Refutation of Darwinism

[BlameTheEx]

You may have faith in God, but faith in the bible is another matter. To put it bluntly, nobody can find an original copy. What we have is a book that has been repeatedly translated, and edited, by people who each had there own agendas. Even if the current version was accurate, it's open to interpretation.

 

If God exists, then he created life by whatever means he chose. If the evidence shows that he chose to develop life via evolution, then that is what he has done. Should we open the bible, point to the relevant chapter and verse, and tell God he got it wrong?

 

Science can't be at odds with God. The universe has rules, and it's the job of science to discover them. If there is a god, He made those rules. Science thus becomes deeply religious. A matter of understanding God's ways.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

You may have faith in God, but faith in the bible is another matter. To put it bluntly, nobody can find an original copy. What we have is a book that has been repeatedly translated, and edited, by people who each had there own agendas. Even if the current version was accurate, it's open to interpretation.

WOW! When I first read this, my response was "Wait a minute, that is MY LINE!". I have posted this a number of times here.

 

But then I read further and realized we diverge at about this spot.

 

If God exists, then he created life by whatever means he chose. If the evidence shows that he chose to develop life via evolution, then that is what he has done. Should we open the bible, point to the relevant chapter and verse, and tell God he got it wrong?

There are so many parts of the bible that we could open up too and show "God he got it wrong"

 

Science can't be at odds with God.

 

Yes it can and it is. the concept of a god, esp a biblical Christian god violates scientific understandings and processes. Uncertainty and Ockham's Razor are examples of each.

 

The universe has rules, and it's the job of science to discover them. If there is a god, He made those rules. Science thus becomes deeply religious. A matter of understanding God's ways.

 

When those rules prove that a god can not exist, it kind of gets in the way of it being "deeply religious"

[GAHD]

"When those rules prove that a god can not exist, it kind of gets in the way of it being "deeply religious""

sorry, but this is a blatent fallacy.

To quote Irish Eyes "you are a goof"

The rules do NOT prove anything in that regard.

[BlameTheEx]

Chaterbox.

 

Frankly I doubt we will ever have scientific proof that God doesn't exist. How do you prove the absence of something of undetermined nature and location?

 

As to God getting it wrong, you misunderstand me. The bible may well get it wrong, but i defy you to show that God does. Before you reply consider. How do you know what God does or thinks? The bible is, for reasons I have given, and more that im sure you will be happy to give, unreliable.

 

I repeat. Science can't be at odds with God. Science CAN be at odds with the bible, or religious dogma. If you believe in God, you must believe that Science will only discover the wonders that God created.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

"When those rules prove that a god can not exist, it kind of gets in the way of it being "deeply religious""

 

sorry, but this is a blatent fallacy.

 

To quote Irish Eyes "you are a goof"

You could also quote irisheyes that her husband has a definitive unarguable mathematical formula that proves god exists. Or any number of other claims she made that she failed to support. Or the list of lies and misinformation she promoted.

 

So what?

The rules do NOT prove anything in that regard.

It's real simple. Uncertainty. Since "we can not know" some aspects of subatomic interactions, it is obvious that there can not be an "intellect" behind/ guiding them.

 

Thus no room for a god.

 

Add to this Ockham's Razor shaving any additional agent away, and

 

there is no room for a god.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Frankly I doubt we will ever have scientific proof that God doesn't exist. How do you prove the absence of something of undetermined nature and location?

Here we get into the game of semantics that we can arbitrarily mutilate the symbolic representation of the word god into whatever we want at any time and still have the word have some value in an intellectually honest discourse.

 

If we allow the word god to be dragged to whatever "undetermined nature and location" defintion we want, then yes, obviously a god exists.

 

Obviously the billions of god believers in the world do not follow a concept of their god as an "undetermined nature and location" being. They have very specific defintions which include their god's nature and location.

 

As to God getting it wrong, you misunderstand me. The bible may well get it wrong, but i defy you to show that God does. Before you reply consider. How do you know what God does or thinks? The bible is, for reasons I have given, and more that im sure you will be happy to give, unreliable.

In order to have a reasoned, logical discussion, words have to MEAN something. That MEANING has to have some mutually agreed parameters. In discussions about god beliefs, if we pretend that the word god has no specifically assigned meanings, defintions, then anything we say about it is a complete waste of time.

 

I repeat. Science can't be at odds with God.

Your right of course, how can science (the grungy buildup between people's toes) be at odds with god (staples in the navels of women in magazines).

 

If you believe in God, you must believe that Science will only discover the wonders that God created.

 

And a lack of credible scientific thought validates a god how? Oh ya, you just change what words mean to suit your momentary purpose.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

You could also quote irisheyes that her husband has a definitive unarguable mathematical formula that proves god exists. Or any number of other claims she made that she failed to support. Or the list of lies and misinformation she promoted.

So what?

I could, but I didn't, "you area goof" is the only quote I deam applicable, and is highly so here.

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

It's real simple. Uncertainty. Since "we can not know" some aspects of subatomic interactions, it is obvious that there can not be an "intellect" behind/ guiding them.

Thus no room for a god.

Add to this Ockham's Razor shaving any additional agent away, and there is no room for a god.

 

Using the same "proof" I *could*(I stress this point knowing who will reply) say that because "we" cannot know this, there must ba a 'god' controlling it; the intereactions occur in ways that limited "intellect" and science cannot grasp.

I make no claim to a god, only that your "proof" is B.S. directed against those without the ability to refute it(your ohh-so-hated creationists).

I fail to see how Ockham's Razor applies here, perhapse soly to add seeming credibility to the argument?

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

In order to have a reasoned, logical discussion, words have to MEAN something. That MEANING has to have some mutually agreed parameters. In discussions about god beliefs, if we pretend that the word god has no specifically assigned meanings, defintions, then anything we say about it is a complete waste of time.

Completely agreed, from reading Blame's posts I would assert that "god" in this instance refers to an omnipresent, controlling entity. (Sorry to put words in your mouth if I'm wrong)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

It's real simple. Uncertainty. Since "we can not know" some aspects of subatomic interactions, it is obvious that there can not be an "intellect" behind/ guiding them.

 

Thus no room for a god.

 

Add to this Ockham's Razor shaving any additional agent away, and there is no room for a god.

 

Using the same "proof" I *could*(I stress this point knowing who will reply) say that because "we" cannot know this, there must ba a 'god' controlling it; the intereactions occur in ways that limited "intellect" and science cannot grasp.

Your right, my bad! It should have been "Some aspects of subatomic interactions can not be know". "We" should not have been included as it suggests human involvement. Thus not leaving possibility of ANY intellect.

I fail to see how Ockham's Razor applies here, perhapse soly to add seeming credibility to the argument?

Your failure does not disprove it.

 

In fact William of Ockham originally used his razor to shave away the idea of an outside agent (a god) from involvement with our existence.

[GAHD]

"Your failure does not disprove it. "

Care to elaborate how this applies to sub atomic particles? Perhapse post a link that i might be enlightened as to how it applies? For once remouve your hippocracy from the equation and actually PROVE you are right in applying this. simply saying "Add to this Ockham's Razor..." just seems like a cop-out to me.

"Your right, my bad! It should have been "Some aspects of subatomic interactions can not be know". "We" should not have been included as it suggests human involvement. Thus not leaving possibility of ANY intellect."

I won't refute that, though your assumption that a 'god' would have intellect in a form we could understand and/or comparable to ours is a little presumptous.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

"Your failure does not disprove it. "

 

Care to elaborate how this applies to sub atomic particles? Perhapse post a link that i might be enlightened as to how it applies? For once remouve your hippocracy from the equation and actually PROVE you are right in applying this. simply saying "Add to this Ockham's Razor..." just seems like a cop-out to me.

OK, let's help you follow the context.

 

I commented about Uncertainty showing a lack of compatibility with the existence of a god. I ADDED to that, that Ockham's Razor (because of a god adding an extra agent) also helped to show that existence of a god is counter to scientific process.

 

William of Ockham, also called William Ockham (Ockham also spelled " Occam") (1285-1347/49), was a medeival monk.. (a scholastic)

 

Ockham's razor, also spelled "Occam's razor", but also called "law of economy" or "law of parsimony", is a principle stated by William of Ockham, that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). This principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durand de Saint-Pourcain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity. Galileo did something similar by defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens, and other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles. It is called "Ockham's razor" because he mentioned the principle so frequently and employed it so sharply. For instance, he used it

 

1.to dispense with relations which he held to be nothing distinct from their foundation in things;

2.with efficient causality, which he tended to view merely as regular succession;

3.with motion, which is merely the reappearance of a thing in a different place;

4.with psychological powers distinct for each mode of sense;

 

Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

 

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,

 

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

 

In physics we use the razor to cut away metaphysical concepts. The canonical example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the Ether. Einstein's equations for transforming space-time are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincaré recognized that the Ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. By Ockham's razor it had to be eliminated.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

 

"Your right, my bad! It should have been "Some aspects of subatomic interactions can not be know". "We" should not have been included as it suggests human involvement. Thus not leaving possibility of ANY intellect."

 

I won't refute that,

LOL!

 

I was having trouble picking out your reply from my post. That sounds so much like my kind of reply! No "Yes" or "no". But a "I won't refute that". I like it!

 

though your assumption that a 'god' would have intellect in a form we could understand and/or comparable to ours is a little presumptous.

 

It would seem fairly empirical. We seem to be doing a fairly good job of decoding the construction of the universe. Still lots of questions and details. But the basics seem to be falling in line fairly well. We have not been at the "science" thing very long you know! So we seem to have the inate ability to correctly evaluate our surroundings. Thus I don't find it to be "assumptive" at all. I find it empirically logical.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: GAHD

It would seem fairly empirical. We seem to be doing a fairly good job of decoding the construction of the universe. Still lots of questions and details. But the basics seem to be falling in line fairly well. We have not been at the "science" thing very long you know! So we seem to have the inate ability to correctly evaluate our surroundings. Thus I don't find it to be "assumptive" at all. I find it empirically logical.

 

SO the edited version should read;

"It's real simple. Uncertainty. Since [some aspects of subatomic interactions can not be known], it is obvious that there can not be an "intellect" behind/ guiding them. Thus no room for a god.

[when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better], and there is no room for a god."

 

WOW this is so enlightening, too bad Occams Razor doesn't seem to apply here in that manner. In the case of the particles, O.R. would simply indicate that a wave/particle is something other than a wave or particle, whatever is the simplist answer. in the case of other particles Occams is is a useless concept because no theory can perfom flawlessly, let alone 2 different ones. Again, THere is no part of sciece that excludes an Omnipresent/omnipotent/Omniscient god from existance.

 

Back to the topic of evolution however, I'll submit THe astonishing lack thereof in Alligators ad Crocodiles. Can the creatures really be that perfect, or are they simply resilliant against mutation?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

SO the edited version should read;

 

"It's real simple. Uncertainty. Since [some aspects of subatomic interactions can not be known], it is obvious that there can not be an "intellect" behind/ guiding them. Thus no room for a god. [when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better], and there is no room for a god."

Why would it read that way? You still don't seem to grasp the various connections. Let's try again.

 

"Since [some aspects of subatomic interactions can not be known], it is obvious that there can not be an "intellect" behind/ guiding them. Thus no room for a god." In addition to which "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one" in which entities are not multiplied beyond necessity "is the better", and there is no room for a god."

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

In the case of the particles, O.R. would simply indicate that a wave/particle is something other than a wave or particle, whatever is the simplist answer.

You are having serious problems comprehending Ockham's Razor. I thought my more extensive post on the subject would help. But I will try adding to it.

 

Ockham's Razor is NOT applied in finding A "simplist answer".

 

As I previously posted:

 

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,

 

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

 

Ockham's Razor is NOT used to derive A "simplist answer". It is used to COMPARE competeing answers against each other. If ALL ELSE is EQUAL, Science shows that the one requiring the fewest agents is the more accurate one. There is not a single example to the contrary.

 

in the case of other particles Occams is is a useless concept because no theory can perfom flawlessly,

Show us a single example of Ockham's Razor being wrong.

 

Again, THere is no part of sciece that excludes an Omnipresent/omnipotent/Omniscient god from existance.

Perhaps when you get a better understanding of Uncertainty you will be able to see how the very concepts of Uncertainty and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive. How you fail to see the contradictions between Uncertainty (UNABLE to be known) and Omnipotence (knows EVERYTHING) is amazing.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Back to the topic of evolution however, I'll submit THe astonishing lack thereof in Alligators ad Crocodiles. Can the creatures really be that perfect, or are they simply resilliant against mutation?

 

Exactly how do alligators (and crocks) show a LACK of evolution/ evolutionary advantage? When in fact they are almost perfect examples of it. As they do not appear in fossil records from the beginning of earth existence time, they obviously came into existence thru evolution at some later time. As their evolved structure has allowed them to survive environments fatally hostile to other species, they continue to exist. While species which did not evolve such specific environmental survival advantages have not been able to exist as long. While further mutations obviously did not have evolutionary advantageous results. Or happened more recently enough that the newer species would not have the historical fossil record.

 

There is nothing to indicate that Alli/Crocs are "perfect", just a highly successful evolutionary design. And any {i]resilience[/i] would be based on positive evolutionary genetics, not "against mutation".

[GAHD]

"Uncertainty and Omnipotence" -FT

omni=all/complete/universal potence= power. Uncertanty does not contradict "Complete power"

 

"Exactly how do alligators (and crocks) show a LACK of evolution/ evolutionary advantage?" -FT

THey have not evolved in form in quite some time. One would expect some new advantage would suface in them over time; warm blood, sweat glands, opposible digits, SOMETHING.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

"Obviously the billions of god believers in the world do not follow a concept of their god as an "undetermined nature and location" being. They have very specific defintions which include their god's nature and location."

 

Find me a believer who is willing to give God's address. For that matter find me one who is willing to explain what God is made of, in terms that will allow the creation of an instrument to detect Him.

 

"In order to have a reasoned, logical discussion, words have to MEAN something. That MEANING has to have some mutually agreed parameters. In discussions about god beliefs, if we pretend that the word god has no specifically assigned meanings, defintions, then anything we say about it is a complete waste of time."

 

Hmm. I am an atheist myself, so I am not sure I am up to defining God. Still, I will have a stab at it. How about "God is the creator of the universe"?