Good "god" arguments!

[petrek]

"Most parents have been frustrated (or amused) by a small child?s persistent question, "Why?" repeated almost endlessly. Every attempted answer brings yet another inevitable, "But why?" Even young children recognize that there must be a reason for everything. The relentless "Why?" reflects the instinctive search for an ultimate answer beyond which there are no more questions. For some, this natural curiosity begins a search for God, the One who promised, "Ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart" (Jer 29:13). Too often, however, the search is never with the whole heart; and what may have begun as honest seeking soon sours for one invalid reason (excuse) or another.

As children grow older and disap-point-ment turns into cynicism, many lose interest in vital questions and their lives center around worldly trivia. The God-implanted spiritual thirst of the soul for the One who "is love" (1 Jn 4:8) and who made man for Himself, and for the spiritual "water of life" that only Christ can give (Jn 4:14; 7:37-39; Rv 22:17), is misunderstood as a thirst of the body for something physical. What should be an echo of "my soul thirsteth for God, for the living God" (Ps 42:2; 84:2) becomes "I thirst for money, sex, pleasure, success, expensive clothes, and gourmet food"?and the emptiness worsens.

In high school and university, trusting students "learn" that there is no truth, there are no absolutes, no ultimate answers, everything is relative?so what is the point of anything? The gate to eternal life is too narrow for their taste ("O taste and see that the Lord is good" [Ps 34:8] seems mystical, foolish), so they join the multitudes on the broad road "that leadeth to destruction" (Mt 7:13-14). Life becomes a vain pursuit of fleshly enjoyment for the moment?and many churches, tragically, pander to this deadly obsession with pleasure and fun. They offer shallow, unchallenging teaching to attract the young "to Christ."

There are few (even among Chris-tians) who give much thought or serious preparation to eternity?yes, eternity. Whatever work of the Holy Spirit (convincing and convicting "of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment" - Jn 16:8) has taken root in the heart is stifled by the "care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches" (Mt 13:22). And the older one gets (with little exception), the slipperier the slope that slides into death.

There are, however, many unsaved people who cannot escape the sober realization that this brief life ends all too soon?and who fear what lies beyond. They crave sound answers to serious questions that haunt them in moments of reflection. It?s not more trivia that fills daily life that they seek, but the ultimate answers to life?s most important questions. It is to these persons that Peter tells us we must be ready always to give a "reason" for the hope we have in Christ (1 Pt 3:15). The Lord has led me to many such persons, often the one sitting next to me on an airplane, or a taxi driver, or...who knows?

Most people who have thought seriously about life and death know that God exists. For those in doubt, we can prove God?s existence quickly (see TBC, Aug ?02). Most people have no real hope of heaven, so would prefer to believe that death is the end. That delusion is easily dispelled. We can prove that we are non-physical beings who continue into eternity even after the physical body we lived in is laid in the grave (see TBC, Aug ?02). This fact leads to serious consequences that must be faced in this life. To wait until after death is obviously too late, for "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment..." (Heb 9:27).

For those who recognize that the grave doesn?t end one?s existence, Satan has other lies such as spirit survival and reincarnation?again easily refuted (see TBC, Sep ?98). It is the thought of judgment and eternal punishment that most non-Christians (and even many who claim to be Christians) find most difficult to accept. And closely related is the troubling question of why a good God would allow sin and suffering.

Right here we are forced to disagree with Calvinism?s claim that everything that happens?every tragedy and wicked-ness?is exactly what God willed from eternity past. That belief would seem to justify the atheist?s complaint: "If your ?God? can?t prevent all suffering and evil, he is too weak to be God; and if he can and doesn?t, he is a monster unworthy of our trust."

Of course, the simple answer is that God is not the cause of evil. Man is. Yes, but God allows evil. Is that any better than causing it? Obviously, there is a huge difference. Only one explanation of the horrible state of this world rings true to conscience and is declared in the Bible (and here again we find ourselves in conflict with our Calvinist friends). God gave man a free will so that we could willingly and with understanding love Him and each other and not be brutes ruled by instinct; or worse, mere puppets with God pulling the strings.

Thus, the only way to eliminate evil from this world would be to annihilate the human race because, as Jesus said, "Out of the heart [of man] proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries..." (Mt 15:19). The damning truth that "the heart [my heart, your heart] is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9) is not easy to face. We love to blame everyone else?a trait psychology encourages by teaching that it is never my fault but the fault of parents, society, circumstances, "tough breaks," etc. The first step toward a cure is to take the blame ourselves and willingly face the consequences.

So man is a sinner, and sin must be punished. What the Bible declares makes sense and every conscience knows it: whatever the penalty prescribed by the law, it must be paid. If God did not punish sin, He would be condoning it. A major problem in our society today is that lack of punishment results in revolving doors on prisons, marriage vows that have become meaningless and are broken with scarcely a twinge of guilt or remorse, no dread of consequences, and little sympathy for others because consciences have been "seared with a hot iron" (1 Tm 4:2). This is the world man has made. It is not the world God created.

Man was created in the image of God to reflect the very character of God in every thought, word, and deed. But he was to do so knowingly and willingly, not as a robot or wind-up toy. He had to have a free will so that he could voluntarily and in love fulfill God?s purpose for his existence.

Adam and Eve willfully chose to disobey God, thereby destroying themselves as God had made them. Sin is coming "short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). No amount of good deeds in the future could pay for sinning in the past. By very definition of who He is, God could not tolerate rebellion in His universe. He immediately cast Adam and Eve out of the idyllic paradise He had created for them?but not without graciously and lovingly offering them an alternative. They and their descendants could be reconciled to Him, on His terms, of course?or they could suffer eternal separation, not just from the Garden but from His holy presence. The choice was theirs and their descendants? to make.

Having been created for fellowship with God who had given them life and who alone could sustain it, separation from Him was, of course, the sentence of death. God had made that clear from the beginning. He had given Adam and Eve the easiest command possible?out of the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of trees in the garden, they were to abstain from eating the fruit of just one. That?s all, only one! And God clearly warned, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gn 2:17). Death was not in the fruit but in the disobedience.

One can?t even play a game without rules. Surely it is only reasonable that God should have rules in His universe. Without physical laws, the universe (if it could even exist) would be unimaginable chaos. That man is a moral being requires moral rules, and to allow them to be broken without punishment would bring moral chaos. We see this on a small scale in families where well-meaning but foolishly indulgent parents, by not punishing their children consistently each time they break the rules, train them to be rebels. The child quickly learns that it can have its own way and soon ruins life for everyone.

Life itself teaches us how foolish it is to ask why there should be punishment for sin. Every person understands why this must be, whether they admit it or not. And right here we encounter a serious roadblock to faith for many people. Unquestionably, the Bible teaches that the punishment for sin is eternal. Jesus clearly warned of hell and referred to "hell...fire that never shall be quenched" (Mk 9:45).

"Why?" comes the inevitable complaint. "Why should the punishment for sin be eternal? That seems too harsh! Why can?t God punish us for varying lengths of time depending upon each one?s sins, and then forgive us? Why would God sentence anyone, even a Hitler, to eternal punishment? Why must the lake of fire be eternal?" The answer is found in who God is and in the fact that "God created man in his own image" (Gn 1:27). Let us consider carefully what that means.

The penalty for sin is death. Obviously, death separates from life?but life comes from God, so death separates from Him, the Life-Giver. Thus, there is no cure for death except for the sinner to become pure and holy in God?s sight in order to be reconciled to Him. Contrary to the Roman Catholic belief in the purging of sin in the flames of some imaginary "purgatory," no punishment of the sinner could ever cleanse him of his sin.

God is perfect in holiness and cannot fellowship with sinners. It?s not a question of policy?whether or not a soft attitude would encourage sin. It?s a matter of who God is, the very nature of His being. He cannot compromise with evil, cannot go back on His word. Cannot? Yes, cannot: "He cannot deny himself" (2 Tm 2:13). And that is why the penalty for sin is eternal death?not extermination, but separation from God forever!

Willful defiance of God cannot be tolerated. This is not harshness on God?s part; it is the inevitable consequence of sin. A breach of God?s moral laws can no more be allowed than a breach of the physical laws. The outcome is demanded by the very nature of the act itself and by the God who has been defied. The law of gravity cannot suddenly be reversed (just in this case, please!) for a person falling from the top floor of a 50-story building, whether he fell accidentally, jumped, or was shoved.

God has pronounced the penalty for sin. If He went back on His Word, how could we believe anything else He said? By the very definition of who God is and by the nature of sin, the penalty for sin must stand. But man cannot possibly pay it; only Christ could, and He did. The proof that He paid the penalty in full is that He conquered death and rose from the grave. The only remedy for death is resurrection. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn 11:25-26).

No one has yet experienced death in its awful fullness and finality?its utter separation from God, the "lake of fire...the second death" (Rv 20:14)?no one, that is, but Christ, who "taste[d] death for every man" (Heb 2:9). No wonder, as He took our place under God?s just judgment, He cried out in agony from the Cross, "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46).

The rich man in hell is a pitiful example of spiritual blindness unto death. He had spent a lifetime attempting to satisfy his innate spiritual thirst for God with riches and success. And now in hell, he cannot escape that tragic delusion. His physical tongue is in the grave with his dead body, but he imagines it is parched with physical thirst?and he asks Abraham to send Lazarus with just "the tip of his finger" bearing a drop of physical water to cool his "tongue" (Lk 16:24). He disdained the "water of life" when God offered it, and now in hell, he doesn?t even recognize the nature or cause of his thirst. All of his life he sought to physically quench a spiritual thirst, and now that thirst will burn forever for the water of life that he despised when it was available to "whosoever will" (Rv 22:17).

Jesus said, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink" (Jn 7:37); and of the rabbis He said, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (Jn 5:40). A physical drink of water tastes so good for the same reason that thirst hurts so bad: water is essential to our physical bodies. So it is with the water of life. It is absolutely essential for the life of the soul and the spirit. Thus, the lake of fire will be the torment of a burning spiritual thirst beyond description for the same reason that heaven will be a satisfaction beyond our present imagination.

The burning thirst that can?t be quenched in the lake of fire will never end for the same reason that the unspeakable ecstasy in heaven will not cease for all eternity: "In thy presence is fullness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (Ps 16:11). God made us for Himself, for His love, His joy, His companionship. To be separated from Him in death is to agonize in endless torment for what the redeemed in heaven experience.

May we fully awaken in this life to the truth of our eternal inheritance so that we may love and praise our Lord as we ought, without waiting until heaven to do so. And may we be used of God to awaken many unsaved to come to Christ and drink of the water of life while they still have the opportunity. TBC" http://www.thebereancall.org/N...Newsletters/19603.aspx

 

[0roo0roo]

fun fun, a post game. ever stop to think why creation/christian science arguements are not accepted as valid science petrek? it can only convince those who know little about the subject pseudo science rhetoric to make the believers feel better

your arguements boil down to, its complicated, i don't know how that works yet, so it must be god thats not logic, thats a leap of logic that is not justified. ignorance sanctified.


everything must have a maker arguement? oh please, thats so old. based on that logic something musta made god

Entropy Explained (2003)
Richard Carrier


Addendum A to "Bad Science, Worse Philosophy: the Quackery and Logic-Chopping of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists" (2000)



Introduction

The concept of entropy is generally not at all understood. I have only come to grasp it after lengthy investigations and debates. I would like to especially thank Wolfgang Gasser, Malcolm Schreiber, and others for getting me to check these facts in more detail and to get it right. As a result, this essay has been updated several times since 1998, its original publication date. Of course, I am not a scientist by profession so my difficulty is to be expected, though I am a historian of science, I do have science experience in the field of sonar, and I have spent considerable time studying the concept of entropy for this essay, discussing it with several physicists.

A discussion of the two meanings of the term "entropy" that I give below, and how these have come to be confused among laymen as a result of poor clarity in the popular writings of scientists, is given in Brig Klyce's The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Though he conflates several different conceptions (and misconceptions) of entropy under the rubric "logical entropy," these all differ from thermal entropy in roughly the same respect and so I will collectively refer to them, as Klyce does, by the one term. Another excellent website, written for beginners, covers all this in a smart, educational format: Dr. Frank Lambert's www.entropysimple.com.

Thermal vs. "Logical" Entropy

First of all, there is no Law of Entropy which states that order must always decrease. That is a layman's fiction, although born from a small kernel of reality. There are two different conceptions of entropy, and the Law of Entropy only holds true for one of them. This "law" is better known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the First Law is that energy is not created or destroyed, and the Third Law is that absolute zero cannot be achieved--each of these laws is actually entailed from the first, in conjunction with certain other assumptions). The two conceptions of entropy sometimes have certain similarities, but they are not identical. It is not possible to discuss entropy meaningfully without grasping this.

The first, and original, sense is from the science of thermodynamics. Thermal entropy is a measure of the amount of thermal energy in a closed system that is not available to do work. Entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables and physical laws. Any closed system, though, can be described as having a total amount of energy, which does not increase or decrease (that is what "closed" means here), and as having a proportion of that energy which is not able to effect any changes in that system (that is what "work" means here, taking the broadest sense of the term). The latter characteristic is the entropy of the system. It is only this concept of entropy that is involved in the Second Law. Notice that "order" is nowhere mentioned here.

The second sense was an offshoot of the first (mainly in fields outside of physics, and in misconceptions of how mechanics describes thermodynamics) and its history is traced by Klyce in the above link. It is not a thermal concept, but a logical one, and is not what competent scientists talk about. This, which we shall call here "logical entropy," is something like the logarithm of the number of possible ways a certain collection of bits can be arranged and still "look" the same. This does measure at least one idea of "order" but only in a very subjective way. There is no known "law of entropy" which employs this sense of the term, even though this is what most people think the Law of Entropy is about.

Logical Entropy Examined

Now, it may be true that when this logical entropy is measured in a system of randomly moving bits, something like an "entropy law" will be observed: the total logical entropy of the whole system will tend not to spontaneously decrease, and whenever the system does any work (like mixing two gases) its entropy will increase, until the system reaches an equilibrium state (when the entropy remains roughly constant). That is, as time passes the observed states of a working system will, on average, possess a higher logical entropy. This is a statistical fact of random motion.

But it is not the case that such a system will never exhibit a decrease in logical entropy, only that the average logical entropy will tend to increase (when work is done). That is, even in an amorphous system, logical entropy will vary up and down at random over a mean value, and only the average entropy over time will increase. Likewise, logical entropy will vary up and down at random all over the system, and only the average cubic entropy will increase over time. But none of this changes the outcome for Thermodynamics: regardless of the behavior of a system in terms of this thing we are calling logical entropy, thermal entropy will always increase, since thermal entropy is not a measure of the pattern of arrangement of particles, but of the distribution of energy among them. The latter is affected by the former, but they are not strictly identical.

Most importantly, this statistical effect will only be observed in systems, or in parts of systems, with truly random motion (where, for example, chance alone determines the direction and momentum of particles in the system). But due to the fact that material structures and the laws of physics are not random, it is rarely the case that motion in any real system is truly or completely random. Imagine a closed box of dust and air sitting on earth: gravity will prevent the random motion of the dust, and ordering will be observed. In such a case, if you shake the box, then leave it alone, the logical entropy of the contents of the box will actually decrease over time (as gravity works on the contents). Indeed, gravity in this example will even affect, though much less significantly, the random motion of the air--that is why air stays on earth and doesn't just float away "at random."

Of course, gravity is an external source of energy in the case of this "box" and thus the example is not really a closed system. But the principle still holds: enlarge the box to enclose the whole earth and you will then have a closed system, where ordering, nevertheless, takes place just as the box example is meant to illustrate. Gravity is not the only feature of the universe which prevents truly random motion. All the forces have this effect, as do many other things--for example, the structure of atoms has an effect on crystalization, the nature of subatomic particles has an ordering effect on the sorts of molecules that can form, and so on. In fact, the whole of chemistry, the foundation of life, is an ideal example of such a nonrandom system of behavior. And thus, as any physicist will tell you, logical entropy is not described by the Second Law.

Entropy and Statistical Mechanics

The statistical methods that inspired the misnotion of logical entropy do lead to an explanation of thermal entropy, and connect thermodynamics with mechanics. But this does not mean they are the same thing. "Entropy" as measured by statistical mechanics is not what is meant by logical entropy. Entropy as defined by mechanics is exactly the same thing as thermal entropy, but described from a different perspective, one that is different from logical entropy. For when one looks at how they are measured, and what they measure, it is clear they describe different things.

For instance, mechanics takes into account a lot more than mere random particles in motion. Physical structure, among other things, affects the outcome of mechanical accounts of the dispersal of energy in a system. For example, a crystalizing substance and an amorphous gas will each behave differently in regard to the manner of kinetic collisions and particle-energy transfer. Although both will, as whole systems, show an increase in thermal entropy even by purely mechanical calculations, this change in thermal entropy is not the product of a change in logical entropy over the whole system, but only parts of it.

Basically, although an increase in thermal entropy entails an increase in the quantity of the energy in the universe that is irretrievably disordered, this is not the same thing as an overall tendency toward disorder for the whole structure of the system, since the rest of the energy in that system still has to be accounted for. Note that by "the quantity of energy in the universe that is irretrievably disordered" I mean the quantity, not the energy itself. For the very same energy can be reordered through an expenditure of other energy. But such an act still increases the quantity of disordered energy in the universe, and as far as we know it can never be otherwise.

The inevitable increase in thermal entropy could be described mechanically as an increase in logical entropy ("disorder"), but only of the wasted energy in the system, the energy that is lost and can never be recovered to do work. In a sense, since the waste heat in a system doing work always increases (that is what is entailed by "thermal entropy always increases"), it may seem to follow that logical entropy always increases, too. But even though the logical entropy of this waste heat increases, the logical entropy of the system as a whole (and even certain parts of it alone) may increase or decrease, since (a) the expenditure of energy in the system can still have ordering effects on other energy in that system, and (b) some aspects of the structure of a system might be of such a nature as to resist change longer than others (e.g. a metal rod doesn't become disordered as fast as a surrounding gas). Since thermal entropy describes the whole system, it is unaffected by such facts.

Will the Real Entropy Please Stand Up!

Logical entropy is nothing more than a number, a "count" of possible arrangements of bits (of matter, information, a deck of cards, whatever). Thermal entropy is also a logarithm, but not of the arrangement of bits, but of the distribution of energy among those bits. Being a measure of the dispersal of energy, thermal entropy is usually given as joules (of unavailable energy) per degree (of temperature in Kelvins), since the temperature of a thermal system is directly proportional to the total thermal energy of that system (Energy in Joules, per mole of substance = Temperature x 12.4614; the constant here is derived by multiplying Botzmann's Constant by Avogadro's Number by 3/2), and it is easier to measure and employ temperature than to attempt to convert it, too, into joules (doing so, in fact, would render the measuring of entropy useless to physicists--its relationship to temperature must be known in order to apply it).

However, a kind of entropy could just as easily be represented as a ratio of joules of unavailable energy to the total joules of energy, so one could theoretically include nonthermal energy (e.g. the energy contained in the rest mass of the atoms in the system) to derive a different entropy value for any given system. But this would not be thermodynamics (see Note 5 below). Since real change can only be brought about in a system through the movement, or "transfer," of thermal energy, there is no need to account for nonthermal energy until it is somehow converted into thermal energy. But even when nonthermal energy is reckoned, the consequences of the Second Law apparently do not go away.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, in effect, that the thermal entropy of a closed system will never decrease. In simpler terms, this only means that the amount of energy available to cause real changes in a system will never increase, and will always decrease whenever any of it is actually used to cause changes in that system (n.b. since motion is the natural state of all objects--see below--an object which continues to move on inertia alone, or a system which oscillates between two states ceaselessly, is not "changing").

The reason only some energy is "available" in a thermal system is that in order to be available for work it must be capable of moving, and energy can only move from an area of high temperature to low, because fast particles impart energy to slow ones, not the other way around (technically, the distinction is really between high and low energy particles, but the visual metaphor of "speed" is easier to grasp for purposes of illustration). It follows that (drawing on this illustration) if all particles are equally fast or slow, neither can impart any energy to the other, without any changes cancelling each other out. Without any variations, i.e., at perfect equilibrium (which can never be reached in a finite time, only approached), thermal energy cannot cause anything to change. The energy distribution is already the same everywhere, so all kinetic transfers of energy cancel each other out, and nothing gets done.

Perpetual Motion Machines

This leads to, or derives from, the simpler observation that "a perpetual motion machine of the second kind" is impossible. Such a "machine" is a device that never stops doing work (i.e., never stops causing changes in a system) even though no energy is ever added or removed. I have already encountered people who mistake what this means by assuming that a "perpetual motion machine" is anything which never stops moving. That is not correct. One of the most fundamental principles of physics is that motion is the natural state of any object: left to itself, everything is in perpetual motion, in the sense of "moving forever." But this is not a "machine," because it does not do any work. Rather than bringing about changes, it is defined by the fact that it never changes.

The term "machine" is thus meant to refer to the exact opposite of this: something that brings about changes--either in itself or something else (or both). For example, a car engine moves a car forward, against the friction of the air and the road, so it is properly called a machine. But a rock orbiting the sun is not a machine. It is simply obeying its nature: to never change its speed or direction. For when the distortion of space caused by the sun's gravity is considered, the "curved" path that the rock describes is a straight line. This distinction in terminology is perfectly understood by scientists. It only causes confusion in laymen (who are also easily confused by the Latin: see Note 4 below).

Entropy and Order

As might already be apparent, the Second Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with order as such. Thus, in Another Face of Entropy: Particles Self Organize to Make Room for Randomness," Science News 154:7 (August 15, 1998), pp. 108-9, we learn that when large and small molecules of microscopic but not quite atomic scale are mixed at random, order naturally results, in contravention of the popular (and mistaken) idea of the Law of Entropy. However, analysis shows that the phenomenon still obeys the Law, as it is actually understood by scientists, because the system increases the entropy of the small molecules while decreasing the entropy of the large ones, and the sum result is an increase in thermal entropy--yet we would call this a decrease in logical entropy. Something like this was even more broadly demonstrated by Ilya Prigogine, who described "dissipative systems" in the 1970's. In such systems, it was shown that organization can be produced by spending (losing) available energy, and it just so happens that organic molecules fall into this category of systems, explaining why these particular molecules became the foundation of life. Thus, an increase in thermal entropy does not entail a decrease in organization, since under certain conditions organization can still increase while the amount of unavailable energy also increases. [For more on Prigogine and the origin of life, see Are the Odds against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?]

In fact, it is actually the case that order can only be produced by an increase in thermal entropy. This is because ordering involves a change in the system, which can only be produced by expending energy. The expenditure of energy always increases unavailable energy in a closed system, by rendering some of the available energy unavailable. Since ordering requires an increase in entropy, it is most ironic to find creationists using entropy as an anti-ordering process (which it is not) in order to "prove" special creation, when if they had any rhetorical sense they would be using it as an ordering process to "prove" divine arrangement of the laws of physics.

However, I must head off such a switch-hitting strategy. There is no sign of intelligent design in the Second Law. It is actually the only logical way that any mindless, material universe would operate. Since it is the logically necessary result of any universe which contains bits of mass-energy that never change in quantity, all that is needed for this law to materialize is such a universe, leaving no room for any intelligent tinkering--except at the point of the creation of those bits of stuff or the space and time in which they move, but that is another story. When we examine the Second Law alone, we see that it would be the natural result of any undesigned but merely existing universe with an unchanging quantity of bits, and at the same time we see that this law prevails over and defines every change in the universe we happen to be in.http://www.infidels.org/librar...d_carrier/entropy.html

 

[0roo0roo]

and since you like quoting the bible as if it were all perfections...

here are bible contradictions
http://www.infidels.org/librar...dore_drange/bible.html

 

[0roo0roo]

Scientific Boo-Boos in the Bible


Bibliolaters claim that the Bible is inerrant in every detail, in matters of history, science, geography, chronology, etc., as well as faith and practice. It is a claim that has won wide acceptance among fundamentalist Christians, but, as is true of most zealotic tributes that have been paid to the Bible, it has no basis in fact. As past articles in TSR have clearly shown to anyone who really wants to know the truth, the Bible is riddled with mistakes. Many of those mistakes were scientific ones.

The creation account in Genesis divided time into days and the days into evening and morning for three days before the sun was even created (1:1-19). "There was evening and there was morning," we are told, "one day... a second day... a third day," but as any astronomer knows, evening (night) and morning (daylight) result from the earth's rotation with respect to the sun. With no sun, there would have certainly been evening or night, but there could have been no morning.

On the fourth day when God created the "two great lights" (the sun and the moon), he created the stars too. This creation of the rest of the universe was treated by the Genesis writer(s) as if it were little more than an afterthought: "he made the stars also" (v:16). To the prescientific mind that wrote this, it probably made sense. To him (her), the earth was undoubtedly the center of the universe, but today we know better. The solar system of which earth is only a tiny part is itself an infinitesimal speck in the universe. Surely, then, the creation of the stars would not have occurred so quickly and suddenly if six days were needed to create the world. Scientists now know that the creation of stars is an evolutionary process that is still ongoing. Matter coalesces; stars ignite, shine, and eventually burn out or explode. From the existence of heavy elements in our solar system, astronomers generally agree that it formed from debris left over from a supernova that occurred billions of years ago. The prescientific Genesis writer knew none of this, however, and that is why he viewed the creation of the universe as an Elohistic afterthought. No modern, scientifically-educated writer would have made that mistake.

The creation of the stars is the subject not only of scientific error in the Bible but also of textual contradiction. Clearly, the Genesis writer(s) said that God made the stars on the fourth day (1:16). By then, the earth had been created, light (somehow without the sun or stars) had been created, the gathering together of dry land had occurred, and vegetation had been created. One could surely say that by then the foundations of the world had been laid, yet Yahweh Elohim presumably told Job that the stars already existed when the foundations of the earth were laid:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding. Who determined the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who stretched the line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the cornerstone there-of, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (38:4-7).

Granted the "singing of the morning stars" is clearly a poetical expression, but that does not explain away the problem. How could it be said in any sense, poetical or otherwise, that "the morning stars sang together" at a time when stars didn't even exist? Obviously, then, the Genesis writer(s) and the author of Job had different perceptions of when stars were created.

The Genesis writer(s) didn't understand the nature of darkness either. He said that God created light (somehow before the sun and stars were made) and then "divided the light from the darkness" (1:3-4). Light, however, is not something that can be separated from darkness. Light is an electromagnetic radiation from an energy source like the sun or stars, and darkness is merely the absence of light. Without light, there will automatically be darkness. No god is needed to separate or divide light from darkness. We know that today; the prescientific Genesis writer(s) didn't.

The Genesis writer's genetic knowledge was no better than his understanding of astronomy. In chapter 30, he told of Jacob's scheme to increase his wealth while he was still in the employ of his father-in-law Laban. The two had reached an agreement whereby Jacob would be given all striped, spotted, and speckled lambs and kids subsequently born in Laban's flocks. Laban then removed all the striped, spotted, and speckled animals from his flocks and put them in his sons' care at a three-day distance from the flock Jacob attended. Not to be outsmarted, Jacob devised a plan:

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted (30:37-39, NRSV).

The editors of The New American Bible were reputable enough to affix a frankly honest footnote to this passage:

Jacob's stratagem was based on the widespread notion among simple people that visual stimuli can have prenatal effects on the offspring of breeding animals. Thus, the rods on which Jacob had whittled stripes or bands or chevron marks were thought to cause the female goats that looked at them to bear kids with lighter-colored marks on their dark hair, while the gray ewes were thought to bear lambs with dark marks on them simply by visual crossbreeding with the dark goats.

We know today that the color characteristics of animals is purely a matter of genetics, so a modern, scientifically-educated person would never write anything as obviously superstitious as this tale of Jacob's prosperity. The Genesis writer(s), however, knew nothing about the science of genetics, so to him the story undoubtedly made good sense.

One thing the Bible definitely is not is inerrant in matters of science.
http://www.infidels.org/librar...r/1991/1/1boobo91.html

 

[0roo0roo]

Bible Biology


Farrell Till
An earlier article ("What About Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible?" Fall 1990), debunked the fundamentalist claim that the truth of verbal inspiration can be verified by places in the Bible text where writers demonstrated knowledge of scientific facts that were unknown at the time the Bible was being written. The intent of the claim is to "prove" that Bible writers "foreknew" these scientific facts because God revealed them through the process of verbal inspiration, but, as my article showed, scientific foreknowledge in the Bible can be found only in the eisegetical interpretations of bibliolaters shamelessly bent on clinging to an untenable view of the Bible. In reality, there is no more "scientific foreknowledge" in the Bible than in any other literature of the same era.

If it were really true that Bible authors revealed in their works scientific facts that were not discovered until centuries later, this would indeed be a formidable argument for the verbal inspiration of the Bible, but the evidence that bibliolaters point to to prove their theory is entirely too speculative to be convincing. Some inerrantists, for example, have absurdly seen evidence that the Bible foresaw the potential for using electricity to send messages. In speaking to Job from the whirlwind, Yahweh asked him, "Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). In Why We Believe the Bible, George DeHoff made this comment on the verse:

Job could not do this but we are able to do so today as we talk on the telephone and radio and send our messages by telegraph. Truly the lightning goeth and saith for us (p. 55).

There are so many absurdities in this application of the verse that I hardly know where to begin commenting on them. For one thing, it violates a principle of common sense that should tell DeHoff and his inerrancy cohorts that a clear-cut, undeniable case of scientific foreknowledge would have to be stated in language so obvious in meaning that there could be no disagreement in interpretation. In my response to Jerry McDonald's article elsewhere in this issue, I used the rule of Occam's razor to discredit his claim that Hosea meant for "the blood of Jezreel" to refer to the murder of Naboth. The rule is equally applicable to DeHoff's claim of scientific foreknowledge in a simple statement about lightning. As long as it is possible for the statement to mean something less complex than the supernatural insight of a primitive writer into the physics of transmitting sound by electricity, then there is no force at all to the claim that this is an example of scientific foreknowledge.

Could the statement have a simpler meaning than what DeHoff assigned to it? It would certainly seem so. Why, for example, couldn't it mean no more than that lightning announces its presence by the natural sound it makes? This is a phenomenon we have all witnessed during thunderstorms. In his discourse to Job, Elihu said, "He (God) covers his hands with lightning, and gives it a charge that it strike the mark. The noise of it tells concerning him, the cattle also concerning the storm that comes up" (36:32-33). A primitive superstition that God makes lightning and directs its strike is obviously reflected in this statement (a belief that hardly qualifies as "scientific foreknowledge"), but the final part of the statement seems to be saying that lightning announces the approach of a storm. Elihu, then, seemed to know exactly what Yahweh said in Job 38:35. The lightning goes forth and says, "Here we are." What is so wonderfully insightful about that?

The problem for bibliolaters who see scientific foreknowledge in the Bible is that none of the statements they point to can successfully pass the test of Occam's razor. All pose the possibility of simpler, less complex interpretations than those that attribute supernatural, scientific insights to the writers. Common sense should again tell us that this is so. If not, then why didn't those marvelous insights put science centuries ahead of the plodding advancement it has made? If, for example, Job 38:35 really meant what DeHoff claims it meant, then why didn't someone among the millions and millions of people who read it during the past 3,000 years recognize its meaning and apply it long before telecommunication systems were finally invented? The same could be asked of all the other alleged examples of scientific foresight in the Bible. If these were in fact true cases of foreknowledge, then why didn't Bible readers apply the scientific principles involved in them long ago? Why did the world have to wait through the centuries until scientists, working independently of the Bible, discovered the life-sustaining properties of blood, the female ovum, the water cycle, and the many other scientific facts that bibliolaters claim were foreknown by Bible writers? There is something very suspect about after-the-fact biblical interpretations that point to recent scientific discoveries and gleefully proclaim, "Ah, yes, this was foreseen in the Bible where so-and-so said thus-and-so!"

Obviously, then, the discoveries of science have been late in coming because they had to be learned through the long, arduous task of scientific experimentation. The Bible offered no help, because its authors knew no more about these things than anyone else. In fact, the Bible probably retarded the process of scientific discovery through the widespread acceptance of superstitious nonsense found in it. Those who believe and practice superstition aren't the kind of people who make scientific discoveries. Science advances through the efforts of people who cast aside superstition and search for truth through application of scientific methods. This is a characteristic not generally found in Bible believers.

An earlier article ("Scientific Boo-Boos in the Bible," Winter 1991) showed that the Bible, rather than revealing amazing scientific insights, is riddled with scientific errors. These mistakes cover a wide range of scientific areas but are most obvious in the field of biology. The article noted the genetic ignorance of the Genesis writer, who presented Jacob as one who was able to influence color patterns in Laban's sheep and goats by controlling the environment in which they bred (Gen. 30:37-43). This is certainly a peculiar mistake for a book that is supposed to be so wonderfully insightful in scientific matters. It is as if God told his inspired writers all about the transmission of sound by electricity, the female reproductive system, the spherical shape of the earth, and a host of other scientific secrets but neglected to reveal a very basic genetic fact. Strange indeed! Many of the biological mistakes in the Bible were anatomical in nature. The Leviticus writer (let bibliolaters think this was Moses if they want to) was so unobservant, for example, that he apparently thought insects were four-legged creatures:

All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination to you. Yet these may you eat of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to leap upon the earth; even these of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, the bald locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all winged creeping things, which have four feet, are an abomination to you (Lev. 11:20-23, BB).

Although the specific references to locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers in this passage indicate that insects were the creatures under consideration, a curious thing about the Hebrew word oph that is here translated "winged creeping things" is that it was the same word used six times in the creation story (Gen. 1:20-30) to refer to birds. It is the same word used twelve times in the Genesis account of the flood to refer to birds. In the KJV and ASV, the word is translated birds or fowl(s) in all of these places. The KJV, in fact, even used fowls to open the Leviticus passage cited above: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Four-legged fowls! That would be a biological blunder indeed, but since the context clearly indicated insects in this passage, we won't hold bibliolaters responsible for a translation flaw. They have enough problems to deal with in this passage without adding another one. Suffice it to say, however, that it does seem strange that a people to whom God routinely gave insights into complex scientific matters like gynecology, hematology, telecommunications, and aerodynamics would have no word in their language to distinguish birds from winged insects. We are supposed to be impressed with the religious musings of a people no more sophisticated than that?

An immensely greater problem than linguistic and translation flaws in this passage is the fact that whoever wrote it consistently referred to winged insects as four-legged creatures, a mistake that practically any modern-day elementary student would know better than to make. What educated person today doesn't know that insects have six legs? We have to wonder why God, who so routinely gave scientific insights to his inspired writers, couldn't at least have opened the eyes of his earthly messenger in this case and had him count the legs on a grasshopper.

Archer, Haley, Arndt, Torrey, and the other major inerrancy apologists don't even address the problem of four-legged insects in their works, but knowing inerrancy defenders as I do, I can almost predict what they will say about it. "Well, insects do have four legs, don't they? Just because they happen to have a total of six legs doesn't mean that Moses had to include all six in order to be scientifically correct. He chose to mention only four." Such an "explanation" may sound strange to readers who are not familiar with the desperation tactics that fundamentalists resort to to defend the inerrancy doctrine, but they often use this kind of argument to "explain" numerical discrepancies in the Bible. Mark (5:1-20) and Luke (8:26-39), for example, mention just one demoniac that Jesus healed in the country of the Gerasenes, but Matthew, describing the same incident (8:28-34), put the location in the land of the Gadarenes (several miles away from Gerasa) and said that there were two demoniacs. Gleason Archer dismissed the geographical discrepancy as "scribal error," but of the numerical discrepancy, he said this:

If there were two of them, there was at least one, wasn't there? Mark and Luke center attention on the more prominent and outspoken of the two, the one whose demonic occupants called themselves "Legion" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 325).

Inerrantists use this same lame argument to explain why Matthew said that Jesus healed two blind men at Jericho (20:29) but Mark (10:46) and Luke (18:35) mentioned only one who was healed. As an argument, it grants entirely too much freedom of selection to the writers and completely ignores the fact that they were presumably being verbally guided by the Holy Spirit. Why then would the same Holy Spirit decide when he was "inspiring" Mark and Luke that only one demoniac and blind man needed to be mentioned but when he was "inspiring" Matthew, he suddenly decided that both demoniacs and blind men should be mentioned?

Whether our inerrantist readers will attempt to apply this line of reasoning to the Bible's four-legged insects remains to be seen, but if they do, I hope they will address a question we have every right to ask them. What is there about insects that would warrant writing a description (like the one in the Leviticus passage) that mentions only four of their six legs? After all, this was a legalistic description that was intended to let Jews know which insects were clean (edible) and which were unclean (forbidden), and the description presented the clean locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers as creatures that "go on all fours." But these insects don't "go on all fours"; they go on all sixes. That's a strange oversight from an author writing under the direction of an omniscient deity who routinely gave marvelous scientific insights to his inspired crew.

But the insect problems aren't over. After declaring all "winged creeping things that go upon all fours" an abomination, the Leviticus writer then made locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers exceptions to this restriction. His rationale was that these were creeping things that go on all fours, "which have legs above their feet" (v:21). So if insects that go about on all fours (presumably with their other two immobilized) have "legs above their feet," they are clean and can be eaten. If not, why not? That's the only reason the description gave for exempting locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers from insects that were unclean or forbidden. Now I want some enterprising inerrancy defender to give us a list of insects that don't have legs above their feet. How could any creeping thing "go on all fours" without having legs above those four (feet)? Feet without legs! It could happen only in Bible biology.

Another anatomical mistake was made by the Leviticus writer in the same context with his four-footed insects. After stating the two characteristics that clean animals must have (part the hoof and chew the cud), he declared hares and coneys unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof (vv:3-6). Deuteronomy 14:7 also described hares and coneys as cud-chewers. The biological facts, however,are these: hares and coneys have no hoofs to part, but they have no cuds to chew either. The Leviticus writer made a serious biological error in describing them as cud-chewers.

"What About Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible?" (Fall 1990) briefly discussed the Leviticus writer's cud-chewing hares and coneys and the attempts of bibliolaters to explain them away. Wayne Jackson, one of two staff members at Apologetics Press who were invited to write a response to the article, declined the invitation but reviewed this section of the article in Reason and Revelation (December 1989) prior to its publication in The Skeptical Review. He resorted to the usual rationalizations: the words translated hare and coney "are rare and difficult" in Hebrew; the writer was perhaps using "phenomenal language" to describe what hares and coneys actually appear to be doing; etc. After all of this was said, however, a proven biological fact still remained. Hares and coneys do not chew the cud.

In an end-run attempt to circumvent this problem, Jackson resorted to equivocation by suddenly substituting the word ruminate for "chew the cud":

There is, however, another factor that must be taken into consideration. Rumination does not necessarily involve a compartmentalized stomach system. One definition of "ruminate" is simply "to chew again that which has been swallowed" (Webster). And oddly enough, that is precisely what the hare does. Though the hare does not have a multi-chambered stomach, which is characteristic of most ruminants, it does chew its food a second time. It has been learned rather recently that hares pass two types of fecal material. "In addition to normal waste, they pass a second type of pellet known as a caecotroph. The very instant the caecotroph is passed, it is grabbed and chewed again.... As soon as the caecotroph is chewed thoroughly and swallowed, it aggregates in the cardiac region of the stomach where it undergoes a second digestion" (Jean Morton, Science in the Bible, pp. 179-181).

Unfortunately for Mr. Jackson's end-run, "chew the cud" is the expression that needs defining, not "ruminate." The Hebrew word translated "cud" was gerah (cud), from garar (to bring up). The word translated "chew" was alah (to cause to come up). Young's Literal Translation of the Bible rendered the combination of the two words "bringing up the cud." Obviously, then, the Leviticus writer was speaking of animals that chew the cud in the literal meaning of the expression and not some figurative or "phenomenal" manner that bibliolaters might dream up to protect their precious inerrancy doctrine.

If, however, Mr. Jackson is going to quote Webster's definition of ruminate, he should refrain from doctoring it to suit his needs. In its entirety, Webster's definition of ruminate is "to chew again what has been slightly chewed and swallowed." Jackson conveniently omitted the underlined part of the definition, and in this respect hares certainly don't qualify as "ruminants," because the caecotrophs of hares consist of materials that have been chewed once and then passed through the digestive tract. This would hardly be material that has been "slightly chewed and swallowed." Notice too that Jackson's reference states that "the caecotroph is chewed thoroughly (by the hare) and swallowed." Are we to believe that hares thoroughly chew the material in their caecotrophs but only slightly chew it the first time through?

The main weakness in Jackson's caecotrophic solution to the problem of cud-chewing hares, however, is its complete failure to explain away the biological error of the Leviticus writer. After all has been said about what hares appear to be doing and how their reingesting of caecotrophic materials achieves the same purpose as cud-chewing, the fact still remains that hares do not chew the cud. Perhaps an analogy would underscore the ineffectiveness of Jackson's resolution of the problem. The duck-billed platypus, a peculiar egg-laying animal native to Australia, has been biologically classified as a mammal because the female nurtures its young with milk. But the female platypus has no teats for her offspring to suck in order to get the milk. There are glands on her stomach that "sweat" the milk, which her young then suck from strands of hair that it has collected on. This unusual method of nurturing offspring achieves the same purpose as the mammary glands of other mammals, but if one should say that a platypus has teats with which she nurtures her young, he would be biologically incorrect.

In the same way, the Leviticus writer was wrong when he said that hares and coneys "chew the cud." That he intended this to mean true cud-chewing was indicated in his use of the camel (11:4) as another example of a cud-chewing animal. Camels are anatomically equipped with the same Ruminantia as cattle, goats, buffaloes, antelopes, giraffes, llamas, deer, and bison. Camels are true cud-chewers, and the Leviticus writer's grouping them with hares and coneys as examples of animals that "chew the cud" leaves little doubt about what he meant. Perhaps he did superficially look at hares and assume from appearance that they were cud-chewers, but that is hardly a satisfactory explanation of the problem. After all, inerrantists ask us to believe that time and time again God gave to his inspired writers amazing insights into complex scientific matters. He did all that but couldn't reveal to one of his writers a simple fact about cud-chewing? It's too incredible to believe.

Jackson's final act of desperation was a claim that Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia has "classified the hare as a ruminant" and "considers the hyrax (coney) as a ruminant." His reference (1975, pp. 421, 422) did not cite a volume number, but I read these page numbers, as well as the entire sections about rabbits, hares, and hyrexes, in volume 12 and found no attempt to classify either the hare or the hyrax as ruminants. If Mr. Jackson will send us a specific reference and the exact quotation that classifies hares and hyraxes as ruminants, we will publish it in a future issue. While he is at it, we would like for him to answer this question: Do hares chew the cud? They either do or they don't, so there is no reason why he can't give a yes or no answer to the question.

Some errors in Bible biology concerned behavioral misconceptions. Proverbs 6:7-8 described the ant as an industrious creature, "which having no chief, overseer, or ruler provides her bread in the summer, and gathers her food in harvest." No one disputes the ant's industry, but what is this about its "having no chief, overseer, or ruler"? Inerrantists seem to like Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, so I suggest that they read what it says about ants (Vol. 2, pp. 441-453). The various species of this insect are therein presented as members of highly structured social hierarchies having queens, workers, soldiers, and drones. Clearly, then, ants have overseers and rulers. If inerrantists wish to dispute this, they should consider slave ants, because some species of ants actually take captives in war and make them slaves. Surely, it would be proper to speak of slave ants as having overseers or rulers. The Bible says, however, that ants have no chiefs, overseers, or rulers. The Bible is wrong. Why didn't God instill in this inspired writer's mind an insight into the social structure of ant colonies? Perhaps he was too busy telling Job about the physics of sound transmission.

Even Yahweh himself was a little rusty in his understanding of animal behavior. In speaking to Job from the whirlwind, he said this of the ostrich:

The wings of the Ostrich wave proudly; but are they the pinions and plumage of love? For she leaves her eggs on the earth, and warms them in the dust, and forgets that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may trample them. She deals harshly with her young ones, as if they were not hers: Though her labor be in vain, she is without fear; because Eloah (God) has deprived her of wisdom, neither has he imparted to her understanding (39:13-17, Bethel Bible).

Reflected in this passage is a primitive, but incorrect, belief that the ostrich is a stupid bird that lays its eggs on the ground, leaves them to be hatched by the heat of the sand, and then treats her young harshly after they have hatched. The New American Bible affixes this frankly honest footnote to what Yahweh said of the Ostrich:

It was popularly believed that, because the ostrich laid her eggs on the sand, she was thereby cruelly abandoning them.

Modern biologists know better than what the "scientifically insightful" author of Job mistakenly thought about the ostrich. Both Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica, as well as Grzimek's (vol 7, pp. 91-95), describe ostriches as very caring parents. The female lays her eggs on the ground, but so do many other species of birds. The eggs are not abandoned to the heat of the sand, but in the female's absence, the male incubates the nest. When the young hatch, they are given watchful care by their mother. As a biological creature, the ostrich has survived for thousands of years, so obviously it is a successful procreator. Its labor is not in vain, as the passage above incorrectly declares. Yet Yahweh himself, who presumably created all living things, didn't know these behavioral facts about the ostrich. He "inspired" Jeremiah to perpetuate the primitive misconception of the ostrich's careless maternal instincts by having him write this about the women of Israel:

Even the jackals draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: The daughter of my people has become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child clings to the roof of his mouth for thirst: The young children ask bread, and no man breaks it to them (Lam. 4:3-4, BB).

Amazing scientific foreknowledge in the Bible? Hardly! Bibliolaters should stop trying to find insightful statements about electronics, oceanography, meteorology, etc. in the Bible text and worry more about explaining why a divinely inspired, inerrant book has so many obvious scientificerrors in it. And if the Bible is riddled with scientific errors, they should wonder too about the truth of that often parroted claim that the Bible is inerrant in all details of history, geography, chronology, etc., as well as in matters of faith and practice. It just ain't so!

http://www.infidels.org/librar...r/1991/2/2biolo91.html

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: Todd33

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F Roberts

good quote

 

[Tiamat]

I see it as if you are christian:

If God exists, you are covered (as long as you practiced your faith).

If he doesnt, so what? Is it bad to lead a life treating others with respect and caring for your 'neighbors'?

I don't really see any 'lose' in the situation of believing God exists.

 

[VictorLazlo]

Originally posted by: Todd33

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F Roberts

I've got to remember that one.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: EXman
If you want numbers go find studies of cancer patients with people praying for them vs. patients with no prayer. Even a liberal rag like 60 mintues (or was it 20/20?) reported that the results were unsettling that the patients w/o any prayer for did measurably worse. It has been years since it was on. They need to play it again.

It's a loaded die. The vast majority of humans are religious, regardless of political beliefs... those without anyone praying for them are far more likely to have no close friends/family, a big reason for living. That the odds on said family and friends being religious and praying for patients is very high is only a sidenote; the odds of anyone's friends & family being religious is high because the majority of people are religious.

The reason for this phenomenon is the support they provide. The human brain & body have only begun to give up their secrets, but it's commonly believed that they're capable of what could be considered "miraculous" things at times, and it's known that we have a genetically dictated need for social interaction. Put well-adjusted atheists in similar situations, surrounded by loving atheist friends & family, and you'd see the exact same thing.

And since it's been brought up again in the freakin' books a few of you posted P), I'll point out that something clearly crafted by an intelligent hand, such as a watch, does not propagate. It is an inanimate object. Life propagates, changing gradually as it does to better adapt to its environment. Apples and oranges, people.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
I see it as if you are christian:

If God exists, you are covered (as long as you practiced your faith).

If he doesnt, so what? Is it bad to lead a life treating others with respect and caring for your 'neighbors'?

I don't really see any 'lose' in the situation of believing God exists.

if god doesn't exist, there are still many religions with their deities to consider too. which one(s) do you choose?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Aimster
My theory...

Athiest = stupid
Agnostics = smart
Religious people = lost

All I have to say is if a man claimed he was a prophet/son of god today he would be sent to a mental hospital. If a man claimed it thousands of years ago people would listen.

My theory = my theory .. 99.9% disagree... so don't comment on it.

Agnostics = people who are afraid of taking a stance

 

[Thraxen]

And since it's been brought up again in the freakin' books a few of you posted (), I'll point out that something clearly crafted by an intelligent hand, such as a watch, does not propagate. It is an inanimate object.

You'll be singing a different tune when robots kill us all!

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Tiamat
I see it as if you are christian:

If God exists, you are covered (as long as you practiced your faith).

If he doesnt, so what? Is it bad to lead a life treating others with respect and caring for your 'neighbors'?

I don't really see any 'lose' in the situation of believing God exists.

if god doesn't exist, there are still many religions with their deities to consider too. which one(s) do you choose?

In this context I believe "god" refers to any deity or deities, not the christian version.

Originally posted by: biostud666
Agnostics = people who are afraid of taking a stance

Agreed

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Tiamat
I see it as if you are christian:

If God exists, you are covered (as long as you practiced your faith).

If he doesnt, so what? Is it bad to lead a life treating others with respect and caring for your 'neighbors'?

I don't really see any 'lose' in the situation of believing God exists.

if god doesn't exist, there are still many religions with their deities to consider too. which one(s) do you choose?

In this context I believe "god" refers to any deity or deities, not the christian version.

that still raises the question: which one(s)?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck
And since it's been brought up again in the freakin' books a few of you posted P), I'll point out that something clearly crafted by an intelligent hand, such as a watch, does not propagate. It is an inanimate object. Life propagates, changing gradually as it does to better adapt to its environment. Apples and oranges, people.

Computer viruses propogate. Some don't even require human interaction to propogate. They are also clearly crafted by an intelligent hand. Not all forms of life propogate. Some are artificially bred.

The watch argument has a lot of flaws though. My favorite argument against it is as follows... A human being is fairly complex, but a protocell isn't too complex. Is a protocell too complex to have formed spontaneously? It doesn't seem so, since at least 3 theories which have yet to be disproven seem to postulate how they can form. If one grants that a protocell does not require an intelligent designer, then only those who deny the process of evolution could really have much of a use for the watch analogy.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Tiamat
I see it as if you are christian:

If God exists, you are covered (as long as you practiced your faith).

If he doesnt, so what? Is it bad to lead a life treating others with respect and caring for your 'neighbors'?

I don't really see any 'lose' in the situation of believing God exists.

if god doesn't exist, there are still many religions with their deities to consider too. which one(s) do you choose?

In this context I believe "god" refers to any deity or deities, not the christian version.

that still raises the question: which one(s)?

Er... maybe I should make an appointment at the eye doctor... I not only completely missed Tiamat specifying Christianity, I missed the entire point of his reply Please disregard my comment.

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Gurck
And since it's been brought up again in the freakin' books a few of you posted P), I'll point out that something clearly crafted by an intelligent hand, such as a watch, does not propagate. It is an inanimate object. Life propagates, changing gradually as it does to better adapt to its environment. Apples and oranges, people.

Computer viruses propogate. Some don't even require human interaction to propogate. They are also clearly crafted by an intelligent hand. Not all forms of life propogate. Some are artificially bred.

The watch argument has a lot of flaws though. My favorite argument against it is as follows... A human being is fairly complex, but a protocell isn't too complex. Is a protocell too complex to have formed spontaneously? It doesn't seem so, since at least 3 theories which have yet to be disproven seem to postulate how they can form. If one grants that a protocell does not require an intelligent designer, then only those who deny the process of evolution could really have much of a use for the watch analogy.

Analogy is off in a few ways; computer viruses require a crafted device to function, viruses written for them do not evolve, and they are not strictly physical things.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Tiamat
I see it as if you are christian:

If God exists, you are covered (as long as you practiced your faith).

If he doesnt, so what? Is it bad to lead a life treating others with respect and caring for your 'neighbors'?

I don't really see any 'lose' in the situation of believing God exists.

if god doesn't exist, there are still many religions with their deities to consider too. which one(s) do you choose?

In this context I believe "god" refers to any deity or deities, not the christian version.

that still raises the question: which one(s)?

Er... maybe I should make an appointment at the eye doctor... I not only completely missed Tiamat specifying Christianity, I missed the entire point of his reply Please disregard my comment.

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Gurck
something clearly crafted by an intelligent hand, such as a watch, does not propagate.

Computer viruses propogate. Some don't even require human interaction to propogate. They are also clearly crafted by an intelligent hand. Not all forms of life propogate. Some are artificially bred.

The watch argument has a lot of flaws though. My favorite argument against it is as follows... A human being is fairly complex, but a protocell isn't too complex. Is a protocell too complex to have formed spontaneously? It doesn't seem so, since at least 3 theories which have yet to be disproven seem to postulate how they can form. If one grants that a protocell does not require an intelligent designer, then only those who deny the process of evolution could really have much of a use for the watch analogy.

Analogy is off in a few ways; computer viruses require a crafted device to function, viruses written for them do not evolve, and they are not strictly physical things.

I didn't realize I was offering an analogy rather than a counter example to a single point you made (see above). It's not hard to imagine a machine that can make more machines of the exact same kind.

Your "evolve" point is a crude form of my argument, although you probably don't realize it and will deny it even now after I have told you about it.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: torpid
I didn't realize I was offering an analogy rather than a counter example to a single point you made (see above). It's not hard to imagine a machine that can make more machines of the exact same kind.

Your "evolve" point is a crude form of my argument, although you probably don't realize it and will deny it even now after I have told you about it.

Semantics, and your "point" is painfully obvious to most, though I'm sure it seems quite the revelation to you

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid
I didn't realize I was offering an analogy rather than a counter example to a single point you made (see above). It's not hard to imagine a machine that can make more machines of the exact same kind.

Your "evolve" point is a crude form of my argument, although you probably don't realize it and will deny it even now after I have told you about it.

Semantics, and your "point" is painfully obvious to most, though I'm sure it seems quite the revelation to you

Apparently it's not obvious to most. Saying "watches don't evolve" is not exactly a logical argument. The way things work in science and philosphy is that you actually explain things and elaborate on them, provide supporting evidence, etc.. I'm sure you have never heard of this, otherwise you would realize that saying "watches don't evolve" has no merit unless you elaborate.

Just an example, using gurckian language I could counter the famous analogy "supporting" creationism which goes something like, life is less probable than a monkey typing shakespeare on a typewriter with "monkeys favor the s key". Makes sense if you actually read the news, but offers no logical validity since it has incomplete logic.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid
I didn't realize I was offering an analogy rather than a counter example to a single point you made (see above). It's not hard to imagine a machine that can make more machines of the exact same kind.

Your "evolve" point is a crude form of my argument, although you probably don't realize it and will deny it even now after I have told you about it.

Semantics, and your "point" is painfully obvious to most, though I'm sure it seems quite the revelation to you

Apparently it's not obvious to most. Saying "watches don't evolve" is not exactly a logical argument. The way things work in science and philosphy is that you actually explain things and elaborate on them, provide supporting evidence, etc.. I'm sure you have never heard of this, otherwise you would realize that saying "watches don't evolve" has no merit unless you elaborate.

Just an example, using gurckian language I could counter the famous analogy "supporting" creationism which goes something like, life is less probable than a monkey typing shakespeare on a typewriter with "monkeys favor the s key". Makes sense if you actually read the news, but offers no logical validity since it has incomplete logic.

This is an internet forum, the expectation is summary. Ever seen a thread starting with a post longer than a medium-sized paragraph where cliffs notes weren't requested? Perhaps I leave out what is obvious to most, you're the only one who has complained about it though... I'm sure you can see the implication of that.. or can you?

I don't like iPods. Deal with it, sport

 

[BigPoppa]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: biostud666
Agnostics = people who are afraid of taking a stance

Agreed

Agnostics take the position that it is impossible to prove that a god does or doesn't exist. I don't see how their position is any worse than taking a position at either of the extremes.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid
I didn't realize I was offering an analogy rather than a counter example to a single point you made (see above). It's not hard to imagine a machine that can make more machines of the exact same kind.

Your "evolve" point is a crude form of my argument, although you probably don't realize it and will deny it even now after I have told you about it.

Semantics, and your "point" is painfully obvious to most, though I'm sure it seems quite the revelation to you

Apparently it's not obvious to most. Saying "watches don't evolve" is not exactly a logical argument. The way things work in science and philosphy is that you actually explain things and elaborate on them, provide supporting evidence, etc.. I'm sure you have never heard of this, otherwise you would realize that saying "watches don't evolve" has no merit unless you elaborate.

Just an example, using gurckian language I could counter the famous analogy "supporting" creationism which goes something like, life is less probable than a monkey typing shakespeare on a typewriter with "monkeys favor the s key". Makes sense if you actually read the news, but offers no logical validity since it has incomplete logic.

This is an internet forum, the expectation is summary. Ever seen a thread starting with a post longer than a medium-sized paragraph where cliffs notes weren't requested? Perhaps I leave out what is obvious to most, you're the only one who has complained about it though... I'm sure you can see the implication of that.. or can you?

I don't like iPods. Deal with it, sport

I love the smiley faces you put in blatant flame posts.

This is an internet forum, and a topic about logical arguments. Posting an incomplete argument makes no sense. Especially if you are attempting to refute someone else's argument with it. Seeing as how it's well established that you are atheist and assume anyone who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist christian, I think we can all agree that maybe you perhaps jump from premise to conclusion a lot more quickly than most rational beings.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid
I didn't realize I was offering an analogy rather than a counter example to a single point you made (see above). It's not hard to imagine a machine that can make more machines of the exact same kind.

Your "evolve" point is a crude form of my argument, although you probably don't realize it and will deny it even now after I have told you about it.

Semantics, and your "point" is painfully obvious to most, though I'm sure it seems quite the revelation to you

Apparently it's not obvious to most. Saying "watches don't evolve" is not exactly a logical argument. The way things work in science and philosphy is that you actually explain things and elaborate on them, provide supporting evidence, etc.. I'm sure you have never heard of this, otherwise you would realize that saying "watches don't evolve" has no merit unless you elaborate.

Just an example, using gurckian language I could counter the famous analogy "supporting" creationism which goes something like, life is less probable than a monkey typing shakespeare on a typewriter with "monkeys favor the s key". Makes sense if you actually read the news, but offers no logical validity since it has incomplete logic.

This is an internet forum, the expectation is summary. Ever seen a thread starting with a post longer than a medium-sized paragraph where cliffs notes weren't requested? Perhaps I leave out what is obvious to most, you're the only one who has complained about it though... I'm sure you can see the implication of that.. or can you?

I don't like iPods. Deal with it, sport

I love the smiley faces you put in blatant flame posts.

This is an internet forum, and a topic about logical arguments. Posting an incomplete argument makes no sense. Especially if you are attempting to refute someone else's argument with it. Seeing as how it's well established that you are atheist and assume anyone who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist christian, I think we can all agree that maybe you perhaps jump from premise to conclusion a lot more quickly than most rational beings.

Not only are your attacks more blatant, you initiated it. Trust me, that's no halo around your head... it's your colon.

I'd like to know where I so much as infer that I believe 'anyone who disagrees with me is a fundamentalist christian'. I'm far more able to see shades of gray than you, or for that manner many posters here. Your belief that anyone who doesn't like ipods is worthy of being followed around and flamed is an excellent example. Note that this thread went nearly two pages without arguments until you posted.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: torpid
I didn't realize I was offering an analogy rather than a counter example to a single point you made (see above). It's not hard to imagine a machine that can make more machines of the exact same kind.

Your "evolve" point is a crude form of my argument, although you probably don't realize it and will deny it even now after I have told you about it.

Semantics, and your "point" is painfully obvious to most, though I'm sure it seems quite the revelation to you

Apparently it's not obvious to most. Saying "watches don't evolve" is not exactly a logical argument. The way things work in science and philosphy is that you actually explain things and elaborate on them, provide supporting evidence, etc.. I'm sure you have never heard of this, otherwise you would realize that saying "watches don't evolve" has no merit unless you elaborate.

Just an example, using gurckian language I could counter the famous analogy "supporting" creationism which goes something like, life is less probable than a monkey typing shakespeare on a typewriter with "monkeys favor the s key". Makes sense if you actually read the news, but offers no logical validity since it has incomplete logic.

This is an internet forum, the expectation is summary. Ever seen a thread starting with a post longer than a medium-sized paragraph where cliffs notes weren't requested? Perhaps I leave out what is obvious to most, you're the only one who has complained about it though... I'm sure you can see the implication of that.. or can you?

I don't like iPods. Deal with it, sport

I love the smiley faces you put in blatant flame posts.

This is an internet forum, and a topic about logical arguments. Posting an incomplete argument makes no sense. Especially if you are attempting to refute someone else's argument with it. Seeing as how it's well established that you are atheist and assume anyone who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist christian, I think we can all agree that maybe you perhaps jump from premise to conclusion a lot more quickly than most rational beings.

Not only are your attacks more blatant, you initiated it. Trust me, that's no halo around your head... it's your colon.

I'd like to know where I so much as infer that I believe 'anyone who disagrees with me is a fundamentalist christian'. I'm far more able to see shades of gray than you, or for that manner many posters here. Your belief that anyone who doesn't like ipods is worthy of being followed around and flamed is an excellent example. Note that this thread went nearly two pages without arguments until you posted.

It's not hard to find many threads that go on for many pages where you post that I don't even read. Don't give yourself so much credit.

Some time back, I believe even before the ipod argument, which has absolutely nothing to do with this, thanks for bringing it up though, you basically said that directly to me. I made some point about agnosticism and atheism, and you began referring to me and anyone else who was saying similar things as christian. There was no reason for this, and I can guarantee you that there was no evidence other than me disagreeing with you. I questioned you on this, and you seemed pretty firm in your conviction that I was christian, despite the fact that all I did was point out an error in your argument. Feel welcome to find it or any other example of point A to Z skipping B-Y in your arguments.

That in actuality is why I, after reading 3-4 pages of drivel and baseless attacks from you which makes agnostics and atheists look ridiculous, have decided to once again call you on a lame argument on this topic. I was hoping for some interesting points in this thread, but it seems like a bunch of people, with you as their ring leader, offering COUNTER arguments rather than arguments (which were originally requested). Why not permit me to thread crap on the thread crap by offering counter arguments to the counter arguments?

 

[Gurck]

I've never said that or anything close to it. My closest friend is a devout catholic and very intelligent, and Einstein believed in a god... While I am an atheist, I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that; you're either misremembering, attributing someone else's post(s) to me, or are delusional... and if you honestly think the posts I've made in this thread are "baseless attacks", I'd bet on the latter. Debating and flaming are two very different things. Can you imagine a world where everyone agreed on everything? I certainly can't. We deal with differences by discussing and debating them... which was what happened in this thread until you dropped by to vent your wrath at people who don't like iPods. It's baffling.