The Science of Atheism

Can a scientist be an atheist?

Over recent discussions of religion and science, I’ve twice now been given the argument that for a scientist to be intellectually consistent, they should have to allow for the possibility that God exists, and therefore they must be agnostic and not atheist.

What struck me most was that this same view of science was held by people with diametrically opposed views on the existence of God.  If both someone with a strong belief in God, and another with a strong belief in the lack thereof, were both telling me that scientists couldn’t be atheists, then obviously this wasn’t the result of bias one way or the other.

Now I consider myself both a scientist and an atheist, so naturally I disagreed with this position.  But I hadn’t ever given it much thought, and I didn’t have a very good reason during either discussion for how I could hold two intellectual positions that these people thought were opposed to one another.  Being somebody who would rather be right than happy, I decided to dig into my own reasons for belief, so see for myself whether I was being hypocritical when it came to God.

 

Logical Positivism

The argument presented to me in both cases was that, as a scientist, I should only hold something to be true if it has been proven true.  And that if something has not been proven true, I must allow that it might be false.  Likewise if something has not been proven false, I must allow that it might be true.  From there it was claimed that, since the statement “there is a God” has not been proven false, then I must allow that it might be true.

I’ll demonstrate the problem with this claim by way of example.  Suppose I set about to invent a creature that was solely of my own imagination.   Given the above stipulation, a scientist would then be required to allow that this creature might exist, as he would have no proof that it doesn’t.  Moreover, even if I admitted that this creature was of my own imagination, and told the scientists that, being it’s author, I knew that it didn’t exist, I would still be without proof that it didn’t exist, and therefore under the above stipulation, the scientist would still be required to allow that it might exist.

Obviously if science were to be held to this principle, it would be required to allow for an infinite number of fantastic ideas, meaningful or not, rendering all of science useless as a means of prediction.

This statement also fails in the opposite way, in supposing that anything that is true can be proven true.  Goedel showed that this is not the case, that there exist some true statements that can not be proven true.  Therefore this principle, that scientists must only believe that which is proven, fails both to encompass all of what is true, as well as prohibiting any that are false.

 

Falsifiability

Another approach used by science is attempting to prove the inverse of a given statement.  That is, if we can prove that the inverse of a statement is true, we have effectively proven the original statement false.  For some statements, called universal statements, it is simpler to prove their inverse than to disprove the original.

The atheistic statement, “There is not a God”, is one such universal statement.  It is impossible to prove true, as you would have to observe everything, everywhere, at every time, to verify that God is not there.  However, the inverse of that statement is the theistic statement, “There is a God”, which can very easily be proven true, as you only need to find God once.

Popper described the concept of falsifiability as a means of separating scientific statements from unscientific ones.  Scientific statements are falsifiable, that it is possible for their inverse to be proven true.  Unscientific, or what he labeled metaphysical, statements were not falsifiable, their inverse could not be proven true.

While both theism and atheism held equal weight under the philosophy of logical positivism, they hold very different weight under the philosophy of falsifiability.  Since the atheistic statement can be proven false, it is considered scientific, while the theistic statement, which can not be proven false, is moved to the realm of metaphysics.

Conclusion

Without attempting to show that one position is more correct than the other, it can be shown that one position is more scientific than the other.  Therefore I can reasonably claim that, as a scientist, I am not being hypocritical in rejecting an unscientific statement, while accepting a scientific one.

This entry was posted in Religion, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to The Science of Atheism

  1. B.Hall says:

    This remind me of a conversation we had after dinner not too long ago. I like that Popper statement too – haven’t heard that before.

    • Michael Hall says:

      It should, you were one of the two people I was referring to in the opening paragraph.

  2. Markthetrigeek says:

    Found your site due to your reedfeeder post at planet ubuntu. After looking around a bit I found this post. As a devout practicing Catholic who also holds an EE degree I always find the existence of God talk to be a very fascinating one. Before I begin I’m not here to convert you but rather “take it all in” and maybe, just maybe, present another view.

    IMHO your “Suppose I set about to invent a creature that was solely of my own imagination. ” does not match the God discussion scope. You are but one person vs the near 95% (last numbers I’ve seen from many sources) of the people of this planet that believe in some form of a God.

    “Without attempting to show that one position is more correct than the other, it can be shown that one position is more scientific than the other. Therefore I can reasonably claim that, as a scientist, I am not being hypocritical in rejecting an unscientific statement, while accepting a scientific one.”

    An interesting way to frame this. For me, no one has out right proved that God does not exist which means the possibility exists. In fact the more we look into the genome, planetary issues and other related sciences the more we find connections and relationships. With each connection made from one area to the next the less random things become. For my science/engineer side, this makes sense and matches with my religious side that someone/thing had a plan when all of “this” was created. Michio Kaku’s Parallel Worlds touches on this in greater detail then I could ever do. Great read if I may be so bold to say.

    To end looking forward to trying your new readfeeder and hope I didn’t come across as arrogant. Take care.

  3. Alan Berends says:

    I love the scientists and their scientific method and the only problem I have with all of this is the number of failures they have had. What is it, like over 90% or is it 99% of scientific theories have been proven wrong? So when we speak of scientific truths, which ones are we speaking about? Any of them may be disproved wrong tomorrow.

    An example of a failed theory is the one that scientists claimed that life could spontaneously be created out of thin air. The proof was mold forming on bread amongst other things. But wasn’t it Louis Pasteur that disproved that? From that time on science has understood that life only comes from life. Whoops, there goes another theory!!!! Evolution claims that life did spontaneously erupt out of some primordial ooze or whatever.

    Evolution is not falsifiable and yet it remains a theory. They don’t have missing links from those creatures to modern man, the whole chain is missing. No links. Scientific truth? Scientists that claim evolution make me laugh. And no, I’m not a scientist. Just a retired farmer who loves to debate evolution.

    But that’s not what I am here for, I don’t expect to convert you either. I just can’t understand how anyone can look at the complexity and beauty of creation and not see a creator. I had doubts when I was younger and went through a process where I made it a two-choice decision on the formation of life, either by accident or we were designed by a creator who will be called God. Through my life I have been convinced that there is a God without a doubt. Designed or an accident?

    Darwin got to a point in later life where he couldn’t believe that sight could have evolved. Think about it, we have a system of sight that can calculate distance, auto light control, an automatic cleaning system and we can sleep by shutting off the light by closing our eyes. Accident or designed?

    Here is the clincher, hearing and voice. What good would sounds be that were not in tune with our ears? There is a frequency range we can hear that is so intricate that it has thousands of “hairs” that respond to different frequencies and they are all combined to give us the ability to interpret vibrations into intelligence. The whole system combines with the brain to do this. An accident? Really? And then is it an accident or design that our voice is in the same frequency range? Also controlled by the brain.

    And then get me from reproduction by splitting of cells to our method of reproduction requiring a male and a female. If you want to claim evolution, that’s a mighty big stretch. First off you would need these two freaks of nature, a man and a woman, to be born at roughly the same time, in the same area, with the ability to know how to change to the new method of reproduction. Yeah, you could claim it’s a lower level of a being but the hill is still a pretty tough climb. They don’t have any brains. Those also evolved, right?

    An accident or intelligent design. That name came up long after I had come to my conclusion. Now it would be easy to dismiss my arguments by saying evolution could have been the process but if you really want to investigate whether there is a God, actually give this a chance. There are fallacies in the scientific process which you have already expressed, look at it from this angle.

    Or not. Evolution is not the answer though. It’s been given a free ride, it does not meet the scientific process for a theory. Life had to start somehow but life only comes from life. According to that, life is impossible on earth. There could be no beginning to evolve from. But I guess if this is a scientific sweetheart, you can give them that one? If so, where did the universe come from? Laws of physics state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. How can one have a big bang? What was the catalyst and where did all the materials come from? Accident or design? Looking at the chemicals, not a single hole in the periodic chart. It is all in perfect order.

    Evolution cannot adhere to the existing theories, how can scientists find it acceptable?
    And there is more evidence of life as we know it today than there is evidence of change. Petrified wood, looks like wood grain pretty much like it does today. Mosquitoes, cockroaches, sharks (actually saw a fossil of one in South Dakota badlands) and many others. Easily recognizable after all those millions of years. And not a single link to humans that can be scientifically proven to exist. That chart to modern man is so messed up and yet they still keep it as proof that evolution occurred.

    I always wondered if the remains of this century were entombed in such a manner that we became fossils, how would the scientists solve the differences in the remains of someone like Andre the Giant or some 7 foot basketball player with some of the dwarfs and midgets? Or we have miniature horses and Clydesdales. Wow, there is some digression there!!!!!!

    Put aside your scientific principles and let your mind figure this one out. Designed or a freak accident of nature that keeps progressing to a higher state rather than deteriorating as science dictates.

    If designed, then by who or what? Do you ever worry that another universe might start in your back yard? If a big bang happened once, why not many times? I hope this doesn’t make it hard for you to sleep. Just kidding, the worry is not there because you know it’s not going to happen. There would have to be complete absence of matter, power and everything else. Complete nothingness for a universe to form.

    Sounds rather unscientific, don’t it.

    Alan

  4. Alan Berends says:

    Designed or accident of nature: Change from caterpillar to butterfly?

    Happiness is a wonderful thing.

    Have a nice day Michael,

    Alan

    • Michael Hall says:

      Lots of animals undergo physical changes during their lives, most of them with a far less spectacular result than a butterfly. A mosquito’s transition from swimming larvae into a flying blood-sucker is the same process.

      • Alan Berends says:

        Just trying to challenge that scientist within you. Viewing the metamorphosis from egg all the way to butterfly, would you conclude that this follows the accidental (evolution) path better than the designed (intelligent design) path?

        From adult butterfly through reproduction and back to an adult butterfly, so many changes take place that it begs the question of how this could possibly be an evolved life form. They make a change from an egg to a caterpillar to an almost complete change to the form of a butterfly in a very short period of time. A product of chance? Born with the knowledge that they must surround themselves in a cocoon and have a built in silk producing mechanism to construct it. Anywhere from 900 to 3000 feet of silk which they secrete and build with.

        Knowledge from birth. Also a process to completely change but still retain some knowledge of what they learned as a caterpillar while becoming a beautiful butterfly. Not only beautiful but with very intricate patterns which are symmetrical on both wings, mirror images. That screams DESIGN!

        I don’t know if you want to continue this, but I was intrigued that you brought this up along with the “right or happy” question. There is only one right answer to this question. You have to ignore tons of evidence to conclude there isn’t intelligent design in the whole world. To be happy and right, just look at the world and ask yourself whether it looks more like an accident or like it was designed. Give it a chance.

        Alan

        • Michael Hall says:

          There is nothing accidental about evolution, that’s a misconception.

          Every creature goes through a number of physical changes during the course of their lifecycle. Some spectacular like the butterfly, others not. All of them fit just fine with the theory of evolution.

          Symmetry no more screams “design” than lack of symmetry would be evidence of a lack of design.

          • Alan Berends says:

            Evolution not an accident? According to Merriam Webster.com, an accident can be:
            a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
            b : lack of intention or necessity : chance

            Now, the creation of the universe fits that description as well as evolution, nobody knows what will be changing. It certainly isn’t planned. Evolution neither has intent nor necessity. Some changes are for the worst and the species can perish from it.

            Any life of any kind fits evolutionary “theory”. It is, therefore it evolved. Everything is the way it is because it evolved. If it isn’t evolving, it has reached a state where it doesn’t need further evolution. So how is this a falsifiable theory? Give me the most rigorous test you can think of that proved man evolved from a lesser or greater being.

            Symmetry doesn’t “scream” design? If you come by a beach and there is a very intricate and symmetrical design in the sand, do you wonder whether the waves created it or do you assume someone has designed and created it?

            Creatures with sight have how many eyes? How many ears? And those with ears, do their vocal chords emit sounds that they are able to hear? Think about it, these are designed features.

            Sight, we have eyes that autofocus, light controlling devices like the iris prevent the eye from being damaged and allow a much clearer image from very dark to very bright scenes. Eyelids have multifunctions as they help clean the eye by blinking when combined with the tear ducts that wash the eye and give it moisture to keep it healthy, and they cut off the light during rest and sleep. And the actual processing of the light from the retina to the brain. The greatest scientists in the world cannot match this freak of nature.

            Think of the task, first you need a place for the eyeballs in the skull which are two orbs with a set distance which allows us to make instantaneous calculations of distance and speed of objects, eyelashes and eyebrows to help protect the eyes, and an ability to change frequency to images. And the prehistoric creature had no way of knowing that light frequencies existed. So it had to create this set of eyes with all the plumbing for blood (which the eye would die without) and nerves to detect eye movement, light reception and dust and moisture to keep the eye healthy. All this without having any purpose for developing those eyes. Amazing feat of an accidental nature or a designed feature for all sighted creatures. And there isn’t just one design for eyes, some creatures have incredibly different construction. The fly would be an example.

            Designed or an accident of evolution? I’ll just touch on hearing and voice being in the same frequency range as an example of design. Wouldn’t it be useless if our voices made sounds that our ears couldn’t hear? Wonder which came first, hearing or voice? If they both arrived together, that would certainly scream “design”. Have you found any creatures that have voice without any ears or maybe some fossils like that?

            And think of the bat which uses “noise” for navigation!!! That certainly seems like design, how long did it take humans to develop sonar? Too bad the scientists can’t adapt that technology like the bats do to compensate for bad eyesight!!!

            Thanks for sticking with the discussion Mike. I’m starting to believe you really do want to be right and not just happy in your thinking.

            Have a nice day,

            Alan

          • Michael Hall says:

            I meant that evolution, while not directed to a certain outcome, doesn’t happen randomly or chaotically. But the whole debate over evolution happened centuries ago, I’m not going to try and prove to you a theory that has proven itself so many times since then. The topic of this post wasn’t about evolution, it was about a scientific approach to atheism.

  5. Alan Berends says:

    Perfect order out of the biggest explosion ever? Life beginning in the most sterile environment ever? All of this with no catalyst? No matter? No energy? Do you believe in magic? If you say God couldn’t have done it, give me a scientifically sound explanation of how life could start. Knowing that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, explain how all this could come into being in that big bang.

    Back about the same time that Darwin came out with his theory of evolution, Pasteur came out with his discovery that life could not spontaneously produce itself out of nothingness. Life only comes from life. It’s still a law of biology. Until science can come up with an answer to that dilemma, I wouldn’t put too much faith in the “there isn’t a God” claim.

    It has been used as a “scientific” alternative to a creationist theory. Would you consider evolution as a good yardstick to show how the scientific theory has been applied and tested?

    Scientific approach? But scientific theories have a failure rate so high it’s ridiculous. Over 90% failure. At one time “scientists” believed the world was flat, life could self-generate out of thin air, and even that chart to upright man has been completely discredited. Heliocentric theory of the universe? Why would anyone trust scientific theory?

    Try Al’s “Designed or an accident of nature” theory and use your own common sense. So far, it has yet to be proven wrong. 100% correct. Of course I will admit a very limited use of it, you will be the second one. A problem in this country is the death of common sense. Look at it and if it looks designed, it probably is. We all have seen accidents and know what they look like. Hearing and sight could not be an accident. They are designed.

    Explain a process that would lead to them being evolved. An appendage to convert something to hearing/sight without knowing the inputs, the desired results or what such results would be used for? A purpose so to speak. An incredibly complex system which would have to be repeatable in subsequent generations? An accident? Be happy or right, don’t hide behind scientific principles to ignore the possibilities. Think it out. You can do this.

    Alan

    • Michael Hall says:

      Again, I have no interest in debating science that has been settled for decades. Your questions have been answered many times by people who are far better at explaining it than me.

      The wonderful thing about science is that, even if it has been proven wrong 90% of the time, it was always proven wrong by more science. Flat earth beliefs were proven wrong by Eratosthenes two centuries before Christ, using math not faith. Galileo showed that the Heliocentric model of the solar system was correct using evidence, despite the violent protestations of the faithful of his time. Spontaneous generation was proven wrong by Pasteur using science, not religion. The Static Universe theory held by Einstein was disproved by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, who in 1927 used science to show that the universe was in fact expanding from a single point (thus starting Big Bang theory).

      In the end, it doesn’t matter what you and I want to believe, or what makes us feel better, or what makes “common sense” to us. What matters are the predictions these explanations make, and how accurate those predictions turn out to be. From just a practical position, science has allowed us to make more accurate and useful predictions about how things works and how things respond than faith or religion ever have.

      • Alan Berends says:

        I guess you don’t want to be reminded about the “right or happy” about this time, but you seem to be saying that your mind is made up on the subject and don’t confuse me with facts.

        Biological scientists have stated that life can only come from life as you mentioned above with your reference to Pasteur. So it would be impossible for life to be on this planet or anywhere else. That’s the scientific fact that you don’t want to discuss. So if life is impossible without previous life, there should be nothing to evolve.

        The Big Bang theory dictates an incredible amount of energy creating the most intense heat and explosion ever. Sterile beyond imagination. From absolute nothingness. No catalyst and no matter or energy. Another impossibility. Science says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. And all great explosions destroy structures and rip them into irregular particles with a massive “hole” where the explosion occurred. Complete destruction not the formation of an ordered universe where perfection is more the rule than not.

        Impossible life in an impossible universe. And yet we have a scientific theory which says it could and did happen. With the most absurd conclusion being the least scientific of “it is” therefore it must have happened that way. Or, some would claim that they “don’t know” and start after the life was created. How scientific.

        If you truly look at the evidence, along with those rules of science, life had to be placed on this planet. Something or someone created the planet, the big bang might have been the method but it had to have a creative force behind it.

        Complete order of the chemical elements speaks of a designer. Life speaks of a designer. Sight, hearing and speech, and even our bodies shout “designed”. Two party reproduction evolving from “splitting” cells, IMPOSSIBLE. Caterpillar to butterfly transformation by evolution? Ridiculous at best. Without a cocoon, the transformation would end as lunch for some predator. After billions and billions of years, is anything really possible? Is that enough time for the scientific laws to be sidestepped?

        Could life ever spontaneously generate itself?

        Could matter be created out of nothingness with no external enery and no catalyst? Out of a big bang, would you expect creation or destruction? I think you would rather be happy than admit to the answers of these questions. How was life created? Start there remembering that law of Biology that states that life only comes from life. Or just be happy.

  6. Michael Hall says:

    I guess you don’t want to be reminded about the “right or happy” about this time, but you seem to be saying that your mind is made up on the subject and don’t confuse me with facts.

    By all means, keep reminding me about my “right or happy” post. I’m not an atheist because it makes me happy, I’m an atheist because that’s where all the evidence leads me.

    Biological scientists have stated that life can only come from life as you mentioned above with your reference to Pasteur. So it would be impossible for life to be on this planet or anywhere else.

    That’s not at all what scientists say, nor what Pasteur proved. What we know is that the life we can observe today is not being spontaneously created, which was a common belief prior to Pasteur’s experiments. That does not make it impossible for life to be spontaneously created, now or in the past.

    The Big Bang theory dictates an incredible amount of energy creating the most intense heat and explosion ever. Sterile beyond imagination. From absolute nothingness. No catalyst and no matter or energy. Another impossibility.

    Again that’s not quite accurate. The Big Bang theory says that all the matter and energy in the universe was at one point compressed into a single point in space. It doesn’t make any claims about how it got there, or what was before it. There are hypotheses about those questions, but no testable theory yet.

    Or, some would claim that they “don’t know” and start after the life was created. How scientific.

    That is exactly what science should do. Start with what you know, and work from there. Build a model that makes a prediction about something you don’t know yet, then check if that prediction is accurate or not. Don’t introduce guesses or speculation when you don’t need them. Parsimony.

    Complete order of the chemical elements speaks of a designer. Life speaks of a designer. Sight, hearing and speech, and even our bodies shout “designed”.

    You keep saying that, yet introducing the idea of a “designer” into any theory of physics, chemistry or biology does not produce more useful or accurate predictions than the same theory with it. If adding the existence of a “designer” to a theory doesn’t change the predictions it makes, then that “designer” isn’t involved in the processes the theory is explaining.

    Science doesn’t have all the answers. We don’t know what things were like before the Big Bang. We don’t know how the first life came to be. But saying “God did it” doesn’t give us any more usable information than we have without it. Saying “God made the matter and energy for the Big Bang” doesn’t give us any better understanding of how the universe works. Saying “God created the first life” doesn’t give us any better understanding of how organisms evolve. The danger is that when we say “God did it”, we stop looking for useful answers to those questions.

  7. Alan Berends says:

    MH said:
    That’s not at all what scientists say, nor what Pasteur proved. What we know is that the life we can observe today is not being spontaneously created, which was a common belief prior to Pasteur’s experiments. That does not make it impossible for life to be spontaneously created, now or in the past.

    All the evidence, along with that law of Biology, indicates that life only comes from life. You’re stuck with that until it is disproven. If you put no faith in that scientific principle, how can you then claim that any other theory is valid? Pasteur proved that life does not spontaneously create itself. Which makes it impossible for there to be life on this planet by that method, scientifically speaking. Claiming exceptions which cannot be proven is like saying God didn’t do it. Equally unprovable. My point is that there is evidence of a creator more than there is evidence of some freak accident that created life on a sterile planet.

    MH said:
    Again that’s not quite accurate. The Big Bang theory says that all the matter and energy in the universe was at one point compressed into a single point in space. It doesn’t make any claims about how it got there, or what was before it. There are hypotheses about those questions, but no testable theory yet.

    Compressed? Oh, that word alone speaks of some force being involved, some creating influence. Someone or something that is so powerful that all energy and matter are made virtually non-existant, a single point without dimensions. What kind of a force could be applied to first harness and then release all that energy and matter? Again, God created the universe from that single point holds as much scientific value as the Big Bang Theory. NONE! But we are here and so is the universe.

    My post:
    Complete order of the chemical elements speaks of a designer. Life speaks of a designer. Sight, hearing and speech, and even our bodies shout “designed”.

    MH:
    You keep saying that, yet introducing the idea of a “designer” into any theory of physics, chemistry or biology does not produce more useful or accurate predictions than the same theory with it. If adding the existence of a “designer” to a theory doesn’t change the predictions it makes, then that “designer” isn’t involved in the processes the theory is explaining.
    Science doesn’t have all the answers. We don’t know what things were like before the Big Bang. We don’t know how the first life came to be. But saying “God did it” doesn’t give us any more usable information than we have without it. Saying “God made the matter and energy for the Big Bang” doesn’t give us any better understanding of how the universe works. Saying “God created the first life” doesn’t give us any better understanding of how organisms evolve. The danger is that when we say “God did it”, we stop looking for useful answers to those questions.

    I’m not trying to overthrow science, whether God did it or not, science can be used to show how things work. They will still work the same even with a creator who designed them. My point is to test with our own knowledge whether God created everything or everything created itself. Even non-living chemicals follow an ordered existence.

    MH:
    If adding the existence of a “designer” to a theory doesn’t change the predictions it makes, then that “designer” isn’t involved in the processes the theory is explaining.

    I disagree with this statement. Just like any machine made by man can have it’s design explained and it’s capabilities defined without the creator being given any credit or even mention, the machine would not exist without the creator. But we still know that somebody designed and made that machine, it didn’t spontaneously create itself. If we had an incredible explosion on earth, we wouldn’t imagine that some fantastic machine had been created, in fact it would be more likely that some had been destroyed.

    Science doesn’t need to know the creator to explain how things work but some clues are evident that there is a creator if we care to look. There are many wonders in science and nature but if one looks at the contradictions in Evolutionary Theory to the laws of Biology and Physics, it leaves an opening for a possibility. Designed or an accident of nature? Look only at the aspect of speech and hearing being on the same frequencies and the parts of the body necessary to accomplish this feat, is it possible without a designer? Our ears cannot hear the complete spectrum of frequencies no more than our eyes can see all of them. But our voice box creates sounds which can be heard by our ears. Does that seem more like a design or an accident? There are frequencies ranging from nearly zero to infinity, what are the chances that both voice and hearing would be in such a narrow range? Two ears? Capable of detecting direction of sound? Why not only one, three or even 16? Yet all creatures have two. Same as eyes. Designed or an accident?

    I’ve enjoyed talking to you Michael but the rest is up to you. If you give this a chance I think you might find a few surprises. Of course I started with a belief in God and wanted to test that belief. To be honest, I think I wanted to come to this conclusion but really felt I gave it a good test.

    All hearing creatures have voice as well? Hearing and sight must have then been developed while in a very low state and before all species evolved? Or did each develop independently and just happened on this likeness? What mechanism would exist that makes these wondrous inventions?

  8. dale says:

    The question is does what you believe effect how you interpret the world around you.
    If everything was not designed, science would be impossible because you would not be able to observe any order or pattern.
    If you have no absolutes you will go mad.
    The benefit of knowing God is that you can ask him how he did it.

    • Michael Hall says:

      No doubt belief in God will affect your world view. I will also concede that being able to blame/credit God for things you can’t explain would make life easier.

      But that still doesn’t make it true.

      • Alan Berends says:

        Science has been proven wrong more than the Bible so if science says it, that doesn’t mean it is true either. In fact, there is a greater than 90% chance they are wrong. But if one believes in science, I am sure that will make them happier but less than 10% chance that they are right.

        I asked a Doctor of Audiology whether he believed that the ear could have been evolved. His answer was NO! He said hearing comes from over 12,000 “hair nerves” with each responding to it’s own frequency with another 50,000 nerves which respond to give the brain loudness response. Here is a site that will give you information on the workings of an ear:
        http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih3/hearing/guide/info-hearing.htm

        Designed or evolved? Michael, if you can look at the ear and still think it wasn’t designed then I give up. Your belief in science will not be shaken. Remember, this ear was developed with no knowledge of sound waves in the evolutionary process. Look at the incredible amount of complexity for frequency and loudness differentiation which is necessary for knowledge information. Without knowledge of loudness or frequency.

        How is that possible? Designed or an accident of nature?

  9. Michael Hall says:

    Science has been proven wrong more than the Bible

    Yes, but like I already mentioned, Science has only ever been proven wrong by more science.

    But if one believes in science, I am sure that will make them happier but less than 10% chance that they are right.

    And yet there is still a 100% chance of that person being closer to what is right.

    I asked a Doctor of Audiology whether he believed that the ear could have been evolved. His answer was NO! He said hearing comes from over 12,000 “hair nerves” with each responding to it’s own frequency with another 50,000 nerves which respond to give the brain loudness response

    Let me ask you, if there was half as many hairs and nerves, would you then accept that it came from evolution? How about 1/4? 1/10? 1/100? What if there was only one hair and only one nerve? At what point does it become unbelievable for you?

    • Alan Berends says:

      MH:
      And yet there is still a 100% chance of that person being closer to what is right.

      Michael, there is right and wrong. Closer to right? :)

      MH:
      Let me ask you, if there was half as many hairs and nerves, would you then accept that it came from evolution? How about 1/4? 1/10? 1/100? What if there was only one hair and only one nerve? At what point does it become unbelievable for you?

      Michael, the most unbelievable part is the ability to create something to detect that which cannot be known without some means of detection. It is a Catch 22, it is impossible. And all of the sensors are the same way, sight, smell and touch as well as hearing. The ability of all of the above to automatically adjust to the environment without the ability to know the environment would be changing.

      Ears hear only a certain narrow band of frequencies. Coincidentally, our voice is in that same band? Now if it was only human that were that way, maybe we could accept that as a chance happening. But other species have the same thing but in different ranges. Bats and dophins have a different system of hearing that they can use for navigation. They emit sounds that “echo” off their surroundings which can serve as a means of navigation and finding prey.

      Aquatic, airborne, underground and land animals are all blessed with these same senses. So if you want to claim evolution, then the most basic ancestor had these senses before adjusting to their present environment. Which would seem to dictate that all of these have the same basic receptors for all of these senses. Or that they all evolved these senses independent of each other.

      A “like” ancestor would be ruled out though if the method of hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch were different amongst them. Take the eyes of a fly and compare it to ours, do they suggest a common ancestor? Do all sighted creatures have a common “sighted” ancestor? It seems rather incredulous that all this different species could have evolved these common senses separately so we must be sharing sighted ancestors with flies, fish and butterflies.

      But I am open to suggestions of evolution. Can you explain how such a creature could develop sight or hearing and speech without knowledge of light and sound frequencies? It would be like asking a doctor to develop a cure for a disease that they don’t know exists. Or asking an engineer to design a machine for a process that hasn’t been determined yet.

      How complex of a life form would be too much for you to believe it could have evolved from single celled organisms? Is there any law of science that would deny that possibility? Why yes, that would be the Second Law of Thermodynamics which basically states that the natural order of things is to decay, not improve. When left alone, the complex molecules will decay back to simpler compounds and eventually to the simplest.

      How is the theory of evolution allowed when it breaks so many of these rules? This is a basic law of chemistry. The basic law of Biology is that life only comes from life, no spontaneous life creation has ever been observed. And the basic law of Physics is that matter can never be created nor destroyed but only changed in form. And yet the laws of all of these sciences must be wrong or the theory of evolution is.

      For you to be right, you have to at least KNOW something is true. Which of the four choices above is not true, chemistry, physics and Biology or evolution?

      Designed or an accident of nature? Looking at the ear which is incredibly complex and ordered and close to perfect for our needs, could this have evolved? A certain portion of the brain would have to be created to process the information, a conduit from the ear to the brain developed and the complex structures would have to be created. With protection from outside elements like the hairs in our ears, the ear drum which allows sound transmission but blocks all insects, dirt and liquids. For proper operation, we need compression relief on the back side so the eustachian tubes was developed into the sinus cavities for that purpose.

      How much incredible design can you see and still think it is an unplanned structure? All this from a lesser being than the simplest creature we know of today. And this is but one of five senses created with no knowledge of the inputs. And maybe a sixth sense? I felt the pain when my brother was killed in a car accident 60 miles away. How? I have had dreams of the future that came true. Exact sequence of events. How? Yeah, I know you aren’t going to believe that one and I don’t blame you. But think of the people who have had near death experiences that found themselves floating through walls and could tell the conversations of people which would be normally impossible to recite. People who are dying and see “dead” relatives just before they die?

      I don’t know how these are possible without some higher power. Can I know something that hasn’t happened yet? My brother and I had a final conversation a week before he died. And you won’t believe that one either so I won’t bother you with the details. I can’t explain them but I don’t think I have these powers. I was given some gifts.

  10. Michael Hall says:

    Michael, the most unbelievable part is the ability to create something to detect that which cannot be known without some means of detection.

    Just so we’re clear then, your argument isn’t about the complexity of the ear, but the very existence of nerves attached to vibrating membranes and follicles

    Bats and dophins have a different system of hearing that they can use for navigation. They emit sounds that “echo” off their surroundings which can serve as a means of navigation and finding prey.

    Interestingly, a number of blind humans are also capable of using echolocation to gain an awareness of their surroundings.

    Aquatic, airborne, underground and land animals are all blessed with these same senses. So if you want to claim evolution, then the most basic ancestor had these senses before adjusting to their present environment.

    Yes, that is the claim of the theory, and also what we find in the available evidence.

    Do all sighted creatures have a common “sighted” ancestor?

    I believe that is the case, yes.

    Can you explain how such a creature could develop sight or hearing and speech without knowledge of light and sound frequencies?

    You have nerves other than in your eyes that respond to light, and nerves other than in your ears that respond to vibrations. It’s not so much that eyes and ears evolved from sense-less tissue, but rather that existing sensitive tissue because more specialized at detecting variations in light and vibrations.

    How complex of a life form would be too much for you to believe it could have evolved from single celled organisms?

    Without some restriction on the type of change possible in the smallest degree, then I would believe any level of complexity could evolve given enough time.

    Why yes, that would be the Second Law of Thermodynamics which basically states that the natural order of things is to decay, not improve. When left alone, the complex molecules will decay back to simpler compounds and eventually to the simplest.

    When left alone, yes. However, molecules on earth are very much not left alone. If the earth was indeed a closed system, like that law requires, then no life would be possible. So either you have to deny the validity of thermodynamics, or you have to accept that the earth isn’t a closed system.

    The basic law of Biology is that life only comes from life, no spontaneous life creation has ever been observed. And the basic law of Physics is that matter can never be created nor destroyed but only changed in form. And yet the laws of all of these sciences must be wrong or the theory of evolution is.

    Not at all, evolution never says that life came from no life (that is a separate set of hypotheses known as abio-genesis, but Evolution doesn’t depend on any specific one of those to be correct). And it certainly doesn’t make any claims at all about the creation or destruction of matter.

    For you to be right, you have to at least KNOW something is true. Which of the four choices above is not true, chemistry, physics and Biology or evolution?

    Well 3 of those 4 are areas of study, not specific claims that can be true or false. Evolution we know is true, because it can be observed and tested. Nobody actually denies that evolution happens when it’s creating small variations over small time scales. But some people don’t want to believe that the accumulation of small variations will, over large time scales, add up to large variations.

    But think of the people who have had near death experiences that found themselves floating through walls and could tell the conversations of people which would be normally impossible to recite.

    There have actually been scientific studies of this phenomenon. What they found was that what people described seeing or hearing in these “out of body” experiences wasn’t what was actually there to see or hear. Nothing more than a vivid dream.

    • Alan Berends says:

      Michael, the most unbelievable part is the ability to create something to detect that which cannot be known without some means of detection.

      Just so we’re clear then, your argument isn’t about the complexity of the ear, but the very existence of nerves attached to vibrating membranes and follicles

      No, it is about both. But the impossibility of creating sensors for an unknown. Odor, light, and sound would not be detectable so that incredibly simple pre-historic creature was “searching” for something to detect or developing a purposeless body part and just lucked out with it. The strange part is that if this were the case, we would see creatures with body parts without function. But we don’t, all we see are incredibly complex, purpose-filled parts which are incredibly well placed and well suited for specific tasks. And for hearing and sight, TWO receptors each perfectly placed for full function. Evolution would seem to dictate ONE.

      My question: Can you explain how such a creature could develop sight or hearing and speech without knowledge of light and sound frequencies?

      MH:

      You have nerves other than in your eyes that respond to light, and nerves other than in your ears that respond to vibrations. It’s not so much that eyes and ears evolved from sense-less tissue, but rather that existing sensitive tissue because more specialized at detecting variations in light and vibrations.

      So that simple, ancient being decided it could make better sensors? Or it’s brain equated a better method? Now you’re talking intelligent evolution.

  11. Michael Hall says:

    But the impossibility of creating sensors for an unknown. Odor, light, and sound would not be detectable so that incredibly simple pre-historic creature was “searching” for something to detect or developing a purposeless body part and just lucked out with it.

    You and I, right now, have nerves other than in our ears that respond to vibrations, and nerves other than in our eyes that respond to light. There is no need for the creation of whole new body parts, when there was already existing ones that did the job. Our eyes and ears, which you seem to find so awe inspiring, are only different from these other nerves in the sense that they are better as detecting variations in wavelengths, and our brains attach special meanings to them.

    The strange part is that if this were the case, we would see creatures with body parts without function.

    You mean like our tail bones, appendix, or any of the other vestigial organs found in both humans and other species? Yes, evolution would predict exactly that. Intelligent design wouldn’t.

    But we don’t, all we see are incredibly complex, purpose-filled parts which are incredibly well placed and well suited for specific tasks.

    Except for all the parts that aren’t.

    My question: Can you explain how such a creature could develop sight or hearing and speech without knowledge of light and sound frequencies?

    Easy, they already had the ability to detect light and sound, and those abilities got better over time. Heck, plants will move themselves to face the sun, yet they have nothing at all that resembles a human eye. There is even evidence showing that plants are able to detect and respond to sound, without anything that resembles a human ear. So I ask you, if every (or nearly every) living organism on the planet is capable of detecting sound and light, why do you find it unbelievable that some of those organisms would be better at it than others?

    So that simple, ancient being decided it could make better sensors?

    Here again you’re injecting God where he isn’t needed. You don’t need an intelligence to promote what is good, all you need is a process by which the beneficial genes are more likely to be passed on to offspring than the detrimental ones.

  12. Alan Berends says:

    But the impossibility of creating sensors for an unknown. Odor, light, and sound would not be detectable so that incredibly simple pre-historic creature was “searching” for something to detect or developing a purposeless body part and just lucked out with it.

    You and I, right now, have nerves other than in our ears that respond to vibrations, and nerves other than in our eyes that respond to light. There is no need for the creation of whole new body parts, when there was already existing ones that did the job. Our eyes and ears, which you seem to find so awe inspiring, are only different from these other nerves in the sense that they are better as detecting variations in wavelengths, and our brains attach special meanings to them.

    The feeling of touch which can detect very loud noises and heat from the sun? To equate them with sight is a bit of a stretch. Those nerves have a purpose as well and are not replaced by sight or hearing. Our eyes and ears would be more likely evolved if there were only one eye and one ear, having two which work in tandem to do more than either can do alone. That wreaks of design. Placement is also a design-like trait giving them that special “extra ability”. The other senses are unable to detect frequency so that would not allow for the accidental use of a complete unknown. Not only in sight, hearing and smell, but in touch as well. More design than accident.

    My post
    The strange part is that if this were the case, we would see creatures with body parts without function.

    You mean like our tail bones, appendix, or any of the other vestigial organs found in both humans and other species? Yes, evolution would predict exactly that. Intelligent design wouldn’t.

    Ah that pesky appendix, until recently scientists could not find a use for it and claimed it to be useless. Wrong again, as usual. Now some Duke U. Doctors/scientists have determined that the appendix is the source of all the “good” bacteria in the body, especially the digestive tract where the bacteria is used to digest our dinner. It seems that some diseases could destroy all that bacteria and if someone were isolated, that lack of bacteria would be fatal. If it weren’t for the appendix.

    And the tailbone? A misnomer because it actually does have a function not related to a tail. Anyone borne with a “tail” will actually have no bones in it but will be all flesh. There are several muscles that attach to the tailbone, including the gluteus maximus, the levator ani, the sphincter ani externis and the coccygeus. These muscles all play important roles in standing, bowel control and pelvic floor support. So it is far from being useless.

    My question: Can you explain how such a creature could develop sight or hearing and speech without knowledge of light and sound frequencies?

    Easy, they already had the ability to detect light and sound, and those abilities got better over time. Heck, plants will move themselves to face the sun, yet they have nothing at all that resembles a human eye. There is even evidence showing that plants are able to detect and respond to sound, without anything that resembles a human ear. So I ask you, if every (or nearly every) living organism on the planet is capable of detecting sound and light, why do you find it unbelievable that some of those organisms would be better at it than others?

    Ah sunflowers. Do they detect light or heat? Not much science has gone into plant life but I am sure we would be amazed at all that plants can react to. Ever notice trees that will stretch their branches toward the sunlight, sometimes at great distances. It would seem that all living things are equipped with the tools needed for survival. If eyes and ears were such an advantage, why don’t we see plants with them? In all the millions of varieties, wouldn’t you think one would have them?
    And since they don’t know it might not help them, it’s just as likely that they would have developed them as we have. Why not? Potatoes have eyes, don’t they? :)

    Designed or an accident of nature. Having all “good” parts without bad ones hanging around. You would think there would be a 50-50 chance of success for every evolutionary change and yet we see nothing that is unneeded. Design. Incredible track record of success for chance development of incredibly intricate systems for the body like site. Design.

    Interaction of speech and hearing. Design. Face it, give it a chance, just think about what I have said without any bias. Design or accident?

    I hope my italics come out. Have a nice week Michael,

    Alan

  13. Michael Hall says:

    The feeling of touch which can detect very loud noises and heat from the sun? To equate them with sight is a bit of a stretch.

    You might think so, but scientifically and biologically it’s not so much of a stretch.

    Anyone borne with a “tail” will actually have no bones in it but will be all flesh.

    Also not true, many have hard cartilage and some have even had multiple vertebrae.

    Ah sunflowers. Do they detect light or heat?

    There isn’t a difference. Whatever you call it, it’s still energy transfer from photons that is being detected.

    If eyes and ears were such an advantage, why don’t we see plants with them?

    Eyes and ears serve two primary beneficial purposes, to find food, and to avoid becoming food. When you’re stuck by your roots in one place for your entire life, being able to see either food or prey at a distance isn’t going to increase your chances of procreation.

    Interaction of speech and hearing. Design. Face it, give it a chance, just think about what I have said without any bias. Design or accident?

    You keep saying “accident” like it’s the only alternative to design. Call is “natural progress”, and I will agree with that. There is a very specific process involved (indeed, specific enough that we can make rather accurate predictions based on it) which are very much not accidental. Accidents are not predictable, Evolution is.

    But let’s turn the tables a bit, we’ve been discussing science almost exclusively, as if the failure of science would somehow be a victory for religion. Instead let’s discuss religion, and the predictions it makes. If, as you claim, there is a God, then what useful predictions does that allow us to make?

    If God created all things living now and in the past, what kind of fossils should we expect to find? Should we expect all fossils to belong to a currently living species? Should we expect all currently living species to be present in the fossil record? Please explain the reasons why this would be expected if God exists.

    If God created all matter and energy in the universe, how would we expect it to behave? Would we expect the universe to be expanding, contracting, or neither? Should we expect the amount of order in the universe to be increasing, decreasing, or neither? Should we expect the amount of matter and energy in the universe to be increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same? Again, please explain why we should expect this if God exists.

    • Alan Berends says:

      The feeling of touch which can detect very loud noises and heat from the sun? To equate them with sight is a bit of a stretch.

      You might think so, but scientifically and biologically it’s not so much of a stretch.

      So plants can see as well? Well if that is science, that explains a lot.

      Also not true, many have hard cartilage and some have even had multiple vertebrae.

      Most have only flesh, it’s rare to find some with vertabrae. If you are claiming evolution, you must be claiming we evolved from monkees and not apes? I don’t know of too many evolutionists who want to claim that. Apes don’t have tails.

      If eyes and ears were such an advantage, why don’t we see plants with them?

      Eyes and ears serve two primary beneficial purposes, to find food, and to avoid becoming food. When you’re stuck by your roots in one place for your entire life, being able to see either food or prey at a distance isn’t going to increase your chances of procreation.

      So this living plant only evolves that which gives them an advantage? Would trees with eyes have a disadvantage that would cause them to become extinct? If not, we should see plants with eyes. Without the “unneeded” enhancements, it would seem as though there is a “plan” for the improvements by evolution. You’re starting to sound like you believe in intelligent design. Lack of evidence of unneeded changes would seem to indicate some type of intelligent decision for those modifications.

      Interaction of speech and hearing. Design. Face it, give it a chance, just think about what I have said without any bias. Design or accident?

      You keep saying “accident” like it’s the only alternative to design. Call is “natural progress”, and I will agree with that. There is a very specific process involved (indeed, specific enough that we can make rather accurate predictions based on it) which are very much not accidental. Accidents are not predictable, Evolution is.

      Accident in the terms of
      a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
      b : lack of intention or necessity

      I don’t have a problem with evolution, we see it on the farm as weeds become resistant to herbicide. Diseases become resistant to antibiotics. I do have a problem with “speciation”. The fossil record is clear in that it shows evidence of modern day plants and animals pretty much in their present form. These are ignored by evolutionists as already having reached their peak with little need for further change. Without supposition, it better shows that there just isn’t any evolution going on there.

      But let’s turn the tables a bit, we’ve been discussing science almost exclusively, as if the failure of science would somehow be a victory for religion. Instead let’s discuss religion, and the predictions it makes. If, as you claim, there is a God, then what useful predictions does that allow us to make?

      Well God kind of left us on our own to interpret his handiwork. But we are not as smart or powerful as God and will always fall short when trying to figure it out. I don’t know all the answers and scientists don’t either. And failures by science won’t have an effect on God’s word one way or the other. It is unchanging. And again, we probably don’t understand that as well as we could either. Nobody has all the answers.

      But if we believe and repent of our sins, God will forgive. Nobody lives forever. Treating people as we would like to be treated will make the world a better place. If we forgive others, we will live a happier life. One of my better revelations in that any anger we hold against others will only eat on us. They probably don’t know of our anger and might not care if they did. Forgiving them releases us from all that damage.

      If God created all matter and energy in the universe, how would we expect it to behave? Would we expect the universe to be expanding, contracting, or neither? Should we expect the amount of order in the universe to be increasing, decreasing, or neither? Should we expect the amount of matter and energy in the universe to be increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same? Again, please explain why we should expect this if God exists.

      The universe would behave in an orderly fashion. If one wishes to see this order, it is all around us. Designed or an accident? All plants and animals have what they need to survive. And they all have characteristics of design that is virtually impossible by accidental evolution. Not just one or two but many per species.

      And the telling part is that they do not have unneeded changes as a rule. With a 50-50 chance of a change being good, unless that change is very detrimental, we would not expect it to cause the extinction of that species. So there should be some “improvements” that are of no earthly good. Not as a 1 in a thousand possibility but as a 50-50 possibility. Half of all living things should have some unneeded changes. But we don’t see that, we see more like perfect order.

      I came across an interesting website at
      http://thelastmonte.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/x-things-plants-cant-possibly-do-but-do-anyway/

      which pretty much explains what would seem to be impossible for plants to do but do anyway, just like the name implies. Don’t really care for the foul language but they make some very good points. My favorite was the Marcgravia tree which used some of it’s leaves to attract the bats which were needed to pollinate it. It seems some leaves that are directly above the fruit which were hanging vertically and formed in a convex pattern that would be the “loudest” objects for the bats even if they were off to the side. Incredibly good reflectors for the bat’s echo which is even more amazing when you consider plants cannot hear. Another designed characteristic.

      So what would God have left for us, evidence of a designer. Creations like plants and animals that need each other for survival. A fruit tree that needs a wasp to pollinate it in exchange for it’s nectar. Some wasps that are too lazy and try to eat for free without pollinating from another tree have their offspring aborted by the tree dropping the fruit that contains them. They have a way of knowing that cannot be explained.

      Interdependence is a designed factor. And we see a lot of that in nature. One cannot live without the other. EVER. They had to be created at the same time. The answers are out there if you only care to look.

      • Alan Berends says:

        We haven’t discussed reproduction with two opposite sex partners needed for that to happen. Whenever the change occurred from cell-splitting, think of the impossibility of the creation of the two party reproduction system at it’s infancy. Pardon the pun. The two had two evolve in the same lifetime, within close proximity to each other, with body parts designed to do the job with all the eggs and sperm already in place. Not having sexual desire, unless that had evolved at the same time, they wouldn’t know what to do with all the above and would have died childless. Or if the child was born, they had to know how to care for it. Arguably, some type of feeding system (milk) would also be necessary. Design or evolved?

        My apologies for my attempts at formatting text, hopefully I finally have it right. My knowledge of HTML is somewhat lacking.

  14. Alan Berends says:

    And the telling part is that they do not have unneeded changes as a rule. With a 50-50 chance of a change being good, unless that change is very detrimental, we would not expect it to cause the extinction of that species. So there should be some “improvements” that are of no earthly good. Not as a 1 in a thousand possibility but as a 50-50 possibility. Half of all living things should have some unneeded changes. But we don’t see that, we see more like perfect order.

    Is this what we call a “home run”? Is this the part that has you thinking? Or are you under the belief that any changes that don’t benefit an organism will be sloughed off? We should see all different kinds of failures to improve and yet we see none. Definitely a sign of a designer.

    Or is this a sign that you would rather be happy than be corrected? I’m hoping that this got you thinking but somehow doubt that. More likely you are so busy that you don’t have time for this. Have a nice weekend Michael,

    Alan

  15. Alan Berends says:

    Evolution? Wouldn’t that result in something like Johnny Cash’s “Psycho Billy Cadillac” where the headlights were 2 on the left and one on the right? But instead we see the finest machines ever made. From pure 50-50 chance, every animal, plant and being is equipped for survival without a single mistake. Survival of the most improved might sound good, but it would not account for a 100% success rate.

    Why don’t we see any one-eyed or one eared creatures? If one creature developed eyes first, couldn’t have been too much of a predator or it would have wiped out the food supply. And then we have the birds, did they get eyes before they could fly? And the land animals, how fast could they run without eyes?

    I’m guessing they all developed mouths immediately after being evolved to higher level requiring other creatures for survival. But wait, they would need a digestive tract at the same time that could break down the “food” to a useable level. And they would need the correct bacteria to be present to actually digest the food. Not to mention getting them into the correct part of the body.

    And all the joints in the body that are not bone on bone but have lubricated surfaces that allow movement without incredible pain.

    You know Michael, being an atheist requires a stronger faith than I ever realized. Speciation has been allowed to hide under the “evolution” banner far too long. This Pseudo-science is actually the perfect example of all sciences. It is the epitomy of all scientific discoveries and should be used as the standard by which all theories should be evaluated.

    The strenuous testing that it has endured, the never ending quest for truth the likes that science has never seen and it’s ability to come out completely untarnished and completely without failure is a perfect example of the scientific method.

    No wait, what test has it ever been subjected to? What evidence could ever be found that could disprove it. How is it falsifiable? Any creature that does not evolve is thought to be at it’s perfect state. In spite of no evidence that we evolved from any lesser creature, scientists claim that it is true. Based on nothing but FAITH.

    There is more evidence of intelligent design than there is of some evolutionary chain of ancestry. All fossil evidence shows man pretty much like we are today with no links to lesser creatures. Although “scientists” have come up with illustrations of what some of our “ancestors” looked like, it was pretty much artistic impressions of a single bone or maybe a few bones. And they are allowed to stand because nobody can disprove them. The chart to upright man is the perfect example. Almost completely wrong, it is still maintained in the schools to this day.

    I suppose calling them lies might sound harsh but Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect that if a man tells something that he doesn’t know for certain is true, he is lying even if it turns out to be true. I guess he would hold scientists in fairly low esteem based on that statement. Or not, I guess I don’t know so claiming that would be a lie. LOL

    And for the record, it has never been proven that we evolved from any lessor being. It has been accepted by the scientific community but we know of their incredibly high failure rate on their theories, it’s a way of life. In search of truth, anything will do in the meantime.

    Am I down on scientists? Not really. They have accomplished and discovered much. Evolutionary science has accomplished little to show the beginnings of mankind. How could a being progress from reproduction by cell-splitting to a two part sexual reproduction system? It’s impossible. No wait, according to evolution, it is, therefore it evolved. Yeah, those “scientists” I have little respect for.

    Does evolution occur, absolutely. Does that mean speciation happens as well? No, no more than a caterpillar turning into a butterfly does. It’s sure lucky that the caterpillar was equipped with the means necessary to spin it’s own cocoon, or that would have been the end of them.

    Designed or an accident of nature. You can do what you want with it but there really is a God. He has left the answer everywhere for you to see. Get over the thought that we are the greatest, we didn’t create ourselves.

    Give me the best test you know of that proves evolution.

    • Michael Hall says:

      Why don’t we see any one-eyed or one eared creatures?

      Why would you expect to see that?

      But wait, they would need a digestive tract at the same time that could break down the “food” to a useable level. And they would need the correct bacteria to be present to actually digest the food.

      Why would they need that?

      You know Michael, being an atheist requires a stronger faith than I ever realized.

      Not faith, just stronger verification.

      What evidence could ever be found that could disprove it.

      Any failure of the models of genetic inheritance would put the veracity of evolution into question.

      Any creature that does not evolve is thought to be at it’s perfect state.

      All species evolve, all the time. It doesn’t stop. There is no such thing as a “perfect state”.

      There is more evidence of intelligent design than there is of some evolutionary chain of ancestry.

      Then please share it with me. I asked you previously to explain what specific predictions your beliefs make about life and the universe, and more importantly *why* it would make those predictions.

      And for the record, it has never been proven that we evolved from any lessor being.

      And what would constitute “proof” in you opinion? What specific prediction does the theory of evolution make about humans that, if proven true, would convince you that evolution is true?

      How could a being progress from reproduction by cell-splitting to a two part sexual reproduction system? It’s impossible.

      What makes you think it is impossible?

      Does evolution occur, absolutely. Does that mean speciation happens as well? No

      There is no difference between the one that you accept, and the one that you deny, except in the extent of the changes. So I’m forced to ask you, at what point do the accumulated changes reach a level you believe is impossible to reach, and what scientific reason do you have for believing that.

      Give me the best test you know of that proves evolution.

      My highschool ran an experiment similar to this:
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm

  16. Alan Berends says:

    Why don’t we see any one-eyed or one eared creatures?

    Why would you expect to see that?

    Mathematical probability Michael. Of all the creatures with eyes, the odds are staggering against all having 2 eyes, all on the head and having joint powers between them. Now you could argue that eyes were developed before all these branched off. Even the birds, bugs and reptiles with both eyes virtually identical to each other.

    But wait, they would need a digestive tract at the same time that could break down the “food” to a useable level. And they would need the correct bacteria to be present to actually digest the food.

    Why would they need that?

    Without that bacteria, we couldn’t digest anything. We have friendly bacteria that are most useful and necessary for survival.

    What evidence could ever be found that could disprove it.

    Any failure of the models of genetic inheritance would put the veracity of evolution into question.

    So the model to upright man being a total failure does that? So far, no “links” have been found that absolutely trace our ancestry back to a lesser creature. According to the evidence found, it appears that man was put on this earth in pretty much our present state.

    There is more evidence of intelligent design than there is of some evolutionary chain of ancestry.

    Then please share it with me. I asked you previously to explain what specific predictions your beliefs make about life and the universe, and more importantly *why* it would make those predictions.

    God created the universe for a specific purpose. No, I don’t know even close to what that all involves. We live on a planet with a perfect mixture of air that is safe to breath. enough oxygen to allow life but not so much that everything burns up. Evidence of creation is all around and can be seen if we only look. A table of chemical elements that goes without gaps which follow a set of scientific laws.

    Your science is still trying to figure it out today, and it is so complex but the scientists continue because they KNOW that there will be an ordered manner in all they find. Not some accident or result of a large explosion but a completely ordered existence for the universe and all that it contains. Laws of Biology that state what they have discovered over time like LIFE ONLY COMES FROM LIFE. And then there are the laws of Physics which predict how things work. Not perfect but getting closer. The Laws of Thermodynamics which states that left in a closed system, and the universe is a closed system, everything deteriorates. And we have the fossils that show that as well, beings that used to live here but are now extinct.

    And what predictions would be made? There won’t be any new universes created ever again. We are going to die. All the animals around us are going to die. All the discoveries of science won’t save us. And the world as we know it will come to an end.
    If we treat others as we want to be treated, we will all be happier.
    If we forgive others, we will be happier. Think about it, when we are angry with someone, that person most likely doesn’t know and would either not care or might even get a kick out of our anguish. Forgive and release your anger. God gave us these “laws” for our benefit so that we might have life and have it abundantly.

    There are a lot of “shall nots” that we might not always like but it’s like when our parents did that to us, it was for our own good. And when our parents had to punish us, I always thought it was ridiculous that they said it would hurt them as much as it did me. After having children, I know what they meant. It really hurts to punish. But necessary. Do you have kids Michael?

    And what would constitute “proof” in you opinion? What specific prediction does the theory of evolution make about humans that, if proven true, would convince you that evolution is true?

    How about life being created from nothing. Or make it a little easier, from a completely sterile sample with no outside help.

    How could a being progress from reproduction by cell-splitting to a two part sexual reproduction system? It’s impossible.

    What makes you think it is impossible?

    A creature has one method of reproduction that has worked for millions of years. What is the mechanism of change? Why? And even if it did happen to create the two opposite sexes, why would they suddenly have an urge to couple those parts together, how would they suddenly handle a baby by a new delivery method which is incredibly painful, and how would they care for it? Can you imagine the headaches back then? LOL How about a mothering instinct? Where would that come from, with cell-splitting, all just go on their merry way. And the NUMBER 1` REASON why it is impossible is PROXIMITY. The male and female would have to be close together. Can you imagine the problems they would have had with those that hadn’t evolved yet?

    Does evolution occur, absolutely. Does that mean speciation happens as well? No

    So I’m forced to ask you, at what point do the accumulated changes reach a level you believe is impossible to reach, and what scientific reason do you have for believing that.

    Fair enough. The change from sterile chemicals to living beings. Or how about changes that defy reason. Voice and hearing in the same range, why isn’t our voice in the same frequency band as our eyes? 50-50 chance at best, 1 in a million of all the other frequencies out there. Ridiculous you might think? Why? Is evolution purpose driven. In the quest for voice and hearing, how do these end up in sync and why don’t the eyes need help in the same manner?

    Mathematical probabilities would be my reasoning. The chances that all beings would get this right is astronomical. The chance that even one would get it right is just as staggering. Coupled with breathing, a voice box and in tune with the ears? With a brain that can process all of the above to first create the sound and then to convert it to useful information.

    Your example of evolution is only valid if you presuppose that evolution is the driving force behind those changes. That is the failure of science. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy in that you show that these are the results of evolution and not just change like we see even in humans today. Of all the people on earth, how many are identical to you Michael? Are they all evolving to a higher state or just to a changed state?

    When the theory first started they thought that single celled prehistoric being was incredibly simple. We know today that this isn’t true. Incredibly complex with DNA that not only determines characteristics but have powers far beyond that. That study started with a conclusion so why would anyone be surprised by the outcome?

    Question for the day Michael, if a woman is born with all her eggs, does that mean they came from her mother or did she produce them while in the womb? And yes, women are born with all their eggs. One of the two is responsible, which one?

    The answer to all these questions come from that childhood riddle, which came first the chicken or the egg? There is only one correct answer. Any farmer can tell you the answer.

  17. Alan Berends says:

    I need to take a course on HTML, sorry. Have a nice day Michael.

  18. Michael Hall says:

    Mathematical probability Michael. Of all the creatures with eyes, the odds are staggering against all having 2 eyes, all on the head and having joint powers between them.

    Now I happen to like math, so I’m not going to let you get away with simply claiming this is true. Tell me what, exactly, the odds are and what variables play a part in determining those odds.

    Without that bacteria, we couldn’t digest anything. We have friendly bacteria that are most useful and necessary for survival.

    Just because we have something doesn’t mean it’s necessary for all life. So again, why do you think this particular thing is necessary for all life?

    So the model to upright man being a total failure does that?

    That’s not a part of the model of genetic inheritance, so no, it wouldn’t.

    So far, no “links” have been found that absolutely trace our ancestry back to a lesser creature.

    Then what do you consider all those hominini skeleton fossils to be?

    We live on a planet with a perfect mixture of air that is safe to breath. enough oxygen to allow life but not so much that everything burns up. Evidence of creation is all around and can be seen if we only look.

    You’re confusing cause and effect. Unless your idea of “perfect design” involves billions of unsuitable planets being created for every one that can support human life.

    There won’t be any new universes created ever again.

    Why does your belief predict this? And would your believe be proven wrong if we ever discovered that a new universe was, in fact, created?

    How about life being created from nothing. Or make it a little easier, from a completely sterile sample with no outside help.

    Evolution doesn’t many any claims about how life began, so even evolutionary biologists wouldn’t consider that proof of evolution. I asked for a prediction that evolutionary theory makes that you would consider proof.

    A creature has one method of reproduction that has worked for millions of years. What is the mechanism of change? Why?

    Sexual reproduction allowed for more rapid evolution. Not all births from sexual reproduction happen like it does in humans and other mammals. Plants also use sexual reproduction, did you know that? Did you know that there are a number of species of animals that are capable of asexual reproduction? Does these facts change your view of the impossibility of it?

    Voice and hearing in the same range, why isn’t our voice in the same frequency band as our eyes?

    How could they be? One is a compression wave in the air, the other is electromagnetic radiation.

    Mathematical probabilities would be my reasoning. The chances that all beings would get this right is astronomical.

    Again, I’m not going to let you get away with claiming mathematical prove without showing your work. Tell me the exact chances and what variables you considered in that calculation.

    Your example of evolution is only valid if you presuppose that evolution is the driving force behind those changes

    That’s how science works, you take a theory (evolution), you see what predictions it would make (more flies born with spots on their wings), and then you see if that prediction is right. Not it’s entirely possible that the experiment confirmed the theory, but was in fact caused by some other, unknown mechanism. But until somebody comes up with a theory for that mechanism, and can then find a prediction it makes that is different from the prediction evolution makes, and then tests for that difference in outcomes, or until somebody runs this experiment and doesn’t get the results predicted by evolution, then the theory still stands.

    Question for the day Michael, if a woman is born with all her eggs, does that mean they came from her mother or did she produce them while in the womb? And yes, women are born with all their eggs. One of the two is responsible, which one?

    I would imagine that they developed along with the rest of the woman’s internal organs, in the womb.

  19. Alan Berends says:

    Now I happen to like math, so I’m not going to let you get away with simply claiming this is true. Tell me what, exactly, the odds are and what variables play a part in determining those odds.

    The first ones odds of acquiring would then drop all the way down to 1 in a million or billion depending on the total number of living things. Let’s just pretend there is a million of them.
    We can take it from many different angles and come up with many different probabilities. If we consider just the possibility of them having an eye, I suppose it would be as simple as taking the number of all living things and divide that into those with two eyes, we could come up with a probability for today. But you and I are discussing all of these before they had sight. If we don’t consider a common ancester with sight, then we would be stuck with some staggering odds. Since none of their “family” has ever had eyes, the chances of gaining one eye would be very high. But using a basic thought of evolution, since they have eyes they acquired that at some point. The first ones odds of acquiring would then drop all the way down to 1 in a million or billion depending on the total number of living things. Let’s just pretend there is a million of them.

    So the odds of them gaining sight would be 1 in a million. Now that might have been one, two or even a hundred eyes. Maybe more. Let’s put an artificial limit of 10 on that because we don’t know and can only guess. The odds that another could acquire sight would be that same 1 in a million. The odds that it would have the same number of eyes would be determined by whatever we set that artificial limit at, 1 out of 10 in this case. Giving them a 1 in 10 million chance of being born with the same number of eyes.

    If we start off with two beings having no sight, the odds that both could evolve sight and the same number of eyes would be even higher. That would go up to 1 in 10 billion. Since you’re good in math, you can figure that out.

    Another thing we can look at is the location of the eyes. The chance that both would have just one eye in the same location as the other would be high. How many places are there for eyes to be. I would think there would be an advantage for one in the back of the head, maybe one in the top, and a few internal ones to keep check on things. And a bunch of spots I wouldn’t want to have one. Luckily, we see all the eyes are in a very advantageous location so it almost seemed like they were positioned for optimum utility. A given distance apart that is ideal for computing distance, speed and more. Might have been tougher if one had ended up behind a knee. Kind of seems to have some element of design, doesn’t it? Since just one being having the same location of having the same location and sensor type (could just as easily been an ear, nose or mouth there), we end up with the odds of about 1 in a billion. And that’s just two beings!!!! You can do the math for the other beings but you can easily see that it would have been much more likely that different locations would be the rule and not the exception.

    When you take into account that high school study you gave, these eyes should be wandering all over and have their sizes changing and even some of their functions coming and going. And yet over all this time, they have remained the same. Even the size of our eyes does not grow with the rest of the body, we retain our eye size from birth. Why don’t we see evolution happening in our systems of sight? None have gained that third eye, not even blind. What are the odds of that NOT happening?

    Without that bacteria, we couldn’t digest anything. We have friendly bacteria that are most useful and necessary for survival.

    Just because we have something doesn’t mean it’s necessary for all life. So again, why do you think this particular thing is necessary for all life?

    I guess I didn’t mean that ALL life needed ALL the things we need, if you got that from something I wrote, I apologize. I just meant all humans need that bacteria for life. Remember when I said that scientists had found that use for the appendix, to reboot our stomach bacteria, that is a designed function as well. A knowledge of a need for that bacteria. Other animals also have that same need for “friendly” bacteria. A cow, which has a vastly different digestive tract and system, also must have bacteria to digest it’s food. Four stomachs, regurgitating their food to re-chew it into tiny pieces and combine it with saliva (producing 5 – 15 gals a day) and sending it on to it’s other stomachs, but they still need the bacteria to finish the job. We, and them, would die without these friendly bacteria. From the very start of humans to now, what are the chances of that? I’m sure google would tell how many animals need this as well. If it were most of them, would that make you think? To me it’s amazing that even humans need this bacteria for life. Who knows, maybe all mammals do?

    So far, no “links” have been found that absolutely trace our ancestry back to a lesser creature.

    Then what do you consider all those hominini skeleton fossils to be?

    Parts!!! Of something. 125 bits and pieces make up one of the “skeletons” of the NEW oldest find. Mixed with 110 other fragments of 36 other individuals. WOW, amazing. 125 from one and and average of about 3 fragments for each of the other 36. You talk about luck. Or is it bull pucky? When we consider that discoveries like this are necessary for “scientists” to make a living, one must consider motives as well.

    You do realize that the chart to upright man was developed with less skeletal parts than could fill a small box. That most are artistic impressions of the scientists involved. There aren’t enough body parts to determine even type of skin. And yet these scientists are describing them and the habitat in great detail. And the teeth have not developed yet to the type we have because they didn’t have the kind of food for them to make those changes yet. It seems like they are saying that the body is reacting to it’s environment and producing body parts to better survive according to those evaluations. REALLY???? Is that how evolution worked? How did they develop voice and hearing on the same wave lengths then? Hook, line and sinker. Please tell us more of what we want to hear. AND these are scientists.

    There won’t be any new universes created ever again.

    Why does your belief predict this? And would your believe be proven wrong if we ever discovered that a new universe was, in fact, created?

    There isn’t a need for any more universes. Also, a new universe starting would most likely collide with this one and destroy both. Designed or an accident? An accident would be unpredictable with contradictions and chaos throughout. A universe with a purpose would be ordered and predictable. Laws that need to be obeyed and patterns that are always followed. By design. We have such a universe, none others will come and destroy this and itself.

  20. Alan Berends says:

    I think I just figured the Html out again. Bear with me, I have had the flu for over a week.

    Plants also use sexual reproduction, did you know that? Did you know that there are a number of species of animals that are capable of asexual reproduction? Does these facts change your view of the impossibility of it?

    Did you know there are species that are born pregnant? I would say anything could be DESIGNED to do this, but it couldn’t happen by accident. The incredibly intricate and complex nature of the DNA that allows for repeatability is a designed trait. The one thing that made evolution believable in the beginning is that these were thought to be very simple, like maybe a single-celled egg. Not with strings of DNA that not only determined individual traits but actually held commands for processes. So that “first” cell that developed was far, far from being simple, it was more complex than some early computers. And the process of splitting was much more than a simple slice of a knife.

    Voice and hearing in the same range, why isn’t our voice in the same frequency band as our eyes?

    How could they be? One is a compression wave in the air, the other is electromagnetic radiation.

    That’s the point Michael, when the eyes, ears and voice box were developed, there was no knowledge of the types, frequencies or even energies in these freq. bands. And yet, they were correctly combined so that they worked together, ears could hear the voice. And to make it even more spectacular, not even the whole audio range was used!!!!!!! DESIGN. There was no way of knowing this correlation of voice and hearing and the sight not fitting in to the same bands and systems. Think about it, don’t just accept it without analyzing the impossibility of it all.

    Question for the day Michael, if a woman is born with all her eggs, does that mean they came from her mother or did she produce them while in the womb? And yes, women are born with all their eggs. One of the two is responsible, which one?

    I would imagine that they developed along with the rest of the woman’s internal organs, in the womb.

    All of these are alive but some will die. And yes, you are probably correct but her number of chances for children is already set. Many of these will not make it, but whenever she uses the last one, they are gone forever. But there must be a mechanism of care for these “lives” from the birth of the new “mother”, until she becomes pregnant and these “lives” have already produced the next set of eggs for the next generation. I cannot envision this being an accidental process, it is by design. And to complement this process, we males produce our part as we go along. Without the limit of the woman.

    So that first woman that was born from that cell splitting mother of hers, had all of her own eggs and all of her daughter’s eggs already developed at that point. Two generations with but one impregnation to put all of them into the next woman to be born. Each egg carries more than one future generation.

    Kind of hard to comprehend all this and I don’t blame you for not accepting it, but I’m going to let you decide where you want to go from here. I will answer any questions but I won’t push you to accept my way of thinking. Give it one year, forget all your scientific rules, and just look at all things in life and ask yourself the question.

    Loved talking to you Michael, have a nice weekend.

    Alan

  21. Michael Hall says:

    We can take it from many different angles and come up with many different probabilities. If we consider just the possibility of them having an eye, I suppose it would be as simple as taking the number of all living things and divide that into those with two eyes

    No, that would only tell you the chances of any given species alive today having two eyes. It tells you nothing at all about the chances of eyes being developed in the first place.

    The first ones odds of acquiring would then drop all the way down to 1 in a million or billion depending on the total number of living things. Let’s just pretend there is a million of them.

    No. You’re just making up numbers now, they have absolutely no meaning and no bearing on reality. Either find real numbers, or stop trying to use math to support your argument.

    I would say anything could be DESIGNED to do this, but it couldn’t happen by accident.

    It seems we are at an impasse then. You see these things as impossible without a designer because….well just because. I can’t disprove “just because”, and I won’t get caught up trying to refute made-up statistics. Give me a real, concrete reason and we can continue this conversation, otherwise we’re just going to keep going around in circles.

  22. Alan Berends says:

    No. You’re just making up numbers now, they have absolutely no meaning and no bearing on reality. Either find real numbers, or stop trying to use math to support your argument.

    Oh, nice trick. Get me to come up with some type of probability and then shoot that argument down. You’re good at this. And I foolishly went for it. You’re right, mathematical probabilities cannot be predicted for such things as sight, hearing and all our other senses being evolved. Not to mention our circulatory and nervous system and even our sense of smell. It’s like that question I posed to you:

    Voice and hearing in the same range, why isn’t our voice in the same frequency band as our eyes?

    And you said:

    How could they be? One is a compression wave in the air, the other is electromagnetic radiation.

    They both are propagated through the air along with a complete band of frequencies. And I don’t believe light is electromagnetic radiation, but that’s beside the point. One theory involved particles and another postulated a wave type theory and now it might be somewhere in between with characteristics of both.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that I am not trying to over-throw these theories, they are but man’s attempt to describe how things work. What I am trying to get across to you is the sheer impossibility of a prehistoric body to develop a means to use these different types of energy to it’s own advantage. Even you seem to be implying that these prehistoric beings were somehow “trying” to improve and other times that they just happened by some weird twist of fate.

    I am not able to change your mind on even the smallest detail and I fully understand that. I am just trying to give you food for thought. Your answer above illustrates what I am talking about. The eyes cannot do what I proposed because ….. Fine, I and you both know that. Even a small child understands eyes see light and ears hear sound. But that prehistoric being COULD NOT KNOW EITHER. To develop an “accidental” appendage that could “see” light is incredible.

    And over billions of years, nothing is too complex for you. A brain that develops an auto-control for all the functions and another center to process all the information while designing the rest of the system from the optic nerve all the way to the eyelashes, eyebrows and even tear ducts.

    And that is simple compared to the task of getting two systems working in the same band so that voice and hearing are on the same band.

    And developing all of this without knowing the frequency bands which the human body was capable of seeing and hearing. How did it know that the eyes would not be able to hear the voice? How did it know that the eyes and ears would both need blood and nerves or they would be dead and useless. Circulation, nervous system, muscles, skin, hair, skeletal changes all made to receive a signal that the body doesn’t know exists.

    That my friend, is impossible. If some scientist in a lab developed all this for trees in a laboratory, would your first guess be DESIGNED or that he came across it accidentally?

    Is coordinated hearing and sight more likely a designed element or an accidental development?

    I don’t want to hear your answers now, call them food for thought. Can a prehistoric body develop sensory perception of complete unknowns like light, sound, smell and even touch? This isn’t about winning or losing an argument, this is about truly understanding human development. It’s not a closed book issue. Or maybe for you it is. In that case, we are both wasting our time.

    I will give you the answer to that age-old question though Michael. The chicken came first. An egg will die if it does not have the mother to sit on it to give it the warmth necessary for life. One of the true wonders of the world is life. How did that chicken figure out the egg? Without that shell, all we would have is scrambled!!!

    I hope you can sometimes just contemplate all these wonders. Hearing and voice is a great place to start. Argument time is over, if you really want to discuss this, it will be much more informative amongst yourself. Have a good week Michael. May God bless you and your family.

    Alan

  23. Michael Hall says:

    Oh, nice trick. Get me to come up with some type of probability and then shoot that argument down.

    You didn’t come up with any real probability, you invented a number that “seemed right” to you in that it supported your argument.

    They both are propagated through the air along with a complete band of frequencies. And I don’t believe light is electromagnetic radiation, but that’s beside the point. One theory involved particles and another postulated a wave type theory and now it might be somewhere in between with characteristics of both.

    See, it’s this kind of complete misunderstanding of science that makes it hard for you to accept conclusions based on that science, and even harder for me to convince you using that science. Tell me, how am I supposed to prove anything to you using science, when you reject something so basic, so fundamental, so thoroughly proven as this?

    • Alan Berends says:

      What is a photon? Is it a particle? Was Albert Einstein completely wrong? Is light emitted from an LED accomplished through electromagnetic radiation?

      Again, why would the body NOT try to pick up sound with eyes? Why wouldn’t our voice try to transmit on some frequency other than that heard by our ears? You are so scared that some part of science might be compromised that you don’t dare entertain the thought that all of these are evidence of design.

      I can study science and I can learn all the properties of light, sound and the complete spectrum. But the prehistoric being without a brain could not learn them or know them unless it was a built-in function. Just stop and ask yourself how did that prehistoric creature get all of that correct. Was it the Carl Sagan thing with billions and billions of years, anything is possible?

      You have more fear that your faith is misplaced than I do. For you to even entertain the impossibility of development of senses for the unknown with perfect outcomes belies that fact. You don’t dare even contemplate the possibility. Shut off the scientific process and turn on your brain. Really, independent thinking beyond the bounds of both science and religion can yield results for either/both of us. But your insistence on clinging to your laws of science will never allow going beyond those bounds.

      Michael, it seems as though you would rather be happy than correct. Here is our problem for the day.

      We have a being which knows absolutely nothing about the incredible band of frequencies in our world (no, it’s not me LOL), no known method of detection of any of those bands. From that point it develops an incredibly intricate and complicated means of detection of not only sound, but the intensity, distance and direction of that sound. And adding to that is the ability to transmit sound in an unknown frequency band which just coincidentally matches that of our hearing.

      Your job is to list those elements which are more likely evolution, intelligent design or those that could be equally both.

      I won’t argue science with you or religion with you. This is just an exercise of the mind to test out the different possibilities. Evolution (accident) or intelligent design. If you truly want to be right, you owe it to yourself to try it. Set all rules aside and let your mind take over. Or not. If you don’t want to even try, I’m not going to argue with you about it, it’s up to you. Do what makes you happy. ;)

      Have a nice one Michael. I think I am done here. God loves you.

      Alan

  24. Michael Hall says:

    What is a photon? Is it a particle? Was Albert Einstein completely wrong? Is light emitted from an LED accomplished through electromagnetic radiation?

    It is a particle and a wave.

    Again, why would the body NOT try to pick up sound with eyes?

    The same reason cars don’t try to fly with their wheels, they do totally different things in totally different ways.

    You are so scared that some part of science might be compromised

    The most exciting thing that can possible happen in science is finding out that some long-held belief was wrong. Most scientists spend their entire careers trying to find some long-held belief that is wrong. Even now there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists trying to find something wrong with evolution. But just wanting it to be wrong isn’t enough, it has to actually be wrong. If someone actually proved, scientifically, that evolution was wrong, they’d get a Nobel prize and become as famous as Darwin himself.

    Shut off the scientific process and turn on your brain.

    That’s the stupidest suggestion I’ve ever heard. You’re telling me to stop looking at what is really there, and instead pay attention to what I think is there. That’s blind faith. That’s your faith, your life. That’s not the way I live my life.

    Michael, it seems as though you would rather be happy than correct.

    By “clinging” to the laws and method of science, the thing you want me to stop doing, I am forcing myself choose to know what is right, not just what makes me happy. You can’t play it both ways. Either I’m objective, and use something other than my own beliefs to ensure that I am right, or I am subjective and believe what “feels” right and makes me happy. You can’t accuse me of doing both.

  25. Alan Berends says:

    My Question:

    What is a photon? Is it a particle? Was Albert Einstein completely wrong? Is light emitted from an LED accomplished through electromagnetic radiation?

    Your Answer:

    It is a particle and a wave.

    My previous answer:

    One theory involved particles and another postulated a wave type theory and now it might be somewhere in between with characteristics of both.

    Seems awfully close to your answer. I noticed you didn’t answer the question on the light emitted from an LED. Doesn’t fit your description, does it. So I guess it would be better to ignore that. And if you dig deeply into all the light theory, you are going to find things that cannot be adequately explained within the bounds of the current understanding of scientific principles of light. Go for it, there is a lot of world left to explore.

    You said:

    Either I’m objective, and use something other than my own beliefs to ensure that I am right, or I am subjective and believe what “feels” right and makes me happy. You can’t accuse me of doing both.

    Oh you totally underestimate my abilities of accusation. Either you can believe a known loser, science, or you can go out and see what is wrong with their theories on your own instead of blindly believing everything they say. They are wrong over 90% of the time. You wouldn’t have to go far to find something more accurate than that. With an average like that, I would love to see you at the Poker tables.

    You have a 1 in 10 chance of being right. Or less.

    And sound, I could use electromagnetic devices to produce that as well. We call them speakers. So we have sound produced with electromagnetic devices and light that isn’t. And we can have sound generated in resistors through thermal noise. And we can have LED’s producing noise by reverse biasing them, how can that be?

    And then we have sounds picked up with electromagnetic devices, we call them microphones and we have light picked up without the use of electromagnetic devices. So the possibilities are endless. When we design these devices we do so with the knowledge of light and sound as well as the components needed to convert both to some kind of intelligence and back again. We design them. But nobody, with the finest lab equipment in the world, has been able to design anything remotely as well as our systems of light and sound.

    You avoid the accident-designed argument like the plague but given the above information, would you conclude that sight, hearing and voice were an accident or designed?

    Be happy. Being the “rightest” at this time, is still being wrong. Being objective and using someone else’ beliefs to re-enforce your own is only good if you are using someone with a proven track record. Thinking that they are “right” or the most “right” at this point in time is still only a 1 in 10 proposition. Not my definition of a GOOD resource. But it’s the best you have, right? You have therefore it evolved.

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It really matters Michael. Life begins with the mother, it’s a law of Biology. And a father. Without the rooster that egg will be just be breakfast.

    And I ask one more time, if there is a 50-50 chance that a change is evolved, why don’t we see more failures? We only see 100% success at a very high level. Looks designed to me Michael. Where are those failures? They couldn’t all be fatal flaws.

    Unguided evolution without a plan leading to complete successes 100% of the time.

    I wish my Poker game would start evolving.

  26. Michael Hall says:

    . I noticed you didn’t answer the question on the light emitted from an LED. Doesn’t fit your description, does it.

    LED light is both a wave and a particle, just like light from any other source.

    Either you can believe a known loser, science, or you can go out and see what is wrong with their theories on your own instead of blindly believing everything they say.

    That’s like calling Usain Bolt a loser because he keeps breaking his previous records.

    They are wrong over 90% of the time. You wouldn’t have to go far to find something more accurate than that.

    That’s still better than the 100% failure rate of predictions made by any other system.

    And sound, I could use electromagnetic devices to produce that as well.

    You can use electromagnetic devices to produce toast too. That doesn’t mean toast and light have anything in common.

    And we can have sound generated in resistors through thermal noise. And we can have LED’s producing noise by reverse biasing them, how can that be?

    Seriously?

    You avoid the accident-designed argument like the plague

    You keep bringing up this false dichotomy, and I will keep ignoring it. I’ve at least been respectful enough of you that I’m not throwing up strawmen.

    Being objective and using someone else’ beliefs to re-enforce your own is only good if you are using someone with a proven track record.

    See that where science differs from religion. I don’t need to use other people’s beliefs where there are objective tests that I or anybody else can perform. The only “faith” I need is that someone else has done so.

    And I ask one more time, if there is a 50-50 chance that a change is evolved, why don’t we see more failures?

    Down syndrome. Sickle cell enemia. Coeliac disease. Alzheimer’s. Multiple forms of cancer. Hell, I could spend hours typing of a list of genetic disorders and barely scratch the surface. How about dwarfism, blindness, deafness, and all the other inheritable physical disabilities? But I’m sure you have a reason why those are intelligently designed by a benevolent creator.

  27. Alan Berends says:

    Down syndrome. Sickle cell enemia. Coeliac disease. Alzheimer’s. Multiple forms of cancer. Hell, I could spend hours typing of a list of genetic disorders and barely scratch the surface. How about dwarfism, blindness, deafness, and all the other inheritable physical disabilities? But I’m sure you have a reason why those are intelligently designed by a benevolent creator.

    Can’t answer that one. Oh, are these “evolved” traits or are things like cancer caused by man-made inventions. The scientists designing processes and compounds like asbestos, coal-fired generators, atomic generators, diesel engines that pollute, poisons to kill off mosquitoes and other pests which is sprayed for humans to breathe as well, and even a whole lot of drugs and foods that are tainted and causing untold maladies. How many atomic bombs were set off in our western deserts by scientists? Not to mention a couple over in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Those were all designed by scientists. And the pollution of the planet, who is designing all those compounds and processes? Plastic bottles now make up an island in the Pacific the size of Texas. No scientist could guess that was going to happen? Oil wells a-leaking and all the fish a-eating. No, that couldn’t possibly cause any of the above. Processes which are burning off the ozone layer, was that the fault of scientists?

    Nah, they couldn’t be causing any of these problems. Scientists would make sure they are safe before releasing them on an unsuspecting public. My brother worked in a power plant that has seen many of his fellow workers dying from asbestos poisoning, mesothelioma. CANCER. And schools were covered with that same substance. Scientists, no, they thought they were right so they even put it in our cars brakes and clutches. Oops.

    Could just one of these goofs by our scientific elite have caused damage to the human bodies on this earth? Radiation, could that have caused any problems. How about X-rays, C-scans and the like? No possibility of damage there. Oh wait, in the dentist’s office they cover you with a lead sheet and then they hide behind a wall. Same thing in the hospitals and clinics. It’s SAFE but don’t hit that button til I get way the hell out of here.

    And now we get to warfare. Our scientists have really done a job there with poison gas, napalm, mustard gas and the like. Not to mention all those poisons our soldiers ingested from other countries scientific gems of warfare.

    No, I’m sure those scientists knew there would be no lasting effects from any of these. Just hang in there Michael, I’m sure evolution will solve all this. Some kind of pollution buster that will take care of all the garbage scientists have foisted upon us.

    Give me the test that proves scientists aren’t to blame for a single cancer or any other disease. Cigarettes, booze, marijuana, and all those new designer drugs made by those chemists. Typical, try to destroy the body and then blame it on God. These might have become hereditary but that’s not to say the inventions of man aren’t to blame for some/all of them.

    We have herbicides for the farm that will have a single gallon cover hundreds of acres. Some you aren’t allowed to put on sweet corn or other vulnerable crops. I sometimes wonder how much these change our crops. Not to mention scientists modifying crops so that Roundup won’t kill them. We don’t have just corn any more. It’s a man made modification. Soybeans the same. And there are crops which are modified to grow pharmaceuticals which must be isolated completely. And now scientists are thinking of cloning humans. Where could that possibly go wrong.

    And you want to blame it on God?

  28. Michael Hall says:

    Oh, are these “evolved” traits or are things like cancer caused by man-made inventions.

    The ones I listed are all genetic, not environmental conditions. And yes, many cancers are also genetic, not environmental.

    And you want to blame it on God?

    Why would I blame something that doesn’t exist?

    • Alan Berends says:

      Genetics. Alzheimers? My mother died from Alzheimers but none of her siblings nor ancestors had it. I get a kick out of people that claim stuff like this when some research indicates cause is not known for sure and there are measures that can delay the onset of this disease. Some genes could affect your chances of getting it but they are not a definitive factor. People with and without these genes can get alzheimers.

      Nothing in the environment could possibly be the cause, right Michael? 100% certain, not a chance? Food or some of the preservatives in food or even immunizatons? Nothing other than genetics causing all the “inherited” diseases you mention? No need to study any of these for other causes because it’s all genetic? I guess the Mayo Clinic must be wrong because they say these can be a factor.

      Downs syndrome? Doesn’t age of parents have something to do with that as well? By age 35, it’s a 1 in 400 risk. By 45, it’s a 1 in 35. And genetics are only involved in possibly 4% of the cases? I list the Mayo Clinic as my source for that information:

      http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/down-syndrome/DS00182/DSECTION=causes

      I don’t have time to check all of the diseases you claim but the first two seem to be something other than genetics involved. At least according to the Mayo Clinic, and I think I trust them to be more informed than most. Age has long been known as the primary contributor to Down Syndrome. I am truly surprised you didn’t know that.

      And now you make a claim that you cannot prove either:

      “Why would I blame something that doesn’t exist?” (In reference to God)

      Something beyond earthly capabilities started life and the universe. The laws of Biology, physics and science clearly show that. Life only comes from life. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. And yet there is life and there is matter. And it all conforms to laws, it’s predictable. Not like some accident. More like a creation that has a purpose. With seemingly impossible elements like life and the universe, it speaks of something beyond all capabilities found on earth. Intelligent Design.

      Tell me again what tests were done to show that human ancestry goes back to some prehistoric, single-celled being. And what tests can I run at home that will prove this happened. Supposition and blind faith seem to be prevalent in all versions I have heard. Not a single “ancestor” has been proven to date and yet the evolutionists claim what cannot be proven. How are their claims any different than the wildest supposition? Even Darwin, the father of evolutionary thinking, admitted he didn’t think sight could have evolved. Darwin!!!!!!!!!

      Have a nice weekend Michael,

      Alan

  29. Michael Hall says:

    Downs syndrome? Doesn’t age of parents have something to do with that as well? By age 35, it’s a 1 in 400 risk. By 45, it’s a 1 in 35. And genetics are only involved in possibly 4% of the cases?

    That’s 4% of the cases where neither parent has down syndrome. If the mother has DS, there’s a 1 in 2 chance (50%) that her child will also have it.

    And it all conforms to laws, it’s predictable.

    Law and predictions, I would remind you, that were found by science not religion.

    With seemingly impossible elements like life and the universe, it speaks of something beyond all capabilities found on earth. Intelligent Design.

    I tell you what, since this thread is getting rather long and not making much progress. I’ll leave you with this. So far evolution has been incredibly useful for medicine, biology, zoology, botany, and a great many other fields. But if you can give me any alternative theory that provides better predictions (“better” meaning either more precise predictions, or new predictions) then I will happy, happily stop believing in evolution in favor of this new theory.

    • Alan Berends says:

      That’s 4% of the cases where neither parent has down syndrome. If the mother has DS, there’s a 1 in 2 chance (50%) that her child will also have it.

      No Michael, that’s not what the Mayo Clinic said. But I don’t know where you get your figures. Can you give me a reference?

      Law and predictions, I would remind you, that were found by science not religion.

      They found somewhat closely how things act, they are not responsible for the predictability. Incredibly complex universe but incredibly ordered as well. When you use your computer do you think it was designed or accidentally created by some incredible mistake? When you see a completely smashed house, car or the like, does your mind think someone designed them like that or is it the result of an accident?

      So far evolution has been incredibly useful for medicine, biology, zoology, botany, and a great many other fields. But if you can give me any alternative theory that provides better predictions (“better” meaning either more precise predictions, or new predictions) then I will happy, happily stop believing in evolution in favor of this new theory.

      Biology predicts that life only comes from life. That life cannot produce itself. It is impossible for life to be on this earth without some life placing it there. What is that life? Remember, it’s YOUR SCIENCE that makes that prediction, not religion. Evolution cannot be responsible for the life on this planet.

      When does your science predict that the next universe will be formed? This is an exact science, right? When?

      I will give you this, you don’t set the bar very high. With a failure rate over 90%, you don’t have very high standards of precision.

      When will science actually produce an accurate chart to upright man. The one they have used for years is so convoluted it is an absolute joke. Speaking of jokes, here is a report on one of the later finds in the human ancestry????

      http://news.yahoo.com/closest-human-ancestor-may-rewrite-steps-evolution-141606435.html

      Read the whole story and look at the skeleton parts found there. Read the descriptions and give me your predictions on what this means to the links going back through your family tree. Where does this belong in the chart to upright man. Look at the skull, what little there is, and tell me that everyone would come up with these same conclusions without knowing what the first scientists had concluded.

      Now look at the pelvis, what there is of it, and tell me exactly what you would conclude by looking at it. What tests do we run on this to determine it’s age without the surrounding soils. What tests do we run to see how much of this is truly human and what possibility is there that this is complete ape or chimp? Tests that you proclaim tell you everything so you don’t need to believe the BS they are spreading about these bones. What tests do I make so you can convince me that we evolved from this creature.

      Convince me with your tests. Surely you can handle some doubt and win over someone who doesn’t have something to gain by such discoveries. Those scientists that discovered the bones make a living by finding ancestors. That’s how they get funding. They have something to gain. You have something to gain, your faith in evolution is re-enforced. Go ahead, show me that I am wrong.

      Admit that there is no evidence that any of the fossils found to date are ancestors of modern man. Can’t do it, can you. Even though you know it can’t be proved, you won’t admit that it is nothing more than supposition masked as scientific theory. There is no test that will prove these “scientific” claims.

      The brains are about a third the size of humans. For a long time increasing brain size has been the measure of human evolution. Now they say that the brain was progressing and increased in size quite rapidly after this. Amazing how this fits the skeleton, isn’t it? How crazy is this? They make it up as they go along. The story is made to fit the latest discovery so that the goose that lays the golden eggs doesn’t go away. Who’s your sugar daddy there scientific breath?

      What test do they apply? Let’s see, how do we make this skeleton fit into the correct chronological progression of humans. If we do that, then it fits the theory of evolution as we have re-written it. Life is good and science is proven right again. WOW, how do they do that. Scientific method???? You have got to be kidding me. It is not falsifiable, nothing they find will ever disprove the theory.

  30. Michael Hall says:

    I will give you this, you don’t set the bar very high. With a failure rate over 90%, you don’t have very high standards of precision.

    If it is, as you state, so easy to do better, then I will await your new theory.

  31. Alan Berends says:

    I noticed you didn’t answer any of the questions. Can you give your take on this “news” report? What factor found in such a discovery would disprove the theory that we evolved from lesser beings? Please be specific. If there are none, then it isn’t falsifiable.

    We know they have found fossils which are pretty much like modern day creatures but that doesn’t disprove the theory. Petrified wood looks like wood. Mosquitoes look like mosquitoes and cockroaches look like cockroaches. So the question remains, what or how many instances are needed to disprove the theory? Sharks in South Dakota that look like sharks? If we look at these and the complete lack of an evolutionary chain to the single-celled prehistoric creature, it looks like Intelligent Design has more proof than evolution.

    Intelligent Design. The symmetry that we see throughout nature and all the physical sciences conforming to rules, definitely points to a rule maker. And the impossibility of an egg developing into a chicken without a chicken to incubate it speaks of someone or something placing that chicken here in it’s living form as we see today. Chickens can produce new life, but eggs cannot. Life only comes from life. That’s a law of science. Again, this strongly speaks of Intelligent Design. All beings had to be created with the ability to reproduce, they didn’t start out as embryos or eggs or, in the case of plants, they didn’t start out as seeds. Something had to produce the seeds.

    What law of science does Intelligent Design break? It’s not like evolution which needs to set aside numerous laws to come into being. Name me one law that Intelligent Design breaks. There you have it, a theory which complies with the laws of science better than evolution and the beginnings of the universe and life as needed to start.

    Now don’t go asking for tests that evolution isn’t required to withstand. Did you ever mention even one? If so I have forgotten, state those laws that I can run and prove it for myself.

  32. Michael Hall says:

    I noticed you didn’t answer any of the questions.

    I notice you still haven’t offered any alternative theory that makes better predictions.

  33. Alan Berends says:

    You first. Evolution is the only science that tries to predict the past. Searching for our prehistoric ancestors with zero success but boldly going forth as long as they have someone to pay the bills. And that’s only possible if they find some tantalizing tidbits which they can tie into our “ancestry”. Look back at all the fossils found and look at the “predictions” which in many cases are based on just one, two or very few bones. Utterly ridiculous. But to maintain the facade, they must “discover” something!!!

    Again, what tests can I run to test our ancestral lineage? What tests have been run to establish any of our “ancestors”? As far as I know, none of them have ever been established as proven beyond any doubt.

    • Michael Hall says:

      Evolution makes future prediction, about virus and bacteria changes and the impact that has on medicine (as well as the effect medicine has on viruses and bacteria). In this manner, evolution provides a valuable service to humanity. If evolution was totally wrong, a lot of modern medicine simply wouldn’t work.

      So I’ll ask again, do you or do you not have an alternate theory that provide as good or better predictions?

  34. Alan Berends says:

    Evolution makes future prediction, about virus and bacteria changes and the impact that has on medicine (as well as the effect medicine has on viruses and bacteria). In this manner, evolution provides a valuable service to humanity. If evolution was totally wrong, a lot of modern medicine simply wouldn’t work.

    I guess I don’t understand, it seems that we are now getting to the point that the diseases are winning with them becoming resistant to all medications. We are just one super-deviant away from disaster. Now the doctors think it is because too many antibiotics have been used both in the livestock industry and also for use in humans. That would suggest that exposure to these antibiotics causes the resistance or that some were “born” with those changes already in place that would resist those antibiotics. What test is there to separate and determine which it is?

    Building up immunity through exposure would suggest that these “simple” organisms have the ability to react to antibiotics and make changes overcome them. I wonder if that would be akin to humans taking small amounts of poison which will allow them to build a resistance to that poison so they can withstand a dose that might kill others.

    But back to your statement about evolution, what predictions does it make for the future of humanity? Since there is no past to inspect, what will those predictions be based upon? No links whatsoever to prehistoric ancestors, but there are clues that would suggest that we are somehow related to other life forms. Take our cholesterol for instance, the butter bean’s cholesterol is about the closest to ours than any chimp or ape that we know today. Does that mean we are more likely descendants of butter beans than monkees? What predictions can we make from this? There are plants that have more sophisticated DNA than ours, would that suggest that they are a higher life form than us. Is it dolphins that some think may be smarter than humans? What does that suggest? If the world is covered in water, will they be our masters?

    What changes do you predict for humans in the near future? What changes in birds, fish, wildlife and even bugs, insects, and even the simplest of all creatures? If evolution is so prevalent, why do we still have these life forms. Shouldn’t they all be advancing? How can this be? What predictions do you have for these that have failed to evolve to a level commensurate with the billions of years they have been around? Will they become trees, plants, animals or just remain unevolved?

    Why don’t we have giant mosquitoes and gnats? Why haven’t they changed over the centuries? What predictions do you have for them?

    There really aren’t any predictions that can be made in most cases, are there. We don’t know what the future holds so all we can do is react to what happens now? Evolution does not tell us what is coming next, it is but the history of what has happened according to someone’s understanding of the past.

    All other sciences are based on the analysis of how things work NOW. Take gravity, aren’t the laws all written to explain what the properties of gravity are now based on observations of past measurements and someone’s understanding of it? And take that law of Biology that says life only comes from life. Through past observations, it was determined that every life form observed came from a “parent”. Without exception. What prediction does that make? No life form has ever come to life without a parent body which was alive. Not now, not in the future and not in the past. Not ever. Predictions? Life will never start on it’s own since it has never happened before.

    Physics-matter can never be created nor destroyed. Matter is lifeless, with no abilities to create itself or anything else. Therefore there is no matter that created itself. Something or someone had to create it? Prediction, what does science say about this? Possibly we don’t have to worry about some universe exploding in our pocket? What?

    From what I have seen, science is the study of our world which attempts to describe how what has already been created works. To set up rules of behavior that they have observed. I would guess the predictions would only be that they will continue to follow those rules as they have since it was created.

    Prediction- Unless there is a catalyst, there won’t be any big bangs happening now, in the future or in the past. To have such an explosion, there must be a force or energy which causes this to happen.

    Give me a prediction on the next change in any laws of biology, physics, chemistry or whatever. Unless they are wrong and mistaken, they will not change. Right? Light won’t be changing soon, neither will sound. Predictions, not hardly. All these laws explain the workings of science. And especially not evolution, it has no tests to even determine if any fossils found are even in our lineage. Of what use is the theory of evolution if none of our ancestors can be identified by anything other than wild supposition. So far, that is all we have seen after all these years of searching. Wild, unsupported hype. Designed to rake in the money for more wild hyperbole. Crazy people making wild suppositions for personal gain.

  35. Alan Berends says:

    Popper described the concept of falsifiability as a means of separating scientific statements from unscientific ones. Scientific statements are falsifiable, that it is possible for their inverse to be proven true. Unscientific, or what he labeled metaphysical, statements were not falsifiable, their inverse could not be proven true.

    This is your statement on something being falsifiable. I challenged you to describe a finding in the fossil record that, if found, would disprove evolution. Even if they found a fossil of a “modern man” riding a dinosaur it would not be accepted because some “scientist” could claim that man evolved earlier than was expected. Every fossil found which resemble modern beings like trees, sharks, mosquitoes, cockroaches and all kinds of marine life, are all dismissed as that proof. In other words, evolution is not falsifiable using artifacts from the past.

    Does evolution occur? Absolutely. But there is no proof of ancient speciation, the complete change from one being to a human, none. Not even a close link. What seems rather funny is that it is the only science which is protected by law. Until recently, evolution could not be debated in our schools. What are they afraid of, if it’s so “scientific”, can’t it stand a little scrutiny? I guess we both know the answer to that question. NO. But to that end, there is a bill in the Tennessee legislature that will change all that. The Governor has stated they have enough votes that it won’t even require his signature. I’m guessing all the scientific types will start circling the wagons. ;)

    And as far as I know, Intelligent Design is not a religion. But I’m wondering if the ACLU will let that stop them. Aliens, beings from way out in the heavens. Oops, make that outer space.

    Your statement:

    While both theism and atheism held equal weight under the philosophy of logical positivism, they hold very different weight under the philosophy of falsifiability. Since the atheistic statement can be proven false, it is considered scientific, while the theistic statement, which can not be proven false, is moved to the realm of metaphysics.

    Well no, since our Gods are not of this world, that would be impossible to prove. We don’t even know where to look. But you scientific types won’t let us use the same argument, you can claim the higher ground. By definition. But then you choose to ignore the impossibilities that exist in the scientific theories like evolution. And claim those same scientific principles. Nice things to hide behind. Don’t know, can’t ask. There is no science that can explain it yet. Same as with God. No difference. One is accepted the other isn’t. No science, just claim it and it’s SCIENTIFIC.

    Conclusion

    Without attempting to show that one position is more correct than the other, it can be shown that one position is more scientific than the other. Therefore I can reasonably claim that, as a scientist, I am not being hypocritical in rejecting an unscientific statement, while accepting a scientific one.

  36. Michael Hall says:

    I challenged you to describe a finding in the fossil record that, if found, would disprove evolution. Even if they found a fossil of a “modern man” riding a dinosaur it would not be accepted because some “scientist” could claim that man evolved earlier than was expected.

    If they found such a fossil, it would certainly disprove every model of human evolution that exists.

    Does evolution occur? Absolutely. But there is no proof of ancient speciation, the complete change from one being to a human, none.

    You accept the fact that small evolutionary changes occur. So unless you have some mechanism that limits the number of these small changes which can occur, you must accept that speciation will occur and has occurred.

    What seems rather funny is that it is the only science which is protected by law. Until recently, evolution could not be debated in our schools.

    That is blatantly not true. Either you are very misinformed and trusting of people who are lying to you, or you are intentionally lying to me. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    And as far as I know, Intelligent Design is not a religion.

    I don’t know whether or not it constitutes a religion, but it is most certainly not science.

    Well no, since our Gods are not of this world, that would be impossible to prove.

    The only way it would be impossible to prove God’s existence would be if his existence made no noticeable difference to our universe. If you believe that God has interacted with our reality, then by definition it would be possible to prove it.

    But then you choose to ignore the impossibilities that exist in the scientific theories like evolution.

    There is a Nobel prize and millions of dollars in research grants for anybody who can show even one impossibility with evolution.

    Finally, let me point out that you are no longer even being self-consistent:

    Does evolution occur? Absolutely.

    So you accept evolution, and then claim it is impossible.

  37. Alan Berends says:

    If they found such a fossil, it would certainly disprove every model of human evolution that exists.

    Michael, it might wipe out all those models but again, it will not disprove the theory of evolution. They would just come up with a new model. My argument still stands, there is no discovery that would disprove evolution. It is not falsifiable. Scientists have given it a free pass.

    Yours: You accept the fact that small evolutionary changes occur. So unless you have some mechanism that limits the number of these small changes which can occur, you must accept that speciation will occur and has occurred.

    You now switch to my needing some mechanism while ignoring all the evidence that points to the lack of speciation. No evidence that speciation has occurred in the fossil record but plenty of evidence that the opposite is true. So the scientists ignore the evidence with the hopes that some future discovery will give them the “links” they need to support the preposterous claims that are being made?

    The evidence indicates the lack of change and you cannot come up with some discovery that would disprove the theory, it is not falsifiable. And this is science?

    Yours: That is blatantly not true. Either you are very misinformed and trusting of people who are lying to you, or you are intentionally lying to me. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Well, thanks a lot for that! Did you check into the new law in Tennessee that protects teachers that allow discussion of Intelligent Design and weakness in the theory of Evolution? I’ll make it easy for you, here is a link:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/tennessee-back-to-the-future-with-new-anti-evolution-law/2012/04/11/gIQAJb7g9S_blog.html?wprss=rss_national

    And here is an article on the legal ramifications of teaching an alternative to evolution.

    http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

    I try to be honest in all my discussions. I make mistakes but none as bad as the theory of evolution. One of the points raised in the Tennessee law debate is the “chemical” start of life and also evolution. 3 to 1 in favor of the law when they had the vote. I’m sure we will see some law suits.

    Yours: There is a Nobel prize and millions of dollars in research grants for anybody who can show even one impossibility with evolution.

    Beginning of life. Life only comes from life, it’s a law of Biology. Hearing and voice on the same frequency. Development of sight, hearing, taste, smell, etc without the knowledge of all of the above. The Big Bang.

    Where do I go to collect the money?

    You claim scientific theory but cannot show how this is a falsifiable. I’m not going to call you a liar because I think you have faith that this is a scientific principle. I doubt that you have the scientific background to truly analyze the weaknesses in this theory. Nor the will. I think it has a comfort level for those who don’t believe in God as well. And I believe this is the single most driving factor that keeps the theory alive in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. But that is not a fact I can prove, only my belief.

    Have a nice day Michael.

    • Michael Hall says:

      Michael, it might wipe out all those models but again, it will not disprove the theory of evolution.

      The models are the theory. Disprove the models and you disprove the theory. Of course a new theory and new models will take it’s place, because there is still the fact that we see evolution happening today that would need to be explained. But this hypothetical would completely disprove the current theory of human descent.

      No evidence that speciation has occurred in the fossil record but plenty of evidence that the opposite is true.

      Again, blatantly false.

      Did you check into the new law in Tennessee that protects teachers that allow discussion of Intelligent Design and weakness in the theory of Evolution?

      It’s not “debating evolution” that is opposed, it’s debating it with non-science. Intelligent Design is not science.

      Beginning of life. Life only comes from life, it’s a law of Biology.

      No it’s not, and it doesn’t prove or disprove evolution anyway. Moot point.

      You claim scientific theory but cannot show how this is a falsifiable.

      I’ve given multiple ways that evolution can be disproven over the course of these comments. The fact that you ignore these, just as you ignore all other evidence that you don’t like, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

      I think it has a comfort level for those who don’t believe in God as well.

      Right, because the idea that we’re all just chemically driven meat-machines who’s only purpose is to procreate as much as possible before we die is so much more comforting that the idea of a loving God and eternal happiness.

  38. Alan Berends says:

    MH: The models are the theory. Disprove the models and you disprove the theory. Of course a new theory and new models will take it’s place, because there is still the fact that we see evolution happening today that would need to be explained. But this hypothetical would completely disprove the current theory of human descent.

    AB: No evidence that speciation has occurred in the fossil record but plenty of evidence that the opposite is true.

    MH: Again, blatantly false.

    I sense a little anger here. I have given numerous examples of life forms that have remained the same over time. You have yet to give a single, provable, prehistoric ancestor of modern humans. Mosquitoes embedded in amber, cockroaches, trees, sharks, and plenty of aquatic lifeform fossils which are still being excavated in their present form in large numbers yet today. South Dakota has countless examples which are clearly recognizable. Again you claim falsehood without a single example.

    AB: Did you check into the new law in Tennessee that protects teachers that allow discussion of Intelligent Design and weakness in the theory of Evolution?

    MH: It’s not “debating evolution” that is opposed, it’s debating it with non-science. Intelligent Design is not science.

    The fact remains that any teacher that would have dared to teach ID would have had a lawsuit filed against them and probably the school district as well. The URL on the consequences again proved I was not lying. There are laws protecting the theory of evolution which can have severe consequences. The new Tennessee law at least allows the teaching of alternatives to a “scientific theory of evolution which cannot hold water. That science is so obviously wrong, an alternative is needed.

    AB: Beginning of life. Life only comes from life, it’s a law of Biology.

    MH: No it’s not, and it doesn’t prove or disprove evolution anyway. Moot point.

    Michael, why do you keep saying such nonsense. Of course it is. Louis Pasteur proved that at about the same time as Darwin started his theory of evolution. Nobody has ever challenged Pasteur’s findings, Biologists know that life comes only from other life. And yes it does disprove the possibility of evolution causing life on this planet, it’s impossible. Life needs a beginning and evolution cannot provide that beginning. There is no scientific theory that can show how life started on this planet. That is how we know that science has it completely wrong. Life only comes from life.

    AB: You claim scientific theory but cannot show how this is a falsifiable.

    MH: I’ve given multiple ways that evolution can be disproven over the course of these comments. The fact that you ignore these, just as you ignore all other evidence that you don’t like, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    OK Michael, you have the floor. Give me one fossil that will disprove the theory of evolution and will forever remove it from the the science textbooks. I must have missed it because I surely do not remember it. Of course my memory is not what it used to be. Mostly what I remember is that it’s been stated that scientists have accepted the theory for some reason or another, none of which I ever remember being stated. So give me the example that makes human speciation through evolution falsifiable.

  39. Michael Hall says:

    I sense a little anger here.

    I’m getting more than a little tired of having to correct you when you claim something that even the slightest bit of due diligence would show to be false. I don’t enjoy this game.

    You have yet to give a single, provable, prehistoric ancestor of modern humans.

    Because you’ve already made it exceedingly obvious that you will contest the validity of any such fossil. It’s becoming quite clear that all you have are questions, and no answers. Nor, for that matter, do you seem interested in answers, as you have ignored all the ones I’ve given. Again, I don’t enjoy this game.

    The fact remains that any teacher that would have dared to teach ID would have had a lawsuit filed against them and probably the school district as well.

    As well they should, only science should be taught in science class. ID is not science.

    Michael, why do you keep saying such nonsense.

    Because it’s true. Why do you keep ignoring it?

    Give me one fossil that will disprove the theory of evolution and will forever remove it from the the science textbooks

    Show me one homosapian fossil from the Cambrian period, and I’ll personally remove every page from every textbook that claims descent of humans.

  40. Alan Berends says:

    MH: I’m getting more than a little tired of having to correct you when you claim something that even the slightest bit of due diligence would show to be false. I don’t enjoy this game.

    Your standards are not mine and I refuse to be limited by them. Science has a track record of being wrong over 90% of the time. So the contention that God cannot be considered because he can’t be tested falls on deaf ears.

    You keep accusing me of not being thorough enough and even to the point of calling me a liar. I have rebutted all your claims and you just seem to ignore or refuse to discuss them any longer. Your latest involved the claim that teaching ID in school would not have any legal consequence. I responded with the article on the new law in Tennessee which was passed to get around that possibility of legal retribution by the scientific community and ALCU for even discussing ID in school. Not God, just Intelligent Design.

    You have accused me of not using due diligence in making statements like teaching ID in schools and the consequences thereof. But a simple search on Google would have shown you that what I said was indeed correct. Another search on laws regarding this would have given you the background that would show it is true all across the country, not just in Tennessee. But if you think I have misstated something, call me on it. I really don’t mind that but I don’t like being called a liar (or inferences to the same).

    I don’t expect an apology but at least the acknowledgement that what I posted was neither a lie or even close to being wrong would seem to be in order. You seem to be unhappy that you were shown to be wrong. In spite of your claim that you would rather be correct than happy. I am starting to doubt that claim. :) And no, I am not upset with you. I too would rather be right but would enjoy being happy as well.

    AB: You have yet to give a single, provable, prehistoric ancestor of modern humans.

    MH: Because you’ve already made it exceedingly obvious that you will contest the validity of any such fossil. It’s becoming quite clear that all you have are questions, and no answers. Nor, for that matter, do you seem interested in answers, as you have ignored all the ones I’ve given. Again, I don’t enjoy this game.

    I can understand why you don’t enjoy the game. You have no ammunition, all the fossils are just old bones with no way to link them to the present. The thousands of fossils that exist and show lifeforms pretty much the same as they are today must also frustrate you to no end. They are the proof of what I am saying and I have more proof than you do. It’s not a game for me. But I must admit I do enjoy pointing out the many fallacies that have been accepted by the “scientific” community as a valid scientific theory.

    You might have guessed that I have had this discussion before. To date, not a single evolutionist has ever been able to show how that theory is falsifiable. And yes, that is why I keep bringing it up. The very tenets of scientific research have been bypassed completely. There are no tests devised that can be run to establish a connection to any of these prehistoric beings to modern man. The cholesterol of the butter bean is the closest there is to human cholesterol, even closer than our ape friends. I don’t hear anyone calling them beans our ancestors though.

    AB: The fact remains that any teacher that would have dared to teach ID would have had a lawsuit filed against them and probably the school district as well.

    MH: As well they should, only science should be taught in science class. ID is not science.

    I guess this boils down to being right or happy again. We already know that being scientific has little to do with being right but more to do with someone’s best guess at how things work. So sometimes one has to look outside of science and it’s rules to actually be correct. Remember it was the scientists who thought they could turn lead into gold, that the earth was flat, that life could spontaneously be produced, and countless other theories that have been overturned or corrected to be found wrong again at a later date. Serial mistakes that finally get to a point of correctness that is believable again. But most often to no avail, they need to be adjusted. Even the theories of the most famous of all scientists can be wrong.

    So when we look at evolution, how certain are we that the “final” correct answer is in? Life only comes from life, Louis Pasteur proved that and nobody has ever come close to overturning that law. Start there. Even in the most elaborate Lab in the world, nobody can produce life from inert, lifeless elements. By scientific law, life could not have started itself on this planet. That is scientific fact, as we know it today. If you have some research overturning the findings of Pasteur, please produce it. Wishful thinking is part of the “science” necessary for the initial living things to even have existed. In violation of the experiments by Pasteur.

    What part of that don’t you understand? If you cannot have life to start the process, you can’t have evolution. It’s not too scientific to make statements in direct violation of accepted scientific findings and laws. I can’t produce any of our ancestors from the Cambrian period, now can you produce a process where life could have started on this planet? You’re the science advocate. The least I expect from you is the adherence to the tested and accepted scientific theories of our time. Is that asking too much?

    This is why I would rather see the alternatives taught in school. It is obvious to me that evolution cannot be true when the laws of science forbid the possibility. So evolution is less than truth. It had to have happened in a much different way. Life needed a beginning. Evolution could not have been that start.

    Life just starting would have been a miracle. On a completely sterile planet? Miracle number two. And it had to be able to reproduce from the moment of “birth”! Miracle number three. You believe all this and then don’t believe in God? Miracle number 4, this basic being improves itself through faulty DNA to all the life we see around us. Nothing less than the original, all improved by mutation. Write your own story, call that first single-celled being God and let me know how it turns out.

    My intention was not to anger you but to correct you. To give you the tools to look beyond the box you have put yourself in which actually limits your ability to find the truth. Designed or an accident? Designed or accidental mutation to incredible improvements? I’m going to let you decide and nothing more that I could say will change your mind. If I could have just tickled your imagination enough to make you think of the possibilities, I would be happy. But I don’t think that is possible.

    I must be content to be happy because I am wrong way too much. You are obviously quite intelligent from what I have read on the Ubuntu forum and maybe that is where I will spend more of my time, trying to learn from you. I am little more than an irritation to you here and that was not my intent. Have a good weekend Michael,

    Alan

  41. Michael Hall says:

    Science has a track record of being wrong over 90% of the time.

    Still better than any of the alternatives.

    I have rebutted all your claims and you just seem to ignore or refuse to discuss them any longer

    Not true. You have denied all my claims, not refuted them. There is a difference. Moreover, you have yet to offer any better theory than the one you are trying so hard to tear down.

    The thousands of fossils that exist and show lifeforms pretty much the same as they are today must also frustrate you

    Show me what part of evolution this contradicts, and I will immediately stop believing.

    Your latest involved the claim that teaching ID in school would not have any legal consequence.

    I claimed no such thing. Furthermore, you didn’t make this claim either. Here’s what you actually claimed:

    Until recently, evolution could not be debated in our schools.

    That statement, right there, is a lie.

    To date, not a single evolutionist has ever been able to show how that theory is falsifiable.

    Not true, I’ve given you at least two.

    If you cannot have life to start the process, you can’t have evolution

    Also not true. Whether the first life came from abiogenesis, God, aliens or the flying spaghetti monster, none of that matters to evolution, and evolution makes no claims about it. We are only debating evolution, no other theory.

    This is why I would rather see the alternatives taught in school.

    If you have alternative scientific theories, then let’s hear them. ID is not science.

  42. Alan Berends says:

    AB: Science has a track record of being wrong over 90% of the time.

    MH:Still better than any of the alternatives.

    Ah, but Michael, you said you would rather be right than happy. You could only have a case for that if you say that what is believed to be correct by scientists was always the truth. You seem to be basing correctness on the scientific method. With a failure rate that high, your chances of being correct are only 1 in 10, OR LESS. Blindly going forth believing that truth is in every scientific claim would not seem to fit your statement that you’d rather be right.

    AB: The thousands of fossils that exist and show lifeforms pretty much the same as they are today must also frustrate you.

    MH: Show me what part of evolution this contradicts, and I will immediately stop believing.

    Evolution is claiming an ongoing change through evolution to speciation. That changes are so numerous over time that they will eventually change life forms to other life forms. Bad changes cause extinction, good changes lead to more advanced life forms. The scientific method should be taking ALL the fossil evidence into account and let the evidence speak for itself. With the overwhelming weight of the evidence showing NO change, it would seem that the theory of evolution should fail on that alone.

    The incredulous claims made on different fossils being a “possible” missing link are incredibly inflated and cannot withstand any scientific testing for or against such hype if indeed there were such tests. Age testing is the closest thing they have which proves nothing on ancestry. Unable to be tested, how can they be found to be scientific truth? They can’t. There are no formulas to apply, no calculations that can be made and no properties that can be tested that can reliably predict where they fall in any chain of ancestry.

    It is no less a belief than most religions in the world. Just like God, it can’t be tested. The idea that we should just wait and eventually someone will discover the missing link is not very scientific. A loose leaf pamphlet that can have evidence inserted, removed and/or re-arranged at will hardly fits the description of a scientific theory.

    How would you rate this anywhere above an hypothesis? For that to be upgraded to a theory, we expect it to be tested and run many experiments to confirm the data. But any data that I have mentioned isn’t even considered. With only evidence showing no change, that should end the discussion. Give me one piece of fossil evidence that clearly proves we evolved from a lesser being.

    You don’t really care if you are right or not, you care that the scientific theory of evolution is allowed to stand no matter how right or wrong it might be. As long as someone claims it is scientifically correct, you’re happy. Being right has nothing to do with your decision. Even Darwin doubted that sight could have evolved. The father of the theory has doubts that you won’t allow. If Pasteur had made his discovery on life only coming from life a hundred years earlier, do you think Darwin would have even considered the theory of evolution? No chance for life to have even started, how then would he say evolution could occur? NO LIFE!!!! END OF STORY.

    MH: If you have alternative scientific theories, then let’s hear them. ID is not science.

    Science is not truth, science is predictable failure. So maybe not being scientific will increase the odds of being correct. It’s about being right not happy. Science makes you happy. But if ID ended up being correct, that would not make you happy. Being scientific will not give you a means of explaining how the universe was formed nor how life began on this planet. Unless a bunch of laws of science are overturned in the meantime. In other words, for the science to be correct about these beginnings it must first be proven wrong on scientific truths of today. You can’t win for losing.

    They are wrong no matter what they do. End of argument. Decide for yourself, accident or designed. As smart as you seem to be, I would hope you would at least give it a chance. It’s up to you. Have a nice weekend Michael,

    Alan

  43. Alan Berends says:

    MH: The atheistic statement, “There is not a God”, is one such universal statement. It is impossible to prove true, as you would have to observe everything, everywhere, at every time, to verify that God is not there. However, the inverse of that statement is the theistic statement, “There is a God”, which can very easily be proven true, as you only need to find God once.

    Very easily proven true. No easier than the first, you would have to observe everything, everywhere, at the very same time because God isn’t that easy to find. If indeed he is on this earth which he plainly states is not true. He is at a location, heaven, which is unknown to us. You seem to want to limit this to your own little area and claim that anything that does not exist within that known area, just doesn’t exist. So by denying the existence of these “unknown” areas, you limit the possibility that there is a God. Your argument is one-sided and self-serving, most likely by oversight and/or short-sightedness, and tends to deny possibilities on the one side by not allowing the same latitude granted to the other. Impossible to search all places for God to prove he doesn’t exist is allowed but impossible to search all places, including the utter unknown area known as heaven, is not allowed for the other.

    So we are left to our own devices, since life could not start on this planet, it had to be placed here. Life only comes from life. That’s a well accepted law of Biology, there are no exceptions allowed. That’s the scientific way, RIGHT?

    I guess I lied, it wasn’t the end of the argument. Can you forgive me? It’s like I can’t let it go. I know I am right. Much like you THINKING you are RIGHT. Sorry, couldn’t resist. Again, have a nice weekend Michael,

    Alan

    Kind of looking forward to Ubuntu 12.04 being released. I will put that on my basement desktop. I think I tried the Beta or some earlier release but my experience wasn’t too good with that. I think I had problems with my wireless network. This sounds like it should be a lot better. Good Luck.

  44. Michael Hall says:

    I was planning on responding again to each of your points, but I realize now that this conversation has degraded to the point were we’re pretty much just calling each other liars as politely as possible. Instead, out of respect to us both, I’m just going to end this thread here.

    I too am looking forward to Ubuntu 12.04, at least we have no disagreement there.

  45. Alan Berends says:

    Sorry Michael, in my wish to help you, I have offended you. I have been too aggressive and the message has been lost because of it. It’s kind of funny that two intelligent people can look at the same evidence and conclude vastly different answers. Do me one favor, look up fly’s eyes and then compare them to other such insects. Even the jumping spider which has multiple sets of eyes.

    The fly’s eyes are the most precisely arranged “design” that has been found. Look at the wonders around you. I guess we have gone beyond any possibility that you would look at my question of “designed or an accident of nature” so your idea of stopping the discussion is probably good.

    Good luck on the release of 12.04 and I wish you nothing but the best. Someday I hope

    Alan

  46. Alan Berends says:

    Next time you go for a drive in the country, look at a few farmer fields and you will notice they are quite different than a field that has gone to weeds or trees. Looking at the “natural” planting of trees without the aid of the farmer, you have what might be called a mess, wild grasses here and there, thistles scattered all over, milkweed and cockleburr here and there and everywhere. No rhyme nor reason to anything.

    But look at the corn fields, bean fields, and even the wheat fields, what you get is evidence of a creator. Someone who took special care to line the crops in rows to get the most out of the fields. A design in the field is the evidence. There is no other way to make that look. Now some farmers don’t get them as straight as others but the pattern is still visible and is obviously not by “accident” like the fields that have gone to weeds.

    Designs in nature are the evidence of a creator. Exquisite perfection in the eyes of the fly, the patterns in the wings of butterflies which are completely different than when it lived as a caterpillar, the spots on a lady bug, the symmetry which is found throughout nature in everything from plants, birds, aquatic life and down to the lowliest of beings.

    Creation of abilities without any sensors to indicate the presence of the stimuli for development. Sight, hearing, taste, touch and even smell, all developed without the knowledge of light frequencies, sound frequencies, smells, flavors, and even heat, contact and internal damage. Nerves that regulate all of the above with an automation that any engineer, or all of them combined, would be proud to claim just a little credit for. The simple act of rubbing one’s eye could be catastrophic without the coordination of all of these senses and muscles.

    Are there more senses? Sixth sense? Can we sense things about to happen? Can people over distance detect when their twin is in trouble or hurt? Is there the “near death” experience where people have out of body experiences? Can dying people see their loved ones just before they pass? If so, what does that mean about an after-life?

    Want to talk about experiences that cannot be explained. I’ve got some. That last one above, my wife and I have witnessed more people passing and many times there have been “connections” and sightings. A deaf cousin that “knew” the people out in the hall of her hospital room as she lay dying. To us, the hallway looked empty. Others saw people standing next to us that we couldn’t see.

    I talked to my brother the weekend before he died with a sense that I would not see him again. I felt a crushing pain around my chest at the time he was killed. He was caught between the door and the top of his UPS van and his chest was crushed. I was 70 miles away at the time.

    There is some kind of afterlife, of that I am convinced. Even more so after witnessing these things. Go into a nursing home and see if you can talk to a nurse that is involved with Hospice. I am sure they can give you a lot of accounts that they have witnessed. What they do for cancer patients and others facing the end of time is such a blessing. What a wonderful group of people.

    If you have gotten this far Michael, thanks for reading. I am going to stop this for awhile, maybe forever. But I’ve tried before and failed. If I didn’t believe this with my whole heart, I wouldn’t be passing this on to you. My Dad was a very honest man and insisted that we be the same. Even to the games we played as kids, no cheating. Not ever. I consider myself an honest person and would not intentionally mislead you. I am not out to win an argument. It is obvious that I cannot persuade you at this time. I have failed you and I am truly sorry.

    I’ll leave you alone now but I want you to know that nothing you have said has upset me and I really enjoyed our discussions. Have a good week,

    Alan

  47. Alan Berends says:

    Flight. The bouyancy of air. Growing wings with incredible ability for flight using different construction of wings for birds, flies, mosquitoes, lady bugs and even butterflies.

    Perfect size, identical and strategically placed without knowledge or need of flight.

    Designed or an accident.

  48. Alan Berends says:

    If evolution fills an unknown need with unknown technology for unknown inputs, and does it perfectly, do we call that a perfect accident? Or a product of design? I guess since sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell are such components and were created by evolution, then evolution is some kind of god? Producing an unknown function for inputs that exist but cannot be detected by other means, that’s totally incredulous.

    Not to mention life which we know only comes from other living beings. Evolution has accomplished the impossible. Truly must be some kind of a god.

  49. Alan Berends says:

    Coloration of animals for protection, breeding and deception. Like a butterfly that has identical coloration on it’s wings, mirror images, and the birds have feathers suitable for flight and others suitable for warmth. These require changes in the DNA to develop which sometimes can entail a string of commands within that DNA that demand a knowledge of the process to accomplish. To fly, a bird needs feathers constructed in a certain arrangement to give the proper lift when the muscles move that wing in a required movement. A tail feather cannot be a wing feather, they are different. The feathers that cover the body of the bird are much different than either of these.

    All work together with the flesh, muscles, bones, joints, nerves and even circulation. Any one of these is missing, and the bird not only wouldn’t be able to fly, it most likely would die. It’s predators would take care of it in short order. For flight to be accomplished, there has to be a knowledge of the requirements to get a body in the air. Jumping out of a tree works the first time but won’t be repeatable if it is tall enough to get significant air time. LOL

    If you found the most beautiful painting on the ground, would you think an artist painted it or that somebody dropped a bunch of paints and they ended up that way accidently? Geometric patterns, matching patterns and beauty is the norm in nature. I find that to be an indication of some type of creation.

    So now you are a cartoon character. I wanted to post a comment on there but didn’t think you would like it. The lance answer was somehow appropriate, only those who are completely right are able to carry it. But just like the lance was used to confirm Jesus was dead, it can be used to rid the world of all those Intelligent Design nuts that are somehow allowed to run free and mess with people’s minds.

    En Guarde!!!!

    Have a nice week Michael,

    Alan

  50. Alan Berends says:

    Polonium Halos

  51. manny says:

    Well I see that these type of discussions never really go anywhere. Specially 2 extremes.

    So you have to remember the ol’ saying: when you have one extreme and another extreme, the most plausible answer is usually in the middle.

    And this is usually what happens in a court room, when there’s not enough evidence from either party. The Judge usually looks for a middle ground because he/she can’t be trustworthy of either party 100%.

    And It’s why as a scientist myself I decided that being Agnostic is the better route for me (is the middle!). So I agree with the first paragraph of your post.

    So from the definition of Agnosticism in wikipedia, I agree with this:

    “agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).”

    So from that I can conclude that I am “agnostic theists” in the sense that I do believe in the theory that “intelligent forces” (much bigger than ourselves) are out there.

    And here’s why I believe:

    Because we are able to create Artificial or digital Life and AI.

    You can create a whole universe inside a computer simulation (matrix like I know).

    We can create this artificial life, give it AI and make it wonder “how the hell it got there” (sorry for the expression ;/). We can fast forward or go back and change events in their reality. We can even “intervene” and see how that affects their reasoning.

    And thus we now have theories like the Holographic principle or the Simulated reality.

    So if we can do it, while couldn’t another intelligent force do that to us? maybe we are just “artificial beings” in an artificial simulation.

    But like I said am Agnostic, so am open to many other possible theories as they come, as long as no one tries to claim anything trully true or anything trully false, because as the Agnostic definition says: Us humans with our VERY limited intelligence, knowledge and probably also a “limited future” are incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds for any one theory. Now if you or I decide to believe or not is our own personal opinion and ours alone (for whatever reason).

    Thanks and good read :)

  52. Alan Berends says:

    If there was no life on earth, nothing on earth could have started life of any form. The law of Biology states that life only comes from life.

    Especially on a planet that had been cleansed by the hottest temps ever unknown to make it completely sterile.

    Accident or designed? Life can only come from life. It’s one of those scientific laws you can’t ignore.

    Big Bang. From the greatest amount of nothing ever comes the biggest bang ever turning that nothingness into everything including more energy. I don’t know how many laws of science that breaks but it’s a bunch.

    Accident or designed? I guess we all get to choose the impossible answer of our choice. The difference is that the “scientific” choice breaks all the rules of science. Leaving one to wonder which laws scientists actually believe today. Are some granted an exception for worlds and life to form?

    Look around you, if it looks like it was more than likely designed, why not admit that. If it looks like an accident (blind chance), then admit that and keep track of your answers.

    Have a nice week.

  53. Alan Berends says:

    Check out “Gut Flora”. The need for them for digestion. Where the human body has about 10 trillion cells, there are probably 10 times that many bacteria of different types in our digestive tract. Somewhere between 300 and 1000 different types along with other fungi and protozoa. Gut flora have around 100 times as many genes in aggregate as there are in the human genome. Thanks to Wikipedia.

    We need these for digestion and a host of other uses. Designed or an accident of nature?

    Look at the rest of the human body from the joints to the brain, hearing, sight, taste, touch, our organs, and the nervous system, could it have been an accident or does it appear to be designed? Reproduction is a definite for me, needing one person of each sex having the desire and knowledge of the process. Child-birth?

    Just because something is does not mean it could have happened through evolution. For all of nature there had to be a purpose for the attributes we see. Designed or a freak accident of nature? To perfection? 10 trillion cells all perfectly arranged in a reproducible configuration?

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If it is the chicken, where did it come from? If the egg, what kept it warm until it developed into a chicken? Designed or an accident? Ever wonder how the egg got into the shell? To me, that is one heck of a trick. And delivering it without breaking? Designed or evolved? That change-over process would have been a miracle as well. From cell splitting to a two party process to getting pregnant which required a complete new set of tools for both sexes and getting it right the first time!!!

    Designed or an incredible accident? Replication of all bodily functions in a new creation immediately after it’s creation (er, evolution). For ALL species!!!!

Comments are closed.