogenesis in their labs since the 50's. The Miller-Urey experiment, for instance was the first to accomplish their goal. They created an environment to simulate what the environment of our newborn earth would be like (Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Heat, and Lighting, namely). They just let the closed environment run, and came back to find that these simple ingredients had produced amino acids, and other organic compounds as well.

Throw a couple billion years onto that, and it doesn't seem so improbable after all!

The Miller/Urey Experiment
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Throw a couple billion years onto that, and it doesn't seem so improbable after all!
Such faith! I think that the creation of those simple amino acids is great! But this still does not bridge the incredible gap from from these building blocks to LIFE! Perhaps we should wait a few billion years to find a house spontaneously built by the large forest growing around it? Then there is the even larger jump from life to sentience! Just throwing time at a problem will not resolve it.

BTW, not all creationists believe in "seven days" or a "young earth". There are many of us who fully believe in evolution as a tool of God.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
Scuba Pete said:
Such faith!

Please. We've been through this before, Pete. My "faith" is based on evidence. You can call if faith if you'd like--I call it inductive reasoning.

Now I suppose you're going to ask me "where my evidence is." A simple google search on your part could do the trick, but unfortunately the best information cannot be found on the internet. I suggest you take a trip to your local library.

But this still does not bridge the incredible gap from from these building blocks to LIFE!

I could make you look this up as well.

Let's start with amino acids then, because we've already established how those come about. These amino acids and other organic molecules (fatty acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.) have a natural tendecy to attract each other (caused by polarization and charge, not god) forming polypeptides, polynucleotides, and other macromolecules. Catalysis caused by inorganic materials, causes further complication by forming lipid vesicles (the first thing resembling a cell) and RNA (the forebear of DNA) some of which is contained within these vesicles. The components of RNA are self-replicating. Although primitive at first, as lipid vesicles and naked RNA became more numerous, they were forced to further complication once the population was large enough to create competition. By "competition", I mean competition for resources that lipid vesicles and RNA consume in order to do work, particularly CO(2). Keep in mind that our ozone is at this point nonexistent, and instead resembles what we're hurtling towards with global warming.

Eventually the lipid vesicles picked up proteins to become lipoprotein vesicles. (Keep in mind that all of these steps I am listing have been reproduced and observed within the lab. I'm not going to go into too much detail here--if you want to know exactly how everything works, go look it up yourself...or get a degree in microbiology. The latter might be more time-efficient and reliable). Protein increases the catalysic properties of RNA, thus increasing its ability to self-replicate. Proteins went from being simple catalysts to carrying out tasks as a structure (organelles, anyone?). DNA evolved from RNA, (DNA is much more efficent and accurate when it comes to replication that RNA is, and its also more stable) and voila, we pretty much have our first prokaryotic cell. So now we're about hundreds of millions of years in here.

Next, cyanobacteria dominate the landscape. They are prokaryotic cells that basically use photosynthesis to obtain energy. Add a billion years of these little guys sucking in CO(2) and exhaling O(2), and before you know it, we have our ozone. From cyanobacteria come things like other bacteria, and algae. Also we have protists in the water, which will pave the way for animals. From algae come primitive plants that eventually start to move onto land as the ozone forms to protect them from the hot hot sun, and the rest is history. Now we have lifeforms.

Again, keep in mind that for every step I listed here, there are thousands of little itty bitty steps in between, not to mention a lot of other stuff going on at the same time as the cyanobacteria are huffing and puffing that come into play later, such as archea. Its interesting to note that although the formation of the ozone allowed life to spread to land and diversify, all of that oxygen was actually poisonous to early lifeforms (because they had evolved in a CO(2) rich environment) and even today, our human bodies still carry and use a lot of "machinery" evolved by early animals to protect them against all that oxygen. Oxygen can be poisonous to humans too, but thanks to evolution, we are able to cope with it.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
You really should begin that post with a warning.
Something like:
WARNING!!
POSSIBLE INFORMATION OVERLOAD!
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
Creationists like to imply that the "odds" are so steep against abiogenesis that the only reasonable explanation for life's beginnings is an intelligent designer.This is just an example of the fallacy of big numbers.Calculation of the "odds" is a futile venture because we don't actually know a whole lot about how many different ways life could have formed. Without such knowledge there is no way we can postulate a "designer" or "creator".

To draw an analogy: say there is this huge bag that has a tiny opening at the top through which you can put your hand and take something out, but, at the same time, you cannot see into the bag. Also pretend that you know that this bag is full of 100 trillion tennis balls but you know nothing else about them. Now imagine that you see someone put their hand in the bag and pull out a black tennis ball and then run around screaming "Amazing! Amazing! I got the only black tennis ball out of 100 trillion! This can't have happened by accident!". What are the fallacies in what he just said? I'll tell you:

1) he forgets that he has no idea how many black tennis balls there are in the bag - so he really can't call the odds at being 1/100 trillion. For example, every 10th ball could be black or every third which would mean that the chance of getting a black ball would be 1/10 or 1/3, neither of these odds is very unlikely at all.
2) Even if there was only one black ball in the bag it still would not be amazing seeing as one ball had to be picked out anyway. Like Aristotle said, "the sum of all unlikelihoods is itself a likelihood".

Now, creationists must realise that abiogenesis is actually quite a reasonable hypothesis because:
1) The elements necessary for the formation of life were present in large quantities on the primitive earth (the whole argument that they would have oxidised just shows a lack of understanding about what we know about early life and the primitive earth atmosphere.
2) The earth is one of trillions upon trillions of planets throughout the universe. It is not so amazing to think that at least one should have given rise to life.

This just leaves creationists with a a superstitious foundation for their "creator/designer" postulate. They just can't seem to come to grips with the fact that a long chain of unplanned and impersonal events can result in them. Let's not forget what Wittgenstein said, "superstition is imagining there to be a causal nexus where there is none".


It is a good thing that we are equipped with common sense and intuition. To take Palley's watch as an analogy, there is no way to calculate the odds that the watch could form itself on its own (as you have stated), but we have enough sense to know it was designed.
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
Because the only way you can explain the existence of an intelligent agent separate from the universe is to engage in special pleading and exclude it from all conditions and limitations placed on the universe itself.

I don't follow how that is logically inconsistent. If the agent is separate from the Universe, why shouldn't it be excluded from "all conditions and limitations placed on the Universe itself"?
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
Do you take this same position with respect to all Gods, or only yours? Are you agnostic with respect to Thor, Odin, Vishnu and Allah, or do you believe They don't exist?

I do not believe they exist because they are inconsistent with the belief system I have. Once again, I choose the belief system that rings true to me and convicts me. Thor, Odin, Vishnu and Allah don't do that for me.

Your arguments that, there is no evidence, therefore they should all be equal is getting old. Faith is committing yourself to something that has no verifiable evidence. If we didn't have some internal sense of what is true, then I just might believe in your IPU.
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
No it's not, and you might want to read up on your fallacies. It's the common-sense and correct idea that the burden of proof for someone asserting the existence of an entity lies with that person. Your 5-year older would be a firm believing in the FSM, had he been taken to Sunday school every week to have been indoctrinated into worshipping Him. But what of Amun, Yemaja, Ganesh and Zeus, do you believe in them, or do you have evidence to show that they do NOT exist?

Here is a description of the fallacy. Explain where I went wrong?
The Appeal to Ignorance

Burden of proof is useful in the court of law or the practice of science as a matter of efficiency. A verdict must be reached, therefore, we have to have some method or standard for reaching that verdict. When it comes to philosophy, however, we are free to believe whatever we intuit is true with out the burden of proof. To suggest otherwise takes you back to the appeal to ignorance fallacy.
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
Where does the Bible explain that the world "murder" means "kill babies?"

I'm sorry, I am having trouble taking this challenge seriously.

What if God commands you to kill a baby, then doesn't your ethics allow, even mandate you to do so? Revelation to a Christian? According to the Bible, God stops giving revelations right around the time Christianity comes into existence. So, while the Bible doesn't have God commanding Christians to do this, nor does it have him commanding them to do anything else. It's not about my opinion of the Bible, it's about the actual Bible, the one in which God commands his followers to kill thousands of babies. So my question, which you are crudely evading is, if God commands you to kill my children, is it moral for you to do so? Do you do it?

Explain to me how this is communicated to me. God's commands are written for me in the Bible. That is my authority. Your argument makes no sense.

And here I thought you followed the Bible. You think the reason that I think that many Christians think homosexuality is an abomination is my strange view?
Homosexuality is a Sin and God Hates Sin! Homosexuality is an Abomination, Homosexuality = SIN!
CAMPAIGN AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY: AN EVIL ABOMINATION IN GOD'S EYES
National Association of Evangelicals.
Gay Marriage...The Final Abomination
Well, I could fill the page with links. Right, the problem isn't that Christians think tht homosexuality is an abomination, the problem is that I think they do. Even though, btw, lesbianism is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible. But it's not that they're prejudiced, no, it's just my perception that's the problem.

Once again, you have shown an ignorance of Christianity. As I have explained before, I have no authority to judge you. I cannot expect you to follow Christian morality if you are not Christian. God considers all sin an abomination, and we are all sinners. I consider you no more abominable than my friends at work that surf porn.
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
It is a good thing that we are equipped with common sense and intuition. To take Palley's watch as an analogy, there is no way to calculate the odds that the watch could form itself on its own (as you have stated), but we have enough sense to know it was designed.

That would be a false analogy since Paley's watch is obviously not a living organism.

I don't follow how that is logically inconsistent. If the agent is separate from the Universe, why shouldn't it be excluded from "all conditions and limitations placed on the Universe itself"?

If God can be eternal then why not the universe? If God can be uncaused then why can't the universe? If a single cell organism is too complex to have just happened, then what are the odds against an intelligent being capable of creating a universe? As I said, special pleading.
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
Well I'm sorry you don't appreciate my sense of humor, but the point here is not my posting style, it's whether what I'm saying is correct or not. Apparently, since you cannot refute anything I say, you prefer to focus on my way of saying it. For example, if you believe the Bible, then you do believe that He who set the stars in the sky only ever talked to one group of people, failed to mention what is "murder" and what is permissible killing, but did in fact think to describe a very obscure wrestling rule indeed, one subject to capital punishment by the way. I mean, if your entire defense of your religion is that it makes sense, then you've got some 'splaining to do Lucy, because it sure doesn't make sense to me!

You falsely accused me once of misrepresenting the Bible, and have not had the decency, courage or intellectual integrity to either back up your assertion or retract it. Now do I have to take the time to provide you with examples of nonsense, pornography, random violence, inexplicable cruelty and bizarre commandments? Because believe me, I'll do it.

Except your "way of saying it" distorts and exaggerates what the Bible says. If you don't think that is deceptive or erroneous then I am sorry.

Do you ever respond to anyone's points at all? It is a basic feature of Christian theology that every baby is born evil, totally depraved as Calvin puts it, because of something their ancestor did, and must be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. I find this theology both sickening and nonsensical. Furthermore, you're not really responsible for your sins, are you? Just repent and confess faith in Jesus, and you're good to go. That's why Jeffrey Dahmer is sitting on the right hand of God right now. This is something else that you dodged earlier, probably because it makes no sense.

Wow... you really have no idea what Christianity is about.

Of course we are responsible for our sins. We are all judged.

And as kmkemp said, there is no way to know who is saved and who isn't.

Oh no, you're right. Under your theology, you do in fact worship and obey a genocidal, jealous, petty, vindictive tyrant, who frequently does things and commands us to do things that, without His authority, would be evil, the most evil acts we can imagine.

You argue against yourself. You said "without His authority, would be evil". He does have that authority, therefore it is not evil.

And that's just one more reason why your theology is non-sense. It's not only crazy; it's evil. That's why I spend time on the internet arguing against it; I'm tired of people slaughtering other people in the name of God.

Good grief. I believe your hatred of Christianity is really distorting your view.

First off, in all of my days going to church, I have never heard a pastor or church leader endorse or suggest violence (have you?).

Secondly, thanks to ideas of Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche, the twentieth century has been (by far) the most secular in Western civilization. It also happens to be (by far) the most violent.

I believe there are many atheists, like yourself, that have a good idea of right and wrong and genuinely try to be a good person. But without God, all things become permissible. If men in power do not hold an authority above themselves, they can rationalize just about any heinous act.

Well, you seem to be having trouble keeping up with this one. Maybe later.

Yeah, it is much easier to be on the offense rather than the defense.

And I'm happy you enjoy making things up and jumping to conclusions. Because I have opinions doesn't mean they are based on faith or intuition. If you want me to explain my reasoning behind this opinion, and I'm sure by now you would guess that I have one, it would require another thread for that.

Opinions? Now your belief system is just an opinion? You stated it with conviction that God does not exist. If it is not based on faith or intuition what is it based on?

He believes his for the same reasons, just fill in "Muslim" for "Christian."

Um, you really can't do that because they believe in the Koran and we don't.

His God, like yours, is a violent tyrant who rewards His followers for killing non-believers.

Say what? Where in the NT does it say that? Remember my convent is with Jesus and His teachings, not the covenant God had with the Jews. It's convenient for you to blur the distinction, but to me it makes all the difference in the world.

You have no basis whatsoever to tell him he's wrong. Doesn't that trouble you? In fact, you agree with him that if God commands it; it's right. Right? Your only disagreement with him is the name of God. But I doubt that you've even studied his religion enough to know whether it makes more or less sense than yours--am I right?

No it doesn't trouble me. I am not him. What makes sense to me doesn't make sense to him and vica-versa.

O.K., from your point of view as a believer, I guess your God is even more evil than I have portrayed. From my point of view as a non-believer, there's a big difference. The one is natural and fairly unavoidable. The other is man-made and very avoidable. I oppose belief in Gods that contribute to genocide, because I think it's wrong.

Well, God is not a fuzzy teddy bear in the sky. He takes our transgressions and selfish behavior very seriously and is completely justified in ending any life He has given. That is why believers refer to themselves as "God-fearing".
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
That would be a false analogy since Paley's watch is obviously not a living organism.

It is not the "living" that represents the analogy, but rather the "complexity". You are right, the watch is not living. That is why we call it an "analogy".

If God can be eternal then why not the universe? If God can be uncaused then why can't the universe? If a single cell organism is too complex to have just happened, then what are the odds against an intelligent being capable of creating a universe? As I said, special pleading.

Because God is absolute and infinite, and the Universe is particular and finite.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Please. We've been through this before, Pete. My "faith" is based on evidence. You can call if faith if you'd like--I call it inductive reasoning.
Hey! My inductive reasoning is based on evidence too! Go figure! Faith by any other name is still faith!
Now I suppose you're going to ask me "where my evidence is."
Not at all. I believe in evolution, and also believe that scientists are close to understanding how life came to be. They just haven't figured out the "why" of life.
Again, keep in mind that for every step I listed here, there are thousands of little itty bitty steps in between,
And yet, we have NOT created life or even a simple cyanobacteria, now have we?
Oxygen can be poisonous to humans too, but thanks to evolution, we are able to cope with it.
Thanks to God, we have a relatively low PO2 in our atmosphere. Pure oxygen at 1.6 ata can cause convulsions at 0.12 ata it can cause us to black out. I didn't need Google as I have to dive with these figures in my head at all times. Pure oxygen becomes deadly below 20 FSW (feet salt water) and long exposures to higher than atmospheric levels can cause pneumonia.

The issue is not the science, or the "theories" presented by the science. It has to do with the leap of faith as we jump from actual measurements to conclusions based on those measurements.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
autodidect said:
It is a basic feature of Christian theology that every baby is born evil,
Calvin may believe this, but the scriptures do not teach it. Your understanding of "basic Christian theology" is basically FLAWED. But why stop when you obviously get so much delight out of defeating these red herrings?

Luke 18:15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
NIV
 

rocketman

Out there...
Hey! My inductive reasoning is based on evidence too! Go figure! Faith by any other name is still faith!
I note that there is a refreshing trend among some scientists to take a more realistic view of things these days. A recent opinion piece by widely-read atheist scientist Paul Davies in the NY Times caught my eye. I think you and he have some common ground Pete:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
It is a good thing that we are equipped with common sense and intuition. To take Palley's watch as an analogy, there is no way to calculate the odds that the watch could form itself on its own (as you have stated), but we have enough sense to know it was designed.
Because it contrasts so obviously with the not-designed environment in which it is found.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I do not believe they exist because they are inconsistent with the belief system I have. Once again, I choose the belief system that rings true to me and convicts me. Thor, Odin, Vishnu and Allah don't do that for me.

Your arguments that, there is no evidence, therefore they should all be equal is getting old. Faith is committing yourself to something that has no verifiable evidence. If we didn't have some internal sense of what is true, then I just might believe in your IPU.

Well, you've never refuted it. They have exactly the same arguments as you--your religion is inconsistent with their belief system--and exactly the same chance of being right, and you have no way whatsoever to find out. You have no argument against them. They in fact are all equal. I realize you find this irritating, but it's nevertheless true. Or are you the only one born with an internal sense of what's true? There's is just as good as yours, right? Yet they believe things that are inconsistent with you. What's wrong with this picture?

Yes, I know. Faith is believing utter crap because you were raised to. I know that. That doesn't make it right.

Obviously, there's something wrong with most people's internal sense of what's true, right? Because most people disagree with you. But your's works? Only yours? How do you tell whose works?

The only reason you don't believe in the IPU is that you were not raised in an IPU believing culture.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Here is a description of the fallacy. Explain where I went wrong?
The Appeal to Ignorance

Burden of proof is useful in the court of law or the practice of science as a matter of efficiency. A verdict must be reached, therefore, we have to have some method or standard for reaching that verdict. When it comes to philosophy, however, we are free to believe whatever we intuit is true with out the burden of proof. To suggest otherwise takes you back to the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And thus we see once again that all Christian apologetics reverts to post-modernist, nihilistic contructivism. Legally, you are free to believe whatever you like. But just blindly accepting whatever you were brainwashed to believe as a child is not a good way to figure out actual truth. You're free to do it, but it doesn't work. If you want to get at the truth, you need evidence and logic--and a burden of proof. Unless you don't think that a verdict needs to be reached regarding the existence of God?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I'm sorry, I am having trouble taking this challenge seriously.
Evasion.

Explain to me how this is communicated to me. God's commands are written for me in the Bible. That is my authority. Your argument makes no sense.
And in the Bible, God commands infanticide. Q.E.D. And permits slavery. But prohibits eating oysters. Sure you get your commands from the Bible?

Once again, you have shown an ignorance of Christianity. As I have explained before, I have no authority to judge you. I cannot expect you to follow Christian morality if you are not Christian. God considers all sin an abomination, and we are all sinners. I consider you no more abominable than my friends at work that surf porn.
Nice, the links are all from Christian sites. How can citing Christians on the subject of Christianity demonstrate an ignorance of Christianity?

Nick: LESBIANISM IS NOT PROHIBITED. There is no commandment against it. It's not a sin. It's permitted. It's not an abomination. YOU commit more sins every day than I do, and I'm not a Christian. So please take your insufferable condescension and stuff it. Talk to your divorced friends--they're the unrepentant sinners, not me--and they claim to be Christians.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Your arguments that, there is no evidence, therefore they should all be equal is getting old. Faith is committing yourself to something that has no verifiable evidence. If we didn't have some internal sense of what is true, then I just might believe in your IPU.
Which, IMO, is the problem that the IPU was created to call attention to.

Wow... you really have no idea what Christianity is about.
Most Christians I've discussed morality with have put forward the idea that a single objective morality exists. Do you agree?

Personally, I would say that one moral standard for humanity and another for God does not constitute an objective morality.

It is not the "living" that represents the analogy, but rather the "complexity". You are right, the watch is not living. That is why we call it an "analogy".

The twists and turns of a river and the valley through which it flows can be amazingly complex. The odds of any particular river alignment and valley topology are so low that they're effectively zero. Does this mean that we can conclude that all river valleys were created directly by the hand of God and not by the action of erosion and natural forces?

Everything is complex, depending on your point of view. It's only because of our own sense of self-importance that we think that complexity that relates to us is somehow special.

Because God is absolute and infinite, and the Universe is particular and finite.
If the odds of a finite thing happening by itself are so low that they might as well be zero, why wouldn't the odds of an infinite thing happening by itself be infinitely times closer to zero than the first thing, which is so unlikely that you've completely discounted the possibility of it happening without divine influence?

If the universe is so big and complex that it needs a God greater than it to be the creator, what about God? Is there an even greater God above Him?
 
Top