How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[Rob Osborn]

I am, you repeatedly claim that whenever we do not know the answer it must be God. I showed examples where, in the past, we were ignorant of things but are now aware. Just because we have not figured out how to do something yet does not mean that it cannot be done through natural process.

How many billions of witnesses does one need? Billions of opportunities exist each day for life to form by some other process that is not intelligent and each day those billions of chances never pan out, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade,etc, it always just remains a fact that life only comes from life. When are we going to finally capitulate and agree with the endless amount of evidence already observable? Oh yeah, I forgot, stupid me, life had to evolve from nonlife or else ID really is true!

[Rob Osborn]

Then what is your point? You accurately stated that we have not yet successfully duplicated life in the lab. You keep repeating that mantra as if it were some sort  of a talisman against the science of evolution. Well a little over 111 years ago we hadn't yet duplicated birds flying abilities either. There were people chanting the mantra that the fact that we hadn't yet achieved heavier than air powered flight meant that God meant that we never would. Therefore A God of the Gaps.

I never said they wouldnt invent airplanes. Quit equating the two, they are different. We already knew flight was possible since men first started throwing rocks at each other. It was only a matter of time before someone had the idea of combining the principles of thrown rocks and birds wings.

Scientists in labs keep tricking themselves into the belief that they will hapoen upon the solution of how life first evolved from natural processes. I guess the jokes on them. Its futile. It cant be done. How stupid are they? Its pretty much the same thing as a computer left on its own that could write its own discernable and purpose driven program. Good luck- its impossible!

[thesometimesaint]

How many billions of witnesses does one need? Billions of opportunities exist each day for life to form by some other process that is not intelligent and each day those billions of chances never pan out, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade,etc, it always just remains a fact that life only comes from life. When are we going to finally capitulate and agree with the endless amount of evidence already observable? Oh yeah, I forgot, stupid me, life had to evolve from nonlife or else ID really is true!

 

No evolutionist ever claimed life comes from non life. Evolution is about how life changed once it got here. Abiogenesis is about how life first came to be on this planet. While many scientifically interesting questions remain as to exactly how Abiogenesis worked on the early earth. Creationism(ID) doesn't even begin to answer those questions. Instead it posits a Supernatural Godlike force(an absolute contradiction of how science works).

[thesometimesaint]

I never said they wouldnt invent airplanes. Quit equating the two, they are different. We already knew flight was possible since men first started throwing rocks at each other. It was only a matter of time before someone had the idea of combining the principles of thrown rocks and birds wings.

Scientists in labs keep tricking themselves into the belief that they will hapoen upon the solution of how life first evolved from natural processes. I guess the jokes on them. Its futile. It cant be done. How stupid are they? Its pretty much the same thing as a computer left on its own that could write its own discernable and purpose driven program. Good luck- its impossible!

 

I never said you personally did. Unless you were an adult in 1903(Highly unlikely). However a common folk saying was that if God had intended man to fly he would have had him born with wings. Well God did in a way did give man wings, he inspire Wilbur and Orville Wright to give man wings. We spent over 2000 years till we  successfully combined "rocks and birds wings"

See http://www.island-ikaria.com/culture/myth.asp

 

So said the detractors of the Wright brothers. BTW Computers have written their own discernible code.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code

 

So much for your impossibilities.

[Freedom]

How many billions of witnesses does one need? Billions of opportunities exist each day for life to form by some other process that is not intelligent and each day those billions of chances never pan out, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade,etc, it always just remains a fact that life only comes from life. When are we going to finally capitulate and agree with the endless amount of evidence already observable? Oh yeah, I forgot, stupid me, life had to evolve from nonlife or else ID really is true!

How many billions of witnesses does one need to prove that disease is a mysterious curse from God, at least it was so until the mid 1900's. Sorry, you are making an appeal to god simply on the basis that we do not yet know. The bible certainly does not tell us how. Somehow, live came to be on this planet of Gods - we do not know why, but through scientific investigation we will eventually find out. After all, all the mysteries of God can be discovered; and it won't be with a magic wand. 

[Rob Osborn]

How many billions of witnesses does one need to prove that disease is a mysterious curse from God, at least it was so until the mid 1900's. Sorry, you are making an appeal to god simply on the basis that we do not yet know. The bible certainly does not tell us how. Somehow, live came to be on this planet of Gods - we do not know why, but through scientific investigation we will eventually find out. After all, all the mysteries of God can be discovered; and it won't be with a magic wand.

Like I have always said, procreation isnt a magic wand. I have never said life came about by any other means. Last time I checked they have done lots of scientific observation on procreation..

[Rob Osborn]

No evolutionist ever claimed life comes from non life. Evolution is about how life changed once it got here. Abiogenesis is about how life first came to be on this planet. While many scientifically interesting questions remain as to exactly how Abiogenesis worked on the early earth. Creationism(ID) doesn't even begin to answer those questions. Instead it posits a Supernatural Godlike force(an absolute contradiction of how science works).

Darwinian evolution, the mechanism in question, is the very theory of cellular evolution.

BTW, my God isnt superatural so there is no supernatural force, just laws and science.

[danielwoods]

Stonehendge has at least three designers. Not one of whom was supernatural.

See http://www.aboutstonehenge.info/index.php?pg=who-built-stonehenge

So you are saying that detecting whether something is designed or not can be an objective and/or scientific activity?

[Freedom]

So you are saying that detecting whether something is designed or not can be an objective and/or scientific activity?

It is based on simple observation. To our knowledge, no creator can create a living organism, and nothing in nature can create a watch. It has to do with probability. It is highly unlikely that Stonehenge could occur naturally; however, it has been proven countess trillions of times that living organisms occur naturally. If you can find a single qualified expert that is arguing Stonehedge occurred naturally without any intelligent intervention, then we can talk. Until then you are just obfuscating. 

[danielwoods]

It is based on simple observation. To our knowledge, no creator can create a living organism, and nothing in nature can create a watch. It has to do with probability. It is highly unlikely that Stonehenge could occur naturally; however, it has been proven countess trillions of times that living organisms occur naturally. If you can find a single qualified expert that is arguing Stonehedge occurred naturally without any intelligent intervention, then we can talk. Until then you are just obfuscating.

So you don't like the point, but agree that detecting design can be a scientific activity. That is the only claim of ID. That design detection is a valid scientific activity.

[Rob Osborn]

I never said you personally did. Unless you were an adult in 1903(Highly unlikely). However a common folk saying was that if God had intended man to fly he would have had him born with wings. Well God did in a way did give man wings, he inspire Wilbur and Orville Wright to give man wings. We spent over 2000 years till we  successfully combined "rocks and birds wings"

See http://www.island-ikaria.com/culture/myth.asp

 

So said the detractors of the Wright brothers. BTW Computers have written their own discernible code.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code

 

So much for your impossibilities.

Computers haven't written their own purpose driven programs. They are programmed to do if this then that or else. The ingeniousness of the program is only as smart as the intelligent designers who designed it to do precisely whayt they design it to do. Because they can calculate so quickly it can give strong appearance of intelligence but again- only doing what it is programmed to do.

[thesometimesaint]

Darwinian evolution, the mechanism in question, is the very theory of cellular evolution.

BTW, my God isnt superatural so there is no supernatural force, just laws and science.

 

Evolution is how life changed once it got here. There no natural explanation that accounts for any non natural phenomenon. 

 

ID/creationism vs Evolution

SEE

[thesometimesaint]

Computers haven't written their own purpose driven programs. They are programmed to do if this then that or else. The ingeniousness of the program is only as smart as the intelligent designers who designed it to do precisely whayt they design it to do. Because they can calculate so quickly it can give strong appearance of intelligence but again- only doing what it is programmed to do.

 

Tautology.

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution is how life changed once it got here. There no natural explanation that accounts for any non natural phenomenon. 

 

Darwinian Evolution is the theory of how small changes happen on the cellular/DNA level brought on by natural selection acting upon genetic varriance and mutations and copy errors in the genome. This theory goes on to state that these small changes over time add up to create new species.

 

Sorry but I couldn't get through the first few minutes of the video with the heavily Darwinian evolutionists dogma bias by the NCSE.

[Rob Osborn]

Tautology.

Truth is hard to hear sometimes.

 

You still have to answer how unintelligent natural laws can create a replicating system of intelligent processes. I'll leave you to your task..

[thesometimesaint]

Truth is hard to hear sometimes.

 

You still have to answer how unintelligent natural laws can create a replicating system of intelligent processes. I'll leave you to your task..

I have no problem with the truth. I do have problems with those that claim what they are claiming is the truth. Then trying to force it down others throat.

SEE http://www.wafb.com/story/24524337/la-school-sued-for-religious-harassment-of-6th-grade-student

 

That has already been addressed by Darwin and every scientist since.

[The Nehor]

How many billions of witnesses does one need? Billions of opportunities exist each day for life to form by some other process that is not intelligent and each day those billions of chances never pan out, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade,etc, it always just remains a fact that life only comes from life. When are we going to finally capitulate and agree with the endless amount of evidence already observable? Oh yeah, I forgot, stupid me, life had to evolve from nonlife or else ID really is true!

This is patently untrue. Conditions are nothing like what they were when life formed except in a very few areas on earth. On top of that if life formed now in any environment with other life it would be quickly and efficiently destroyed. Life is highly developed now. Our predator/prey relationships and competition for food have developed impressive offenses and defenses. If life formed it would have no time to adapt before it was consumed.

Your argument for timespan is hilariously naive. If life appeared out of proteins as is theorized the conditions for it existed for millions of years and you are saying because we have not seen it in the last few decades with different conditions and a very hostile environment it did not happen.

I am with you and believe life was introduced either from elsewhere or was consciously designed but you are embarrassing those who believe as you do with this kind of argument,

[Rob Osborn]

I have no problem with the truth. I do have problems with those that claim what they are claiming is the truth. Then trying to force it down others throat.

SEE http://www.wafb.com/story/24524337/la-school-sued-for-religious-harassment-of-6th-grade-student

 

That has already been addressed by Darwin and every scientist since.

And thanks to Darwin, evolution has been shoved down our throats far too long.

So, you are stating that scientists have figured out abiogenesis..thats laughable.

[Bikeemikey]

I think this video will cause 42 to lose their faith.

[Rob Osborn]

This is patently untrue. Conditions are nothing like what they were when life formed except in a very few areas on earth. On top of that if life formed now in any environment with other life it would be quickly and efficiently destroyed. Life is highly developed now. Our predator/prey relationships and competition for food have developed impressive offenses and defenses. If life formed it would have no time to adapt before it was consumed.

Your argument for timespan is hilariously naive. If life appeared out of proteins as is theorized the conditions for it existed for millions of years and you are saying because we have not seen it in the last few decades with different conditions and a very hostile environment it did not happen.

I am with you and believe life was introduced either from elsewhere or was consciously designed but you are embarrassing those who believe as you do with this kind of argument,

How does science even know what the conditions on earth were like when life first became manifest? All they are doing is guessing, they have no real idea.

[Freedom]

How does science even know what the conditions on earth were like when life first became manifest? All they are doing is guessing, they have no real idea.

Well of course they are guessing about how life came to be. We are still investigating.  Your argument is that, since we don't know how it happened it must have been an explainable miracle. Just remember, it was not too long ago that they were guessing about what caused disease, hurricanes, cancer, grey hair and a host of other mysteries. Your god of the gaps argument falls apart with each new discovery. Read this months ensigns article by Ballard. Great discoveries are awaiting us. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Examine the logic - watches are complex and they have a designer; therefor all things that are complex have a designer. Cats have 4 legs and they are mammals, therefore all animals that have 4 legs are mammals. My phone is black and it is a samsung, therefore all black phones are made by samsung. Is it really so difficult to see just how profoundly stupid the 'watch' argument is? 

 

Something does not have to be complex to have a designer. Stonehenge is not particularly complex, yet it clearly had a designer. Carving the word 'cat' in a piece of wood is not complex, yet it has a designer. A snow flax is extremely complex compared to the word 'cat', yet it does not have a designer. All sorts of complex systems appear in nature without a supreme being stepping in. The grand canyon is sculpted by the physical laws of erosion and entropy, living organisms are sculpted by the physical laws of evolution.  It is just that simple. 

Your facile use of one false premise after another won't gloss over your failure to deal with logic and real science.  I recommend courses in each before you traipse off into never-never land again.

 

No legitimate scientist or philosopher would ever say that "living organisms are sculpted by the physical laws of evolution.  It is just that simple."  No more absurd statement could be made, and no such claim has ever been demonstrated.  All science is based on replication of experiments and obtaining the same results.  Evolution has never been subjected to that full demand.  Nor can one find a set of physical laws to account for the theory.  That does not mean it is not a correct theory.  Only that puny humans have yet to prove it true.  It is taught in school by most biologists simply because it seems to be true -- only an inference from observations of various kinds.

[Rob Osborn]

Well of course they are guessing about how life came to be. We are still investigating.  Your argument is that, since we don't know how it happened it must have been an explainable miracle. Just remember, it was not too long ago that they were guessing about what caused disease, hurricanes, cancer, grey hair and a host of other mysteries. Your god of the gaps argument falls apart with each new discovery. Read this months ensigns article by Ballard. Great discoveries are awaiting us.

But your argument is that because you cannot allow any intelligent design mechanism then life had to have come into existence by purely natural laws found in nature of the which have never manifested ability to produce anything intelligent.

[The Nehor]

How does science even know what the conditions on earth were like when life first became manifest? All they are doing is guessing, they have no real idea.

 

Geological studies. They are not guessing; they are inferring from data.

 

You are the one who has no idea. If you really want to take on evolutionary theory it is imperative that you actually understand it. You do not.

[The Nehor]

But your argument is that because you cannot allow any intelligent design mechanism then life had to have come into existence by purely natural laws found in nature of the which have never manifested ability to produce anything intelligent.

 

Ah, this old quirky argument:

 

"You believe in evolution because the only alternative is a miracle and you want to be a godless heathen so you will make up anything!"

 

There was a time when this was true and there are people who only believe in evolution because they either cannot or do not want to believe in God. That is a psychological problem. You are trying to fight the scientific understanding by caricaturing some people's psychological issues. The net result is that you are coming across as someone with psychological issues.