Long creationist E-mail I can't be bothered answering myself

[Darth Wong]

If anyone wants to correspond with this idiot, feel free. His E-mail is in the quote, and no, I don't feel bad about publishing it because he's hiding behind a throwaway Yahoo account anyway.

I honestly can't be bothered to do it myself; he thinks he's making points I've never seen before, but I've done this too many times, I'm too busy, and I just can't expend the time and effort to educate yet another cookie-cutter fundie who won't really listen anyway. Maybe some of you who are less jaded will find it more of an interesting exercise.

Name: "Oje Giwa-Amu" <ojeamu2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Intelligent Design Vs Natural Selection

Hello, I have gone through your site and also through some responses in your “hate mail”. I would just like to be added to the list of those who challenge both cosmic and biological evolution in a context that denies intelligent design.

First of all I would suggest that you change the caption from “hate male” to something like “responses” or “rebuttals” because if anything at all, I do not see any hate from the people who have honestly attempted to challenge your position. In fact to the contrary, it is you who have apparently ridiculed and derided them and tried to belittle them by a lot of sarcasm expressed in your responses.

In any case, I would like to just address what I consider to be the real issue here- The denial of intelligent design. I would first like to start by making reference to a statement you made in an attempt to correct Terry Langley in one of your exchanges.



TERRY LANGLEY: A) If the universe began in a uniform/ at rest state, (specifically
the largest singularity that could ever exist) and light speed is
the limit which no object may ever surpass, and nothing may escape
a singularity (black hole) because its incredible mass and density
make its escape velocity greater than light speed, then how did
every particle in the universe escape in the "big
bang"?


YOU: Red herring #1. The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution
theory.
ME: This statement is not exactly correct because the evolution theory has both cosmic and biological applications. The big bang has to do with cosmic evolution theory-that the universe had its beginning about 10-15 billion years ago starting from an infinitely hot and dense singularity that expanded and is still expanding to form the galactic components of the universe.
You Vs Michael Rennie

Michael Rennie: So whats your point? Science is about figuring out
the external world. Religion is about figuring out the
internal.

You: Nonsense; religion doesn't "figure out" anything.
It offers "explanations" without reasoning.

I really find this an interesting irony on your part to state that religion offers “explanations” without reasoning yet on the same premise on which you have reasoned, you cannot also see that cosmic or biological evolution that denies obvious “intelligent design” in the cause or in the process is without reasoning. Okay let us put this to test and see who is not reasoning.

Scenario 1: Let us assume that two people are observing the outcome of different aspects of certain processes we see that occur in the universe today. Let us take our Solar system as a typical example in respect to cosmic evolution.

1) Observer 1 (advocate of ID): He learns for example that nine spherical planets are revolving about a large spherical Sun in purposeful order that help to also determine the seasons and the times. He learns that one of these planets (the earth) consistently revolves round the Sun approximately every 365 days and at the same time the planet rotates around its axis consistently every 24 hours presenting the day and the night in the course of doing so. The other eight planets are doing the same thing in their own turns with their own consistency. This has happened for thousands and thousands of years and no one of these planets has been thrown into chaos or out of orbit but has retained the consistency of this interactions.

It is only natural and logical for the one who is really reasoning to see that such processes BASED ON THE ODDS could not possibly have: (1) been caused and (2) continued in such purposeful order BY SOME FORM OF CHANCE emanating from the big bang process WITHOUT A DELIBERATE INTELLIGENT GUIDE TO THESE PROCESS.

2) Observer 2: The second Observer (one who denies ID) see all these processes as well just like the first observer yet comes to a different conclusion that even though these processes may have resulted from some cosmic evolution, there is no deliberate guiding process involving intelligent design in the formation of our Solar system and the orderly patterns that have been observed in the interactions between the planets and the sun.

Clearly, it would seem to any rational and logical person that it is the second observer who is not employing any logical reasoning regarding the things he is observing. The first observer may not be able to give you the kind of explanation that you seek from science regarding his conclusions but this does not mean that he is not reasonable or correct to conclude that there must be some form of deliberate intelligent design and designer that caused and maintain these processes from what he naturally observes.

From your previous comments, I can already predict you would argue that it is the gravitation Laws that cause the planets to revolve and keep these planets in place and cause them to rotate about their axis. But this is what is in deed illogical. It is not the reasoning that laws guide these planets that is illogical and without rational thinking but the reasoning that these laws are void of any initiation from any form of intelligence. The planetary bodies cannot just somehow operate based on some form of meaningful and purposeful laws without some form of intelligence initiating and sustaining those laws in the first place. Those laws in themselves cannot possibly cause and maintain the order and processes we see in our Solar system alone how much more the billions of massive galaxies in the universe.

I could also apply this same consideration to the field of biological evolution with specific regard to abiogenesis using the Darwinian model as well as other models of biological evolution that deny ID. However the point to note is that It is not the concept of evolution in terms of speciation that is absurd in itself but the thought that the origins and the processes that clearly lead to the ultimate “creation” of fully functional and complex living things from the evolving processes occurred and occur from non living matter in the universe by molecules colliding, replicating and reacting together over billions of years to form the first fully functional common ancestor that produced the variation of species we see today.

Even if we were to assume that our first common ancestor for humans that emanated through the various processes of evolution was an Ape-like creature with far much less intelligence than man in his state as he is today, it would still be very absurd and a reflection of overwhelming foolishness on the part of anyone to think and believe that the processes that led to the evolution of such a creature was void of intelligent design but rather came about by a mere process of chance predicated on what has been termed “natural selection”.

How can natural selection create the first common ancestor with life over a period of time (regardless of how long) and produce eyes, tongue, ears, the intestines, the organs designed to have sex and reproduce (how would it know that there was or was to be a female companion and make provision for this?) and all the other complex organs WITHOUT ANY “SELF AWARE” INTELLIGENCE behind these processes?.

I believe that the evidence for intelligent design is overwhelmingly glaring for those who would simply choose to observe honestly and also logically apply knowledge appropriately from what has been observed, given the odds in the given scenario.

The problem I see with those who solely trust scientism for every single explanation and reject the concept of intelligent design is that they believe that every observable phenomenon that is expressed in the universe must have a scientific explanation and must be scientifically proven to be considered true. But this should not be the case. Supernatural phenomena could lead to certain physical manifestations not explainable by science. A supernatural cause could lead to a natural phenomenon whose origins may not be proven or reconciled by scientific laws. For example, can you explain or suggest a scientific method that can explain and test magic or sorcery which manifest physical acts that defy scientific laws? What about near-dearth-experiences (NDE)? Can science explain it using the present tools available? Dr Robert Jordan rightly stated:

“If the soul's travel beyond the body is purely nonphysical, and it may well be true that it is, then we cannot decide such issues with scientific research. Even if many of the sensory phenomena associated with NDEs can be correlated with or explained by physical phenomena, the possibility that they occur in a dimension of nonphysical phenomena cannot be ruled out.” DR. ROBERT JORDAN:

Now my argument is not that science should not follow scientific processes in reaching conclusions. It is that natural observations should lead to plausible and realistic conclusions based on facts and the odds. Scientific conclusions reached based on a preset and biased mindset fueled by atheism MUST BE REJECTED.

You may wonder why most ordinary people would naturally reject both cosmic and biological evolution theory when taught in a context that refutes intelligent design. It is simple. Because natural instincts simply tells them that it is practically impossible for the kind of structured and complex order we see in our universe to be a product of mere chance based on blind probability trials over billions of years.

For example, consider this for one moment. If chance, the occurrence from an unlikelihood, and natural selection produced the order of the Solar systems, the beautiful flowers we see, the animals, and plants, humans, etc, (Even if it took millions of years) then we should also see such outcomes from natural selection expressed in the other planets considering that our earth was also formed at about the same time the other planets were formed in our solar system. Natural selection should have also given rise to similar or diverse forms of evolutions and life forms without intelligent design in the other planets and galaxies as well. We should be able to see aliens and other creatures in the evolving processes of evolution in the other planets. But we do not see such. This alone presents a red flag and an obvious campaign against the concept of natural selection. The argument that the conditions of the other planets would not make these possible is a weak argument because the evolution process should be able to create the same kind of conditions in other planets to make other forms of visible life forms possible just like it did no earth.

In defence of evolution, Edward Humes says:
There are really two theories of evolution. There is the genuine scientific theory and there is the talk-radio pretend version, designed not to enlighten but to deceive and enrage. The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the "Why Evolution Is Stupid" lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans – a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism. – Edward Humes (Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist/author)[129]
While it may be true that the talk-radio version may have misrepresented the genuine scientific theory, the essence of the statement should not be evaded. The point is that tornadoes in a junkyard, even if occurring every day for trillions of years, would never leave in its wake a 747 produced by natural selection or by natural laws regardless of whether or not it appeared suddenly or over the period of trillions of years.
The point of the statement is that the odds are virtually impossible for random chance and natural selection to bring about beautiful flowers, horses, humans, etc. even if it were to take trillions of years. This should be obvious from the fact that for over 4.5 billions of years according to scientific calculations of the age of our Solar system, no such life forms or even any unusual different kind of life form have emerged in any of these other planets by a process induced by the arguments natural selection proponents.
I know it has been argued that intelligent design is not scientific because it cannot be tested. I do not believe that evolution BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL SELECTION can be tested as well. “natural selection” is simply just a convenient and accepted term because it evades the reality that atheistic scientists do not want to confront-INTELLIGENT DESIGN. “Intelligent design” should really be the right term that should have been used instead of “natural selection” but the consequences would be so overwhelming and so it is more convenient to deny ID in the course of explaining both the cosmic and biological theory of evolution.
When science can really bring molecules together and make them replicate on their own and build new life forms using natural selection, then we will believe in evolution by natural selection. Until then, it would simply just be best considered a speculation and a big leap of faith even greater than those who hold on to the view of intelligent design. You just consider it for a moment. If we as intelligent humans in thousands of years cannot put molecules together to create life forms, how is it conceivable then that blind chance, giving the odds, would create these life forms on earth even if giving millions of years?
Remember foolishness is not lack of intelligence. Rather it is the inability to properly apply knowledge. Hence the scriptures rightly state: Ps 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God
Paul in scriptures also shows the reason why David made the above statement that only a fool says in his heart that there is no God. He states:
Rom 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.

Friend, I know you are no stranger to the gospel. Look at the stars, the planets, the galaxies, the flowers, the trees, the seas and you will indeed see intelligent design by God in action every where. God loves you. You were the reason he sent Jesus to die on the Cross. All you need to do is receive his love and accept his Son Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and you would have eternal life with him in eternity. It was based on this love that he shed his blood for your sins so that you can have forgiveness. Please don’t harden your heart to his call. Why don’t you try him now and just ask him to forgive you and ask him to send his Son Jesus to your heart right now. Would you? I will keep praying for you and I trust that the Lord would turn your heart to really see him and know him.
Cheers, and may the good God bless you abundantly.
Oje
(ojeamu2001@yahoo.com)



------ eviromental variables ------
REMOTE ADDR: 41.206.15.1
BROWSER: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.18) Gecko/2010020220 Firefox/3.0.18

[Lagmonster]

This is a particularly juicy specimen, because it manages to include just about every bad argument thrown at science. If he'd mentioned the laws of thermodynamics, we'd have a creationist hat trick.

For people who don't feel like reading it, he said, "The universe was intelligently designed because I feel that way intuitively, and no alternative explanation satisfies me". He starts out arguing that people instinctively presume intelligent design and works his way into a froth about secularism, finishing with a bit of proselytization.

When I am not at work and have some time, I may take a stab at some of his worse ideas.

[General Zod]

Sounds like your garden variety creationist who can't possibly comprehend how pretty things can be created through natural selection or randomness, therefore, a wizard God did it.

[Darth Wong]

How do you argue about science with someone who clearly has no idea how a proper scientific argument is constructed? That's the problem with people like this. I might as well be speaking in Swahili for all the good it would do. Nevertheless, as I said, maybe someone will find it an interesting exercise. I've done it too many times myself.

[Lagmonster]

For fun, I'm going to translate his most looney statements into English (Edit: And mock some). I'm not really going to waste time with a rebuttal, because he's not really making any arguments at all; he's just saying that he believes X, so Y is unreasonable.

It is only natural and logical for the one who is really reasoning to see that such processes BASED ON THE ODDS could not possibly have: (1) been caused and (2) continued in such purposeful order BY SOME FORM OF CHANCE emanating from the big bang process WITHOUT A DELIBERATE INTELLIGENT GUIDE TO THESE PROCESS.

"First of all, I'm right because I feel that I am. Just to confuse you, I will repeat the word 'odds' frequently with absolutely no showing of my work, so I can trick you into thinking that what I've said is plausible."

The first observer may not be able to give you the kind of explanation that you seek from science regarding his conclusions but this does not mean that he is not reasonable or correct to conclude that there must be some form of deliberate intelligent design and designer that caused and maintain these processes from what he naturally observes.

"Unscientific answers are just as likely to be right as scientific ones, because a person's intuition is just as valid as scientific analysis. Fuck you, objectivity!"

The planetary bodies cannot just somehow operate based on some form of meaningful and purposeful laws without some form of intelligence initiating and sustaining those laws in the first place. Those laws in themselves cannot possibly cause and maintain the order and processes we see in our Solar system alone how much more the billions of massive galaxies in the universe.

"I don't actually have to explain why anything science tells me is wrong; as long as I feel it is, I can claim it as fact and insist elsewhere that people naturally gravitate to my position."

How can natural selection create the first common ancestor with life over a period of time (regardless of how long) and produce eyes, tongue, ears, the intestines, the organs designed to have sex and reproduce (how would it know that there was or was to be a female companion and make provision for this?) and all the other complex organs WITHOUT ANY “SELF AWARE” INTELLIGENCE behind these processes?

"I failed to study science in any detail, and in fact, lack the ability to understand any explanations given to me. Therefore, I will rely on my intuition, which has been ever-so-coincidentally entirely shaped by my cultural upbringing as a fundie Christian. Fuck you, education!"

I believe that the evidence for intelligent design is overwhelmingly glaring for those who would simply choose to observe honestly and also logically apply knowledge appropriately from what has been observed, given the odds in the given scenario.

"If you haven't caught on, I love saying the word 'odds' in sentences, because it makes my arguments sound like they are more likely to be true. Fuck you, math!"

The problem I see with those who solely trust scientism for every single explanation and reject the concept of intelligent design is that they believe that every observable phenomenon that is expressed in the universe must have a scientific explanation and must be scientifically proven to be considered true. But this should not be the case. Supernatural phenomena could lead to certain physical manifestations not explainable by science. A supernatural cause could lead to a natural phenomenon whose origins may not be proven or reconciled by scientific laws. For example, can you explain or suggest a scientific method that can explain and test magic or sorcery which manifest physical acts that defy scientific laws? What about near-dearth-experiences (NDE)? Can science explain it using the present tools available?

"Science could absolutely never describe a supernatural phenomenon that I just made up in my imagination. Clearly, this demonstrates the weakness of science."

Scientific conclusions reached based on a preset and biased mindset fueled by atheism MUST BE REJECTED.

Lag's note: This is where I picture a Dalek screaming the last, capitalized part of his sentence.

You may wonder why most ordinary people would naturally reject both cosmic and biological evolution theory when taught in a context that refutes intelligent design. It is simple. Because natural instincts simply tells them that it is practically impossible for the kind of structured and complex order we see in our universe to be a product of mere chance based on blind probability trials over billions of years.

"Intuition tells me god is real. Fuck you, reality!"

For example, consider this for one moment. If chance, the occurrence from an unlikelihood, and natural selection produced the order of the Solar systems, the beautiful flowers we see, the animals, and plants, humans, etc, (Even if it took millions of years) then we should also see such outcomes from natural selection expressed in the other planets considering that our earth was also formed at about the same time the other planets were formed in our solar system. Natural selection should have also given rise to similar or diverse forms of evolutions and life forms without intelligent design in the other planets and galaxies as well. We should be able to see aliens and other creatures in the evolving processes of evolution in the other planets. But we do not see such. This alone presents a red flag and an obvious campaign against the concept of natural selection. The argument that the conditions of the other planets would not make these possible is a weak argument because the evolution process should be able to create the same kind of conditions in other planets to make other forms of visible life forms possible just like it did no earth.

"If evolution is right, life should have evolved on Jupiter, because it's the same age as Earth! And don't go on telling me about Jupiter being unfit for life, because it had just as much time to become earth-like as Earth did! Fuck you, science!"

While it may be true that the talk-radio version may have misrepresented the genuine scientific theory, the essence of the statement should not be evaded. The point is that tornadoes in a junkyard, even if occurring every day for trillions of years, would never leave in its wake a 747 produced by natural selection or by natural laws regardless of whether or not it appeared suddenly or over the period of trillions of years.

"I'll admit that my arguments revolve around strawmen of actual scientific theories, but the important thing is to remember that my strawmen are darned realistic-looking, and they take it up the ass without whining about it."

The point of the statement is that the odds are virtually impossible for random chance and natural selection to bring about beautiful flowers, horses, humans, etc. even if it were to take trillions of years. This should be obvious from the fact that for over 4.5 billions of years according to scientific calculations of the age of our Solar system, no such life forms or even any unusual different kind of life form have emerged in any of these other planets by a process induced by the arguments natural selection proponents.

"Once again, you'll notice that Jupiter has no life on it. I cannot begin to tell you how obvious it is to me that this means life on Earth could not have evolved."

I know it has been argued that intelligent design is not scientific because it cannot be tested. I do not believe that evolution BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL SELECTION can be tested as well. “natural selection” is simply just a convenient and accepted term because it evades the reality that atheistic scientists do not want to confront-INTELLIGENT DESIGN. “Intelligent design” should really be the right term that should have been used instead of “natural selection” but the consequences would be so overwhelming and so it is more convenient to deny ID in the course of explaining both the cosmic and biological theory of evolution.

"I have absolutely no idea what any of the theories I'm arguing against actually say, so I'll just bullshit my way through this part of the e-mail, repeat my assertion that I personally have to believe something for it to be true, and hope you don't notice."

If we as intelligent humans in thousands of years cannot put molecules together to create life forms, how is it conceivable then that blind chance, giving the odds, would create these life forms on earth even if giving millions of years?

"I ALSO love to say the word 'odds' in gramatically weak challenges for answers that reek of ignorance to anyone with a high school education."

Friend, I know you are no stranger to the gospel. Look at the stars, the planets, the galaxies, the flowers, the trees, the seas and you will indeed see intelligent design by God in action every where. God loves you. You were the reason he sent Jesus to die on the Cross. All you need to do is receive his love and accept his Son Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and you would have eternal life with him in eternity. It was based on this love that he shed his blood for your sins so that you can have forgiveness. Please don’t harden your heart to his call. Why don’t you try him now and just ask him to forgive you and ask him to send his Son Jesus to your heart right now. Would you? I will keep praying for you and I trust that the Lord would turn your heart to really see him and know him.
Cheers, and may the good God bless you abundantly.

"Jesus, Jesus, rah rah rah!"

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'll deal with it for you.



So Mike, how does it feel to outsource your email?

[Darth Wong]

Ha! The Chinese guy outsources to the white guy!

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ha! The Chinese guy outsources to the white guy!

Behold how the tables have turned!


----

Hello,

My name is Ben, I am a PhD student in biology at the University of Texas at Arlington. I study the evolution of anti-predator defenses in amphibians, and foraging strategies in aquatic snakes. Mike did not have the time to respond in full to your email, so he did a little bit of outsourcing. I will go through your email and see if I can correct the many misconceptions you have about biology, and science in general.

First off is the presumption of naturalism. This underpins a lot of this conflict, and there is a reason for it. We can both generally accept that there are an infinite number of claims I can potentially make about the universe. The universe is a big place. Trying to prove something to be true is impossible because I would have to be omniscient, and thus we run into the problem of induction. Just because there is evidence supporting the truth of a claim, it does not necessarily mean that it is true. For example: it was once thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Early scientists had decent observational evidence for this, and did not have the equipment or knowledge base to have a chance at knowing better. They had evidence, but it does not necessarily mean that it is true.

What we can do is prove a model false. We can make a testable prediction about what we will see in the universe if the prediction is true, the falsity of which also falsifies or forces a modification of our model. If the prediction is true, we have not accepted our model. We have failed to reject it. Those models for how the universe functions are theories. Laws are not theories that have somehow been elevated. They are descriptions. Observations of the universe.

The problem with non-naturalistic explanations is that they are not subject to this testing process. What predictions can you make in a scientific context about the universe that if not true, would falsify the existence of god? You can always fall back to data manipulation by Satan for example. Or not just god, any supernatural being. There are an infinite number to choose from, with an infinite number of potential properties. How do you make testable predictions with that? You can't.

The ultimate test of a theory is of course whether or not it can be applied to successfully solve practical problems. Have you ever used a vaccine? How about taken anti-biotics, or eaten cultivated plants? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, you rely on evolution in your day to day life and take it for granted.

Now on to your other sections.

Cosmic evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution. The universe does not have to have come about via the big bang for there to have been an earth, then abiogenesis (the start of life), and then evolution. You are committing a fallacy of false equivocation. The term Evolution has several different meanings in the english language, one of them is a gradual unfolding, growth, or development. The development of the universe fits, and thus the general field is termed Cosmic Evolution.

This is entirely distinct from biological evolution, which is the observed fact that allele frequencies and thus populations and species change over long periods of time. The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (with a bit of Punctuated Equilibrium thrown in for color), the joining of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and Population Genetics, is the theory that explains that particular set of observations.

As for the big bang proper, it was the beginning of the universe. Without a universe, concepts like mass, time, density, and velocity are meaningless. The question you ask is a complete non-sequiter.

In regard to the solar system:

You said:

"It is only natural and logical for the one who is really reasoning to see that such processes BASED ON THE ODDS could not possibly have: (1) been caused and (2) continued in such purposeful order BY SOME FORM OF CHANCE emanating from the big bang process WITHOUT A DELIBERATE INTELLIGENT GUIDE TO THESE PROCESS."

How do you calculate those odds? There are a lot of solar systems we have discovered so far, they all seem to function just fine. Some have Multiple plants, binary systems are possible etc. Obviously the forces of gravitation are just fine and up to the task of handling systems of planetary bodies. There is simply no need to invoke an intelligent process. The natural processes account for the observation just fine.

Especially once you consider that this galaxy alone contains over one hundred billion starts, and has existed for around 13 billion years.

To put this another way, put a hundred billion people in a (gas giant sized) room and give each one a deck of shuffled cards. The chances of them drawing 4 aces is approximately one in 6.5 million. So if the odds of having a solar system capable of supporting complex life on a single planet are that low, then around 15 thousand systems across the galaxy will have a planet capable of supporting complex life. Just on their own, via the forces of gravitation and the brightness of their sun. Those are just the ones that have a single planet. I can also tell you the odds of having multiple planets.

The first observer did not use logic like I just did. He (or she) used intuition. It makes sense to a human mind that complex things need complex designers, because are complex designers that build complex things. However that does not mean that it is the logical answer in every instance. It is logical to assume that a car or house, or the DNS architecture that we use for the internet and correspond via email had a designer. That is because those designers are human. We know for a fact that these things were designed because we were the ones to do it.

However we also know that under certain conditions, natural processes can give rise to complex objects. Therefore it is logical to go through a process when we find a new object to figure out which of these two causal chains to use. We do not simply assume it was designed by a human-like designer because it is complex. Assuming something for which you have no evidence is the antithesis of logic.

No designer actually requires the least number of moving parts. It is simpler. For example, the designer had to come from somewhere too. If that is another designer, that designer also had to come from somewhere. Ultimately until you want to talk about the nth intelligent designer where n equals infinity, something somewhere must have arisen from a natural process that creates complexity. Like natural selection, or the process of cosmic evolution such as gravitation and planetary accretion.

If however the object is explainable by natural processes, then there is no reason to invoke design, and then attempt to figure out how the designer got there.

For example. The frogs I study are complex objects. I have two paths to take. I can claim that a designer produced them, or that a natural process did. I know that frogs, and animals in general reproduce in some fashion with genetic changes between generations, and that these generations affect survival and reproduction probabilities. I do a bit of fossil hunting and some genetics and I find out that these objects, the frogs, share the most gene sequence in common with salamanders (and after that Cecaelians then dipnoian fish etc) and that there is a Triassic fossil called Gerobatrachus that was basically a hopping short tailed salamander thing. I can thus conclude that a natural process produced the frogs, and that there is no need to invoke design.

How is doing that somehow less logical than simply invoking design right off the bat?


You said:

"Clearly, it would seem to any rational and logical person that it is the second observer who is not employing any logical reasoning regarding the things he is observing. The first observer may not be able to give you the kind of explanation that you seek from science regarding his conclusions but this does not mean that he is not reasonable or correct to conclude that there must be some form of deliberate intelligent design and designer that caused and maintain these processes from what he naturally observes."

Actually it means precisely that. While it is not necessarily true that he is incorrect, his chances of being correct are significantly lower than observer #2, who actually used logic, reason, and evidence to support his proposition.

You said:

"It is not the reasoning that laws guide these planets that is illogical and without rational thinking but the reasoning that these laws are void of any initiation from any form of intelligence."

What chain of reasoning do you use to support the proposition that there needs to be initiation by intelligence? Why can these principles not simply be inherent properties of matter that are the results of particles within said matter, or interactions between the vibration patterns of tiny strands of energy held deep within the subatomic particles? We have more evidence for String Theory than we do a god. You are violating a logical principle called Parsimony.

That having been said, unless you are going to commit a special pleading fallacy, your own "logic" requires that you concede that god himself would require design, or initiation by some other intelligent force. So, who created, designed, or facilitated god?

You said:

"I could also apply this same consideration to the field of biological evolution with specific regard to abiogenesis using the Darwinian model as well as other models of biological evolution that deny ID."

And how would you do this precisely?


You said:

"However the point to note is that It is not the concept of evolution in terms of speciation that is absurd in itself but the thought that the origins and the processes that clearly lead to the ultimate “creation” of fully functional and complex living things from the evolving processes occurred and occur from non living matter in the universe by molecules colliding, replicating and reacting together over billions of years to form the first fully functional common ancestor that produced the variation of species we see today."

Based on what? Your extensive knowledge of biochemistry?

No, seriously. Getting the first primitive organism is relatively easy. You need a fatty acid vesicle (a bubble), and nucleotide monomers. Both of these were readily available in the pre-life environment. The vesicles are permeable to small organic molecules.

If a bubble comes across another fatty acid molecule, it will incorporate it and grow, then when sufficiently big will split. So what about the genetic material? Phosphoramidate DNA is capable of auto-catalysis and can self replicate. They also ligate in solution. So, we have a vesicle, and genetic material that can self replicate. What about function? Life? Natural Selection.

The bubbles are permeable to monomers but not polymers. The monomers enter and get incorporated into the polymer strand and dont leave.

The fatty acid bubbles will encounter convection currents, and the heat from things like deep ocean vents will denature the DNA strand and increase the permeability of the bubble to more monomers. Once they leave, re-annealing will occur. Lather, rinse repeat.

The polymers increase the osmotic pressure in the bubble, stretching the membrane. If it encounters another vesicle, the bubble with more polymer will eat it. IE. they compete, and eat eachother. They eventually get big enough to divide, and the daughter vessicles inherit polymer from the parent.

Mutations (ligation errors) that increase replication rate will be favored, so will sequences changes that favor the most common nucleotides. A bunch of other stuff. These polymers can for example catalyze reacrtions, and if they form secondary structures to increase size, then they may form shapes that catalyze reactions beneficial to the incipient cell. There you go. Primitive life. No god.

You said:

Even if we were to assume that our first common ancestor for humans that emanated through the various processes of evolution was an Ape-like creature with far much less intelligence than man in his state as he is today, it would still be very absurd and a reflection of overwhelming foolishness on the part of anyone to think and believe that the processes that led to the evolution of such a creature was void of intelligent design but rather came about by a mere process of chance predicated on what has been termed “natural selection”.

And you base this on what? Your extensive knowledge of biology, anthropology and neuroscience? Upon what basis are you calling this proposition foolish? Your say so?

You said:

How can natural selection create the first common ancestor with life over a period of time (regardless of how long) and produce eyes, tongue, ears, the intestines, the organs designed to have sex and reproduce (how would it know that there was or was to be a female companion and make provision for this?) and all the other complex organs WITHOUT ANY “SELF AWARE” INTELLIGENCE behind these processes?.

Billions of years. That is how.

Eyes have a relatively simple evolution. Photosensive cells in a plate detect light and shadow. If a mutation causes it to form a concave disk, it can detect direction. Curve in on itself more and you have a pinhole camera. Each stage in this progression give the organisms that possess them an advantage in the environment they live against those that dont.

Ears are similar. Just nerve attached to a jaw bone in its most primitive form. The jaw bone pics up powerful low frequency sound. From there the evolution is easy, considering that the bones in your ear used to be jaw bones.

Do I need to go through the other sensory organs?

The intestines etc are just gut tissue. Came around really early. It is derived from the same tissue as the hole in a natural sponge. It just became one way instead of two way. IE another hole evolved. Go from there, selecting for digestive efficiency.

sex is also easy. The first sexually reproducing organisms were hermaphrodites and facultatively asexual.

You really have betrayed how little you know of the subject.

You said:

I believe that the evidence for intelligent design is overwhelmingly glaring for those who would simply choose to observe honestly and also logically apply knowledge appropriately from what has been observed, given the odds in the given scenario.

What you believe is only relevant if you know what you are talking about.

You said:

A supernatural cause could lead to a natural phenomenon whose origins may not be proven or reconciled by scientific laws. For example, can you explain or suggest a scientific method that can explain and test magic or sorcery which manifest physical acts that defy scientific laws?

If those things existed I am sure we could find a way to do that. Do you really think Harry Potter is real? Or are you just tossing it out as an example?

You said:

What about near-dearth-experiences (NDE)? Can science explain it using the present tools available? Dr Robert Jordan rightly stated:

When people start to die and their brain is deprived of oxygen, it starts to freak out and hallucinate. We can actually replicate these exact results at high G forces in a centrifuge. It is really funny watching them put an astronaut or fighter pilot in one of those things.

For example, consider this for one moment.

You said

If chance, the occurrence from an unlikelihood, and natural selection produced the order of the Solar systems, the beautiful flowers we see, the animals, and plants, humans, etc, (Even if it took millions of years) then we should also see such outcomes from natural selection expressed in the other planets considering that our earth was also formed at about the same time the other planets were formed in our solar system.

Natural selection cannot produce order in the solar system because the solar system is not alive. In life, it can do so, but not with planets. Other forces, like gravity, do that.

That having been said, we are still looking on other planets. Life did probably at one point exist on Mars. It may also exist on a few of our gas giant's moons.

You said:

Natural selection should have also given rise to similar or diverse forms of evolutions and life forms without intelligent design in the other planets and galaxies as well. We should be able to see aliens and other creatures in the evolving processes of evolution in the other planets. But we do not see such.

That is because we cannot travel faster than the speed of light to these places. We are only just now able to even see planets outside of our solar system, and you expect us to be able to detect life? We have not even discovered all of the species that currently live on this planet. What are you smoking exactly?

You said:

While it may be true that the talk-radio version may have misrepresented the genuine scientific theory, the essence of the statement should not be evaded.

It is not an evasion if there is no point. That is why those arguments are called Straw Men. They are constructed caricatures which have little or nothing to do with what evolution by natural selection actually entails. They are the rhetorical equivalent of putting scarecrows on your city walls and then slaughter them mercilessly to intimidate your enemies. They are lies (said arguments made during the so-called talk radio version of evolution).

Why should we not just ignore falsehoods like that?

You said:

The point is that tornadoes in a junkyard, even if occurring every day for trillions of years, would never leave in its wake a 747 produced by natural selection or by natural laws regardless of whether or not it appeared suddenly or over the period of trillions of years.

Well it is good for the scientific community that a tornado in a junkyard does not operate like the laws of chemistry and physics do in biochemical systems, isn't it?

You said:

When science can really bring molecules together and make them replicate on their own and build new life forms using natural selection, then we will believe in evolution by natural selection.

Yeah... we can actually do that. It is how we genetically engineer plants and bacteria that produce things like medications. The insulin diabetics need to live? Yeah. We did that by inserting the gene that produces human insulin into E. Coli and then using natural selection to make them produce it efficiently.

How how about making our own polio virus from scratch? Done that.

Oh I see. You want us to mimic the conditions of early life and pop out a cell in five minutes. To replicate a process that gook at least a few hundred thousand years within your life time. I see. Of course when we do that you will just claim that the results were manipulated by Satan, or that we designed the system and therefore the experiment is invalid.

You said:

Rom 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.

Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.

Then explain why christianity only cropped up in a tiny population along a trade-route through the middle east and then had to be spread word of mouth everywhere else? If what Paul says here is true, we would expect christianity, or at least Judiasm to crop up everywhere.

Also: Paul Said a lot of things.

Rom:

The proper foll of women is to be silent, barefoot and in the kitchen.

2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


Rom:

Never allow women to speak or ask questions in church
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Cor:

I, Paul will lie cheat and deceive to convert people.

9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Ephesians

Slaves... be happy being slaves.

6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
6:6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
6:7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.



Perhaps it is best that we do not believe Paul in these matters. Also, do you really think you will convert atheists by quoting a book we dont believe in at us?

~Ben

[Channel72]

Jesus Christ Alyrium, talk about throwing pearls before swine.

Anyway, I've said it before: the "Argument from Design" is the most intuitively powerful argument ever proposed for theism. It doesn't matter how vacuous or self-defeating it actually is, most people simply cannot fathom the idea that complexity imbued with apparent function and purpose (such as biological or cosmological systems) can arise through blind natural processes. Ironically, these same people have no problem with the Designer Himself (who would obviously have to be an incredibly complex entity) existing for no reason.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Jesus Christ Alyrium, talk about throwing pearls before swine.

Anyway, I've said it before: the "Argument from Design" is the most intuitively powerful argument ever proposed for theism. It doesn't matter how vacuous or self-defeating it actually is, most people simply cannot fathom the idea that complexity imbued with apparent function and purpose (such as biological or cosmological systems) can arise through blind natural processes. Ironically, these same people have no problem with the Designer Himself (who would obviously have to be an incredibly complex entity) existing for no reason.

The best part is, it gook me about an hour to construct, pulling entirely from memory (except for the exact bible verses. I knew where to look for those though). I did not bother copy editing though.

That is because it stems from a cognitive bias or two. We are designers. Thus complex things require something like us. The other one is a teleological problem. People assume that everything that does something has an actual purpose. A reason for existing that is externally imparted (IE. everything exists as a means, not as its own end). They do this because humans are designers. It is just how our brains are wired.

[Serafina]

Evolution is NOT a blind process.

Really, compare it to being given a random set of pebbles and then picking the "best" from it (whatever your criteria may be - shiny, big, flat, round etc.).
You won't select blindly, would you?

Similary, mutations occur randomly but the selection is NOT random - the best are favored.
That's the very opposite of random.

Once you grasp that, evolution becomes a very intuitive thing.

[Channel72]

Evolution is NOT a blind process.

While natural selection is not random, it is "blind" in the sense of non-teleological, i.e. it has no goal or purpose, nor is it guided by any interests stemming from a self-aware mind.

[Flagg]

Will I get banned if I mention that I sent him links to youtube videos of people having huge cysts/abscesses drained?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Probably not, but it was a dick move.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Probably not, but it was a dick move.

Yeah, that is pretty shitty. There is only one instance in which that is acceptable, and that is with these people.

[Flagg]

Sorry, but that is how I view people who send Mike shit like that. As abscesses that need to be drained from society.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I hate to say it Alyrium, but that was probably a waste of time. I guarantee you lost that guy within the first paragraph or two, so he's just going to assume you made the whole thing up. You should have included some examples of poor design in organisms, such as the fact that our airway crosses our food path, meaning that every time we eat we risk choking to death. I also like to use whales as an example, here you have an animal that spends its entire life in water, that will in fact die if it gets washed up on shore, but it can still drown. I think using examples like this works better than actually attempting to explain how things really work because they're easier for someone with a substandard education to understand

[Lagmonster]

I hate to say it Alyrium, but that was probably a waste of time. I guarantee you lost that guy within the first paragraph or two, so he's just going to assume you made the whole thing up.

Fundies don't want to hear about contradictions and, more importantly, they cannot understand why what they've said is wrong. It's like talking to a parrot; it sounds like conversation, but they're just reacting to you with a few preset phrases and do not understand the context or meaning of what it being said.

In answer to Mike's question, I believe that the only way to talk to fundies who spout walls of pseudoscience is the way they talk to the unconverted: like children. If I were going to write to the guy directly, I'd have said something along the lines of, "You have never had a formal scientific education, or you would not have such a twisted and ignorant view of science. You are simply listening to people who already think as you do and tell you what you want to hear, and saying things that you feel are right without questioning whether your feelings have anything to do with what we can observe. Until you do what scientists do, namely educate yourself and study the concepts objectively, you will never be able to criticize science in any way that people will take seriously."

[Dave]

I hate to say it Alyrium, but that was probably a waste of time.

I found it useful. Every time I read something like this I seem to learn something new.

For example, I hadn't heard that we had recreated near-death experiences using high G forces. I assumed it would be possible by putting the brain in similar conditions, but I didn't know it had been replicated in that manner. (I'd actually like learn more about that; it sounds interesting. I'll have to do some digging.)

[Oskuro]

Woah Mike, you still get these mails? I thought they had given up on trying to "convert" you by now.

Ha! The Chinese guy outsources to the white guy!

May I suggest a SLAM subforum where you can dump these mails for the board to pick appart? As Dave says, appart from the obvious entertainment value, you always learn something new from people tackling these.

It could be called M.O.C.K (Mike Outsources Creationist Knowledge..... Darn, I suck at acronyms )

[Solauren]

Mike Outsources Creationist Knocking

[SapphireFox]

May I suggest a SLAM subforum where you can dump these mails for the board to pick appart? As Dave says, appart from the obvious entertainment value, you always learn something new from people tackling these.

I would like to second (or is it third?) this idea. It would be a useful resource for people who are newer at this sort of thing like me, to watch the experts take these kind of "arguments" apart. It might be a good dumping ground for this sort of thing from everyone on SD.net.

[Dave]

I would like to second (or is it third?) this idea. It would be a useful resource for people who are newer at this sort of thing like me, to watch the experts take these kind of "arguments" apart. It might be a good dumping ground for this sort of thing from everyone on SD.net.

It also lets the less experienced members try their hand at debating idiots of all sorts. (Although, isn't that the point of this board anyway?)

Mike Outsources Creationist Knocking

I'd suggest that Knockdowns was the word you were looking for. "M.O.C.K. : Mike Outsources Creationist Knockdowns"

[Solauren]

Knockdowns is better.

[Channel72]

Fundies don't want to hear about contradictions and, more importantly, they cannot understand why what they've said is wrong. It's like talking to a parrot; it sounds like conversation, but they're just reacting to you with a few preset phrases and do not understand the context or meaning of what it being said.

True. It's incredibly difficult to actually have an intellectually enjoyable debate with a Creationist. It's a very rare breed of Creationist who has both the scientific understanding to engage in a meaningful debate, and the degree of cognitive dissonance necessary to actually defend Creationism in the first place. Most intelligent, scientifically-educated Christians aren't Young Earth Creationists, but instead espouse much more nebulous positions, such as "theistic evolution" or what have you. However, there are certain, rare Creationists out there, such as this guy, who can put up a decent debate; these are the sort of people who are immersed in Answers in Genesis-style creationist literature. They've memorized all the latest anti-Darwin arguments, and have just enough of an actual understanding of evolutionary biology to put up an enjoyable intellectual challenge.