Agnostic about atheism

[Johnny B]

This my brother is why i asked you to read it from the books of Science.

 

I think i've mentioned that you've, due to your religious disposition, exposed yourself to the literature of the opponents of the evolutionary theory, and this 'Intellegent Design' ID literature is exactly what i was reffering to.

 

We'd the argument of amino acids not having chemically evolved into proteins

We'd the argument of DNA had to exist to enable self replication.

We'd the argument about bacterial flagellum.

 

The Arguments from ID are basically red-herring but the irreduceable complexity is both the oldest and most feeble one.

The man himself made a now popular comment about it.

 

Now that we've more or less left the coupling of Atheism and the evolutionary theory behind and concentrating ourselves on the scientific theory, we better do it the science way, woulden't you agree?!.

 

I hearby with great negligence offer you watch this

and this

 

It's not much of thing to present but it's a contrast to the other camp argues about.

 

If you feel irreduceable complexity is an issue you strongly cling to , let me know.

 

No, my defination is exactly that of Darwin.

[N.O.R.F]

Will watch the vids in due time. We have not left the link between Atheism and Evolution (thats next).

 

Is your last sentence an error? Do you agree with the Darwin Theory?

[N.O.R.F]

Baa humbug! How much of those videos is guess work, inclinations and age old speculation JB?

 

The whole premise of the first video is based around DNA (correct me if I’m wrong here). DNA has seen a shift in the attitudes of scients. Why ignore this Johnny? How do you explain their discovery (apart from merely calling it a 'red herring')?

 

Let me give you a small note:

 

In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.

 

As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task—the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).

 

For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.

 

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

 

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.

 

He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).

 

We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.

 

Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).

 

Source

 

If you dispute the above (and I'm sure you do) then please tell me why/how using science.

 

Please note that the narrator of the first video states that this research is “in it’s infancy and current hypothesis are nowhere near as solid as the theory of evolution”. In other words the evidence you gave me and have been shouting about is weak when compared to evolution theory from your own source!

 

I watched 'the Evolution Theory made easy' here

. Posted by the same person with the same narrator.

 

I then found this video disproving the whole thing.

 

What say you JB?

 

After that, the evolution claim is even more laughable

[Johnny B]

Baa humbug!

Huh?!

 

 

The whole premise of the first video is based around DNA (correct me if I’m wrong here). DNA has seen a shift in the attitudes of scients. Why ignore this Johnny? How do you explain their discovery (apart from merely calling it a 'red herring')?

Ignore what? discovery what ?

 

If you either understood what 'the argument about bacterial flagellum' meant or were atleast well-versed into how unimpressed the Scientific community remained about it,you woulden't even dare give me a "small note", and the above meek one at that.

Back in 02 we'd great exchanges between the ID creationists and Evolutionists .

 

Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (ID) vs Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. (EVO)

William A. Dembski, Ph.D. (ID) vs Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. (EVO)

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (ID) vs Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. (EVO)

 

here,enjoy the refutals

 

 

Brother, its time i be very frank with you regarding this little "can-you-answer-this-question" debate of ours, as i've realized that all you are able to do is present already-burried ID arguments or take to your empty rehtorics, leading questions ( JB why do you deny it, JB why don't you admit it, etc etc). in short, i feel firing at un-armed man.

 

You came across as a brother who despite his wish to debate from an informed perspective lacks in deeper and proper scientific knowledge of not only The evolutionary theory, but even of the ID arguments themsleves, and the reason i say this is,Had you known or read about Michael Behe's arguments, had you not dared that note.

 

As someone who is indoctrinated in a specefic doctrine,your only obvious aim of having this can-you-answer-this-question 'debate' is ( as you claimed) ,

1: To try depict alleged Atheism fallacies.

2: To claim (as many times as possible) that evolution doesen't happen.

3: To claim (as many times as possible)that Atheism and the evolutionary theory are interwined and dependant on each other.

 

So far, none of the three seems to be providing you the well needed support, worse, your belief in a Deity of creation, despite all three points remains unproveable.

 

You seem to think that any disproof of any evolutionary idea or even just a disagreement among the evolutionists themselves, automatically supports you variant of creationism( aka 'poof'). and as a result, you more than willingly spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little or no time proving your own case,which is fundamentally so unprovable,that it beggers blind belif or severe indoctrination.

 

Applying this tactic, you not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for your own 'poof' theory. Which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.

 

Obviousley , i've gone the extra mile to keep the can-you-answer-this-question 'debate' alive.

 

 

What say you JB?

 

I say Amen, AL WHATEVER !!

[N.O.R.F]

JB,

 

You’re correct in that I’m no scientist. Nor am I well versed in it’s terminology. But, I have for the duration of this discussion, tried to question the theory of evolution from that same view point (science) with relevant queries and sources I might add.

 

Over the course of this discussion you have done very little to counter these queries/facts apart from present a wishy washy video that also claims the very same research is “in it’s infancy” and “current hypothesis are nowhere near as solid as the theory of evolution”. This to me means that according to the narrator, the evolution theory holds more weight in terms of scientific advances. Something you have tried to discredit throughout this whole discussion!! (is this another double speak?) Now, that very same theory which the narrator states to have superior evidence has and is continuing to be challenged. Not by mere Theists but the very same scientific community you have been advocating for all these years.

 

This is yet again demonstrated by your latest link where there are arguments and counter arguments between ID and Evolution supporters. This would tell any ‘rational’ person that there is an element of doubt about evolution whereby it’s own celebrated scientists are making major U-turns. You seem to have failed to grasp the very notion you have been shouting about for the past number of years in that you don’t believe in something that has or is being challenged from a scientific point of view.

 

If we were to go back to my earlier posts, you have only proved my statements correct in that there is disparity between your belief in science and your non-belief in there being a creator. You choose to apply science when it suits but disregard science when your belief is challenged with the same (having your cake and eating it). This my friend, as I said earlier, is where the cookie crumbles.

 

Considering the link between Atheism and Evolution being a verifiable one (very easily at that), this non-acknowledgement of scientific arguments against the very reason they disbelief in creation in the first place makes that very belief (or non-belief depending on how you wish to view it) a fallacy.

 

My intention, by questioning/challenging the evolution theory, was not to support my own beliefs (I have already stated that I have no interest in heading in that direction as we have done that many times before) but to highlight your very own double standards in how YOU see things. Your questioning of religion has been noted but now we have questioned the foundation of what your believe and it has been found wanting. I do recall a certain SOLer stating that you see things with one eye. How true that is and now this thread attests to that. Not only do you see things with one eye but you blatantly refuse to open the other!

 

I shall leave you with more ‘scientific’ evidence against the evolution theory here.

 

I'm merely slapping you with same wet fish

 

Ps I like your signature