theophilus

Any honest person reading this stuff must acknowledge that it is nothing more than assertion for which there is no evidence.

Statements like "Creatures developed nerve cells" are just thrown out like they are self-attesting.
The whole scenario for the evolution of the eye is full assumptions about such "developments" which are themselves as complex as the eye itself.
Read up on what's involved in the transmission of nerve impulses and see if you're satisfied as a "scientific" person with statements like "creatures developed nerve cells."

Talk about faith!

Zee

Originally posted by theophilus
There is less extant evidence for the existence of Aristotle, Plato, Julius Caesar, than there is for Jesus.
As far as I know, there are only about 5 or 6 evidence claims for Jesus. Maybe theophilus can explain better about that, as well as the quality.

bible filled with contradictions.." This is mere atheistic cant. It is both technically false and philosophically meaningless.
Have you ever read at the contradiction itself? I suggest that you go to this christian website http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen1_26.htm to take a look at the contradiction, along with their explanation. Maybe you will need one or two of them.

Besides, who are you to say contradictions are a sign of error?
This is one of the bigest atheist's mistake. When a misprinted math textbook say that 1+1=3, it doesn't mean that all math books are garbage. However, contradiction is enough to disprove that the bible is an inerrant words of God.

Besides, most of the scientists who challenged these beliefs were Christians.
If someday I make a breakthrough in science, I will proclaim myself as a Christian, otherwise I will be condemn as a Satan's follower.

Statements like "Creatures developed nerve cells" are just thrown out like they are self-attesting.
The whole scenario for the evolution of the eye is full assumptions about such "developments" which are themselves as complex as the eye itself.
I don't think there is a problem, and each developments are not that complex. The evidences can be found in the "primitive" creatures. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence against the scenario. The scenario simply show how evolution theory can be used to explain eyes, and it is all that is important in science. How can creationism explain the fact that nautilus eyes are less advance than fish eyes? To make us believe in evolution?

Koyaanisqatsi

Others have addressed this, but you might want to also point out that Entropy is not an absolute "law" of any kind; it is merely a theory based on what has been observed. Just as Einstein augmented Newton, theories and maxims and "laws," etc., are part of a dynamic system that change according to new datum.

According to loop quantum gravity theory, for example (one of the latest and most intriguing theories, by the way), the universe is likewise a dynamic system, which would mean that the entropy of the system is equally dynamic. The "perfect state" in a dynamic system is therefore not linear, it is always extant and contributive. Just ask them in cross-ex (if you get one) whether or not they've taken into account a dynamic theory of the universe and see their heads spin.

Think of it this way, in a dynamic universe (one that is constantly in a "perfect state;" i.e., in constantly shifting and restructuring equillibrium) the entropy only means systems break down into different systems and never into a base or "original state," since, a dynamic system has no base or "original state." Thus the big bang would merely be the backlash of a previous dynamic state unknown to us.

That something is unknown to us, however, does not equate to "God," which is the central fallacy of this argument to begin with. Even if our universe were "background dependent" (meaning static or non-dynamic), this still does not equate with a god. Note they even make a pre-emptive move in th wording of their argument by relying on the imprecise "implies."

I would attack that first and foremost. Anything can "imply" literally anything else (with enough semantics employed), so to argue that something merely "implies" a god is to beg the question.

Then I'd hit them with the dynamic theory of the universe, which removes the implication of a being or "intelligence" as an "uncaused cause," since a dynamic universe would have no beginning or end and would be forever in a "perfect state" (or equillibrium) that includes entropy.

Well, there are many ways to go on this, but the simplest is always the best. Just point out all of the adaptive advantages being able to discern at least the color spectrum provides early man.

For example, homo sapiens are omnivores as well as predators. Without the ability to discern colors, we would eat all kinds of poisons and/or rotten meats, not to mention poisonous creatures that actually use color as warnings to possible predators.

Color is a result of termperature. Since we "conquered" fire and it became central to our survival, without the ability to determine by sight how hot a fire is (or, indeed, if the fire were even present, since only being able to see the color blue, for example, wouldn't be beneficial), we would be constantly burned, either directly by the extended flames (the yellow and red parts) or by the embers that would look to a mono-color eye as if they were cold.

We also wouldn't be able to determine if we were bleeding or sweating or just drenched in water. How many times did you think you were fine after being hit with something or slamming into something, only to register the inflicted damage upon seeing the red flow of your own blood? If you just looked down and saw an indistinguishable liquid, you might bleed to death thinking it was something other than blood.

As for the "manual focus" I'm not quite sure what they mean. Your eyes have both a "manual" and an "automatic" focus. Just ask anybody in the room to take off their glasses and read something and you'll see them immediately manually focus.

As a predator, early mankind had to be able to discern the color warnings given by other animals and dangerous plants as well as such things as fire temperature and the need to have eyes that automatically filter out "unnecessary" background information so that one could focus in (yes, manually, even if it is an automatic part of the defense mechanisms; i.e., you hear a sound "out there" and your eyes quickly eliminate extraneous patterns in order for you to focus in on the possible threat).

All of this describes perfectly why and how the human eye was formed as a result of adaptive survival in pre-historic times and for what purposes.

You might want to also point out that as humans have evolved, many of those "complex organs" are no longer necessary. Tonsils; appendix; spleen; whole sections of intestines including the colon; extended incisor teeth and our rear molars (a good one, since they were originally used to tear apart and grind raw, tough meat, which we no longer need); etc.

If they're going to raise complex organs as an issue, then you can raise complex organs that are now superfluous to modern humans as a counter.

One would expect to find organs that become superfluous in an evolutionary system; but one would not expect to find anything superfluous as the result of a "perfect" creator. You can paly the "implication" game too .

I would be most wary of this one, since usually debaters throw up vaguaries like this in an initial strategy to obfuscate what they consider more devastating attacks. My guess is they'll try to argue that there have been many religious scientists and/or that old chestnut that without religion, there would be no science, since most early scientists were priests and the like (the counter, to which, is that historically science evolved in spite of religion and not because of it).

You can also use it to counter their entire strategy, which is to "imply" that science doesn't rule out deity, necessarily. While true, the question is, does it establish deity? It does not and further it demonstrates no need for deity.

Be careful they don't try to throw out "occam's razor" (as many theists fallaciously do) in this regard; the simpler of these two theories is the one in which positing a supernatural creator is far more complex than a natural explanation (which is extant and, as I pointed out, in no need of a supernatural creator).

Again, just because something is unknown does not equate with "God exists."

You should have more than enough to go on here. Just remind everyone that the benefit of the scientific method is that it is dynamic and accounts for mistakes; indeed, the minute a theory is proved to be incorrect (after rigorous study and analsys and experimentation) it is discarded.

If that same, basic standard of evidentiary procedure would be applied to religion, the world's religions should have been discarded the second they were concocted.

And also remember that you don't have to defend evolution as an absolute; only that it answers all of the evidence we have discovered from many different disciplines of science (biology; anthropology; archeology; cosmology; etc., etc.).

Positing deity, however, answers nothing about our existence; it merely mandates it while raising even larger questions about who, what, how and so on; answers that cult members just childlishly ignore by a call to ineffability of their god.

If the Lord moves in mysterious ways, why can't the universe? Between those two, only one has been demonstrated to exist and it ain't the "Lord."

I'm sure we'd all love to read what they did argue, btw, so please post a follow up, yes?

Koyaanisqatsi

Have you stopped calling the kettle black? Any honest pot would have stopped calling the kettle black.

No, they are not. Indeed, they aren't even "thrown out" at all. They are part and parcel to the entirety of study and come as a result of that study with corresponding evidence. That's what it means to be a scientist; one bases one's discoveries on actual evidence, instead of what cult members do; deny all evidence to the contrary as proof of the whole.

Using such rhetoric must be enjoyable on your part, since it's full of sound and fury signifiying nothing, but a direct counter would of course be preferrable. If the evidence supports any assumptions, then your observation is irrelevant.

I have to a limited degree (since I'm not a scientist), but do not see any contradiction. Do you have any specific argument you'd like to present? I'm sure others here would be more than happy to correct you.

So it's to be the typical comparative fallacy is it? We have "faith" in science and you have "faith" in a mystical fairy god king who magically blinked everything into existence, therefore we are somehow equal in our faith, is that it?

Fine. Be happy in your fantasies and we'll be happy in rigorously studying reality. We're obviously on the right track if you feel so threatened by it.

HRG

Anyone with a laymen's knowledge of history must realize that this claim is ridiculous. Caesar's life is described in detail by many independent sources (biographies, letters, histories, inscriptions ...); his face is shown on coins and statues; he has written works which can be tested by modern archeology (circumvallation of Alesia)
The historical quality of the Gospels - religious hagiographies - is rather low.
You mean "meaningless according to your philosophy.
"The Silmarillion, as the word of Illuvatar, cannot be filled with contradictions ..."
"The Qu'ran, as the word of Allah, cannot be filled with contradictions ..."

IOW, what is missing from your argument is a demonstration that the Bible is the word of an existing god who doesn't lie to us.
<snip>
He did. If a being is omnipotent and omniscient, everything which happens is a result of his actions.

Regards,
HRG.

Wyrdsmyth

theophilus,

I have only one thing to say to you right now:

Tailbone.

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, we're going into Sunday evening. Well........?

What happened in the "debate." Hop to it, son!

ad veritas

Thanks for all your help, my debate was actually postponed until Tuesday (tomorrow) so i'll post how things went.