* Biblical claims by Adams are easily refuted by honest look at science

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Letters to the Editor

Biblical claims by Adams are easily refuted by honest look at science

Tue, 05/30/2006 - 3:51pm

By: Letters to the ...

Pepper Adams in his letter to the editor [“What are the odds? It takes a heap of faith to maintain atheist viewpoint”] makes numerous spurious claims about what folks in the scientific community believe and how they arrive at their beliefs.

His article rest upon the “time-tested gamut” of authors who wish to “prove claims” when no real evidence exists for them: juxtapose lots of unrelated facts that sound scientific or scholarly; don’t let the reader dwell on any particular claim too long; and make lots of claims about opposing views to redirect the reader’s attention from the superficial content of the presentation.

Here, only a few of Pepper Adams’ missteps and erroneous claims are commented upon. “Most literature on creationism, numerology, astrology relies on tactics akin to his to persuade the unwary reader.

Claim 1: “To be an atheist you have to believe that the universe was created out of nothing by no one.” Not so: It may be argued that the universe has always existed in various states, and hence doesn’t require a creator.

The religious community holds this as obvious about God: God just exists and doesn’t require a creator. (If one ontological entity can have no creator, so can others.) Moreover, assertions like these have nothing to do with the notion of causality. (Or would Pepper Adams maintain that God needs a causal basis for existence?)

Claim 2: “To be an atheist you have to believe that all the fine tuning of the universe was just a really lucky accident.” Nobody of competence in the scientific community holds that simplistic view. Ramsey Theory and other fields of modern mathematics prove that order and structure must always exist in sufficiently large groups of stuff - molecules, stars, etc. A major goal of modern physics is to provide a comprehensive theory of how natural laws work and why they exist.

Claim 3: “To be an atheist you have to believe that life came from non-life, in violation of current scientific dogma.” Another “half truth.” On the macro level, life does only come from other life. On the micro level, not so. If Pepper Adams read the Bible less and watch Nova more often on PBS, he would have seen a show that details the ongoing efforts to “create life” from scratch. Many experts anticipate that all the pieces to the “life puzzle” will be figured out in 10 or 20 years.

In my opinion, the religious community should stop fostering myths like creationism and focus on the truly monumental issues that will soon confront us — like new life forms created via genetic engineering.

Claim 4: “To be an atheist you have to believe that chance explains complex information systems rising from chaos. This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us the universe is going from order to disorder.” Again, another half truth.

Chance doesn’t explain the origin of “organized systems,” but lots of other mathematics endeavors to do so. (By the way, the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t apply to “local systems,” organisms, for example.)

Claim 5: “To be an atheist you have to believe Darwin was right even though the fossil record contradicts the Darwinian model.” Pepper Adams, stop spreading creationism myths.

Evolution is accepted as a “thoroughly proved” fact by the scientific community worldwide. The fossil record doesn’t contradict the tenets of evolution whatsoever; watch Nova more often or take a biology course at a local college and get enlightened — “missing pieces of the evolutionary puzzle” are found daily, and the picture becomes clearer as more data gets found.

Claim 6: “To be an atheist you have to believe that the writers of the Bible were incredibly good guessers.” Pepper Adams, please take a course in cultural anthropology. Virtually every culture has its “creation myths and gods,” and they are as certain as you that their myths and gods are the right stuff.

There are enumerable factual errors in the Bible and contradictions of all kinds. Pepper Adams, look up the dimensions of the Ark in the bible; convert them to meters or (or feet); compute the maximum size of the Ark; and conclude that the animals at the Atlanta Zoo couldn’t fit. (Or, do you also hold the laws of arithmetic in question?)

Or, look up the value for pi (circumference of circle divided by diameter of circle) as given in the Bible. Wrong, pi doesn’t = 3. (Ancient Egyptian mathematicians had a much better approximation for this transcendental number.)

Pepper Adams notes that: “How did they know that the earth was initially dark and covered with water ...” Please, Genesis got most of it wrong. Let There Be Light should have come before creation of the Earth by God. You don’t find scripture quoted in Planetary Science courses. Why? Mythology is taught in other courses.

Most people who hold out the Bible as the “last word” in enlightenment seem to lack any understanding of its origins, from a historical perspective. The King James Bible, for example, was a report written by a committee subcontracted by the king. They cut and pasted till the king finally had a document which met his political goals and circumvented his marital problems with the church.

Writers of the Bible edited scripture throughout history to meet the political and cultural needs of the time. (Mary didn’t become a virgin until a committee at a conference thought it would appeal to the audience at large. Look it up in a history book.)

Peter Duran
Fayetteville, Ga.

Play-By-Play: The Adams-Duran Bout

Submitted by muddle on Sun, 06/04/2006 - 7:09am.

Peter Duran must have had his trusty volume of "Snappy Answers to (Stupid) Christian Assertions" when he replied to Pepper Adams. It is essential reading for all Village Atheists.

Some of what he charges is just the standard low-wattage stuff that one comes to expect at this level. "How did Noah fit all of those animals in the ark?" he asks. As a challenge to theism, this is about as significant as raising the conundrum, "Did Adam have a belly button?" Or, "What did the vultures eat before there was death?" It is, perhaps, sufficient to befuddle the unreflective church-goer, and to render a satisfied smile on the face of the unreflective skeptic, but it is hardly a significant item on the agenda.

And he closes with an absolute howler. Were we to check the "history books," we would discover that Mary's virginity was established by vote for its marketing value. Which "history book" did you have in mind, Mr. Duran? There are plenty of crackpot theories surrounding the origins of Christianity and the life of Jesus. One theory has it that "Jesus" was actually a code word for a hallucinogenic mushroom. Were one to visit infidels.org, one would find this fly-by-night theory of the origins of belief in Mary’s virginity advanced. But the preponderance of scholarship says otherwise. Hardly the stuff of history.

I won’t attempt a point-for-point reply to Mr. Duran. Instead, I want to touch on two issues that came up in his reply: (1) whether the stuff of the universe has just always been around and (2) the fine-tuning of the universe at its inception.

THE BIG BANG AND THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE

Pepper Adams claims that atheists must believe that the universe just popped into existence without a cause. Not so, says Mr. Duran. The atheist might maintain that matter-energy has always been around in some form or other. After all, theists claim this for God. Why cannot the atheist claim this for the material world?

Indeed, it’s an ancient view. The Greek atomist, Leucippus, claimed that atoms, the basic constituents out of which everything is made, were eternal, neither coming into nor passing out of existence.

But Leucippus never heard of the Big Bang.

Orthodox Big Bang theory implies that the universe did indeed have a beginning in time. Fred Hoyle, who was slowly won over to the theory, found precisely this implication to be “repugnant.” It is, after all, an “undignified” way for a world to begin. “Rather like a party girl jumping out of a cake,” he said. Sir Arthur Eddington found it equally repugnant. Indeed, a Peter Duran should find the implications repugnant. Robert Jastrow put it well in God and the Astronomers: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

The Great White Hope for people like Mr. Duran is the Oscillating Model of the universe. On this model, though the universe is currently in an expansion phase, the mutual gravitational attraction of all of the universal particles will eventually apply the brakes and reverse the process, culminating in a “Big Crunch.” (Will life evolve again during this phase? Once the scientists have made the discovery that everything is rushing toward a fatal crash, will the philosophers and poets lament?) Perhaps, then, the stuff of reality has been doing this expansion-contraction gig without beginning. No theologians at the peak this time. Nietzsche is more like it.

What does the Oscillating Model have going for it? Precious little beyond the sheer theological repugnance of the alternative. At one level, the deciding factor is empirical in nature. It’s simple math (for people who, unlike me, can do high level math). How dense is the universe? That is, how much stuff is there? If it is sufficiently dense, then acceleration will eventually give way to gravity. If not, then the initial impetus of the Big Bang is more forceful than gravity and the universe has the cheery prospect of expanding out into a cold death of equilibrium. If you want your rocket ship to break free of the earth’s gravity, then the acceleration at lift off must outpace the earth’s natural grip on the craft. Current scientific wisdom suggests that the density does not even approach the necessary amount. The ship will break free after all.

But beyond the empirical question, the notion of a beginningless series of events (or, as this idea implies, an actually infinite number of successive universes) is of doubtful coherence. If matter has always been around doing its thing, then the answer to the question, “How many events have occurred before now?” is “An infinite number.” Of course, had we asked that question yesterday, or last year, or a millennium ago, the answer would have been the same. Mathematician David Hilbert argued that although we may speak of actually infinite sets of things, like the set of all numbers or of all even numbers or (perhaps) all prime numbers, the notion of there being an actually existing infinite set is incoherent. The definition of an infinite set is that it is one such that a proper subset of itself is equivalent to the original set. Example: the set of all even numbers is equivalent to the set of all numbers in that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the members of the two sets. There are no more numbers than there are even numbers, or vice versa. But we have excluded all the set of the odd numbers--itself an infinite set! Hilbert highlighted the problem of conceiving actually existing infinite sets of things with his example of Hilbert’s Hotel—a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms. Here, infinite numbers of guests can check in over and over again yet there is always a vacancy. The result is logically absurd. What goes for hotels goes for universes. If actually infinite collections of things are logically absurd (and, therefore, are impossible), and a beginningless series of events in time is an actually infinite collection, then it is impossible that the universe is beginningless.

And so we are back to Pepper Adams’ claim that an atheist must suppose that the universe popped into existence uncaused.

THE FINE-TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE

What is the talk of “fine-tuning” about? Well, our best science suggests that, at its inception, the universe displayed wildly improbable features that happened to be required for the existence of life. Put simply, anything might have happened. The Big Bang could have generated a force and expansion/acceleration rate that simply did not allow for the possibility of the formation of galaxies and their stars and planets. In that case, life--not just life as we know it, but any life at all--would never have been possible. Or, alternatively, the rate may have been such that the universe could have simply collapsed back on itself before stars were born as gravity overcame the acceleration rate. Again, no life. Against all probability, here we are. Authors John Leslie, Paul Davies, and many others have concurred in observing that the universe appears to have been rigged by someone with the existence of life in mind. Philosopher Robin Collins (http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetlay.htm) lists some of the factors that were required to fall within astoundingly narrow parameters:
1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10(60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10(60) can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)
2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.)
3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10(40), then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)
4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 )
5. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons. (Leslie, 1988, p. 299.)

Indeed, Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of having all such parameters aligned for life by chance are 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power. He adds,
“This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10[10(123)]. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be a 1 followed by 10(123) successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.”

As you move from one theorist to another, you’ll hear different different figures regarding the probabilities here. But all are agreed that it is astonishingly improbable that we should be here at all.

Let’s consider two competing hypotheses for explaining the fine-tuning. The first is the theistic hypothesis that the universe is the product of intelligent design—it is God’s creation. The second is the naturalistic hypothesis that the Big Bang yielded these improbable values by chance. And let’s ask of our two hypotheses, “on which one is the existence of a universe such as ours more probable?” To understate the case, a life-sustaining universe is more probable on theism than on naturalism (combined with the notion of a single Big Bang).

Mr. Duran fails to address the real issue in his reply to Adams. He writes, ” Ramsey Theory and other fields of modern mathematics prove that order and structure must always exist in sufficiently large groups of stuff - molecules, stars, etc. A major goal of modern physics is to provide a comprehensive theory of how natural laws work and why they exist.”

But the fine-tuning was a necessary condition for there being such things as “groups” of anything—much less, “stars.” Ramsey Theory does not even begin to approach an explanation for the fine-tuning, as there innumerably many forms of “order” that could have resulted from the Big Bang but which are not amenable to life in any form.

To invoke a mathematical principle to explain the fine-tuning is to imply that the universe included its initial constants by necessity. But clearly there was nothing necessary about it from a logical point of view. To suggest that there was is to imply that the notion of any different result is contradictory. But clearly that is not the case. “A Big Bang resulted in an ever-expanding universe in which galaxies never congeal and life never evolves” is not like saying “A Big Bang resulted in a universe full of square circles.” Nope. No logical necessity here.

Perhaps we can find a necessity for the fine-tuning in more fundamental physical laws. That is, perhaps a simple law that is captured in an elegant but as yet elusive Theory of Everything necessitates the values of the gravitational constant, the proton-neutron ratio, the acceleration rate and all the rest. This would not be *logical* necessity, but *nomological* necessity. It is not logically impossible for me to walk on water (i.e., the notion is no contradiction), but it is impossible given certain laws of displacement and the like. So perhaps we shall learn that, say, “strings” and their “vibrations” give rise to features of the universe that we have called the fine-tuning. Then we can say that, given the Theory of Everything, the probability of fine-tuning is 1. There will then be nothing left about which anyone should be astonished.

But this merely backs the problem up one step. Suppose that there are indeed more fundamental laws that render the fine-tuning probable. How probable are those fundamental laws themselves? Once again, there is nothing logically necessary here. Without pain of contradiction, we can readily imagine and describe worlds in which the fundamental laws are much different, just as we can imagine worlds in which the laws of displacement are different. Why should the basic laws that govern all else in the universe have been precisely those that would generate a finely tuned and life-sustaining universe? If our original question had to do with the improbability of the fine-tuning, the same question is with us regarding what we may call the “meta-fine-tuning.” The theistic hypothesis still enjoys the greater probability over the naturalistic hypothesis.

One reply that occurs, of course, is that, possibly, our Big Bang is only one of infinitely many Big Bangs. Maybe there exists a “multiverse” that contains infinitely many universes, and ours is just one of them. Since the resulting laws and constants are a matter of sheer chance in each separate “universe,” the vast majority of universes never include life, but some, such as ours, hit the right combination by sheer dumb luck. We just happen to find ourselves in one in which this has happened. (Indeed, our even being here to think about it presupposes that it has happened. Had it not, we wouldn’t be here to notice!)

There are problems with this proposal. First, it is nothing more than speculative. The only “evidence” that the multiverse “theory” has going for it is precisely the evidence for design. Is it logically possible? Well, maybe not the talk about there being an “infinite” number of universes (see references to Hilbert et al above). But, clearly, it is logically possible for there to be an astonishingly large (though finite) number of them. And it is further logically possible that the constants within a universe are finely tuned by sheer chance. And this is just to observe that premises pointing out the fine-tuning do not logically entail design. The design argument here is probabilistic in nature—not deductive. But everyone already knew that. I might as well respond to the evidence that there were dinosaurs or an ice age or that the earth is more than 10,000 years old by pointing out that it is logically possible that there are factors that would produce this seeming evidence even though the assertions are all false. Indeed, if appeal to a multiverse is sufficient for removing an improbability as astonishing as that described by Penrose, then our very notion of probability is out the window. Suppose I tell you that I have tossed a coin 1000 times, and each and every time the coin came up heads. You'll tell me that it is a trick coin of some sort, or that the experiment is otherwise rigged. My reply: Consider the fact that there is an infinite number of universes in which all of the possible combinations of successive coin tosses are tried. In most of them, the so-called "law of averages" prevails. But 1000 out of 1000 is one possible combination, and we just happen to find ourselves living in a universe in which this combination is included!

And when I combine consideration of the fine-tuning with other, independent, considerations, such as the implications of the Big Bang itself (above), the difficulty of making sense of the existence of objective moral values on a naturalistic perspective, the extraordinary difficulties in explaining consciousness and the validity of rational inference on a physicalist view of things, and even the deliverances of religious experience, I conclude that theism fares much better than naturalism.

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

Epistle

Submitted by Sailon on Sun, 06/04/2006 - 8:41am.

This thing is muddled. Duane Allman must have had Cher on his mind about peaches? Trying to justify religion or no religion with a bunch of so called logic only goes to show an indifference or a lack of personal faith. The argument alone means there is a severe problem! Doesn't even make sense, nor should it. Religion is private and doesn't need amateurs trying to convince people of it's authentisity.

"Amateurs"?

Submitted by muddle on Sun, 06/04/2006 - 2:01pm.

You assert that "the argument doesn't even make sense" but you say nothing--absolutely nothing--to back up that ejaculation. Precisely where is the problem? Is it that you are incapable of following an argument, perhaps?

Why suppose that offering reasons for what one believes is evidence of a "lack of personal faith"? I trust my wife in a very personal way, but if you were to ask mre why I could offer you reasons. What's wrong with that? What's your definition of "personal faith"? A blind leap in the dark? Believing what you know ain't so?

Religion is PRIVATE????!!!!!! I should think that the question of whether there is a God is the most important of all questions. Why in the world should anyone think that it is something that should not be discussed or debated? But, of course, this is a contemporary myth that you have simply imbibed from pop culture.

Can you defend whatever view you happen to harbor without violating your own principle that such things should remain "private"? And if you believe that (whatever it is supposed to mean) what are you doing posting on the subject and thus making your views on religion public?

Try to learn to think for yourself and then come back and we'll talk.

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

Argue, why?

Submitted by Sailon on Sun, 06/04/2006 - 7:19pm.

You enjoy arguing points of religion, details. There isn't anything to argue about, either you were raised right or you weren't. You know you are a good person all of the time or you aren't. You don't cheat and steal and lie any of the time. Making a living or satisfying an ego doesn't count as an excuse, ever. Some Christians know this, some Muslims, some Hindus, and a thousand others---even some Popes, Imams, Brothers, and a thousand other titles. I still say argument about wearing lipstick, dancing, considering certain humans infallable, smoking, drinking alcohol, killing (ever), torturing, and worst of all judging others as wrong because they don't swell up your faith by seeing things as you do. God doesn't dictate stupid rules so he can send you to hades. That is just fear from lack of assurance.

The Value of Debate

Submitted by muddle on Mon, 06/05/2006 - 6:44am.

Who was talking about behavior, rules and judging others? (And where on earth did the stuff about lipstick and dancing come from?)

The question is whether there is any reason to think God exists.

One of the myths of the day--indeed, one of the more absurd myths--is that one's religion is a private and subjective affair. Whether I like daisies, enjoy adventure films, or dislike liver is subjective and private. But either there is a God as described by Christian theology or there is not. (And the "is not" might take the form of garden variety atheism or Buddhism--an atheistic religion--or pantheism or the like.)

Religious truth claims are essentially claims about the nature of *reality*--not mere claims about how someone feels or resolves to behave. To believe the core doctrines of a particular religion is to embrace a certain view of metaphysics. It is to embrace a comprehensive worldview.

So our question, that is understood by everyone else who has joined the debate--is whether there is any reason to think a particular religious truth claim true. I argued that there is indeed.

Here's the basic idea if you could not follow the argument: There are features of our experience that are best explained on the hypothesis that God exists.

I focused on a well-known phenomenon called the fine-tuning of the universe. I think that it renders theism more probable than naturalism. The twin discoveries that (a) the universe had a beginning in time (and the rejection of the Steady State Theory--an atheist's delight) and (b) the universe is, against all probability, tuned for life are predicted on theism. The naturalist, on the other hand, is sent scrambling for a way to reconcile such facts with his overall worldview.

I argue elsewhere that you cannot make sense of the objectivity of morality or the validity of human reason or consciousness itself in a universe without God.

You see, I think that the heavens do indeed declare the glory of God for it is all his handiwork. I'm just pointing out his thumbprints that are on everything.

Finally, you make some grandiose assumptions about the essence of religion. Is it indeed a matter of being "a good person all of the time," etc? Your list that follows tosses in a rather odd assortment. "Wearing lipstick" and "drinking alcohol" are listed alongside "torturing," for instance. Huh?

Christians do not, in fact, believe that it is about being good all of the time. This is an object of our *longing*, but the best Christians are the ones who know that they are in need of God's grace and forgiveness because they are presently incapable of this high ideal.

**************************
Oh, and **Gregg** Allman was married to Cher. Duane, his older brother and one of the greatest (slide) guitarists who ever lived, was killed in a motorcycle accident in Macon on October 29, 1971. Duane is buried in Rose Hill Cemetery, Macon, next to bassist, Barry Oakley, who was killed one year later in an eerily similar bike wreck close to where Duane was killed.
**************************

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

Because

Submitted by PTC Guy on Sun, 06/04/2006 - 8:53pm.

You obviously don't have a clue what God wants if you compare Christianity, Islam and such as equal in God's eyes if you are a 'good person.'

Tell me, Highgreen, since you are avoiding my other posts, who determines what 'good' is? Who sets the rules and standards? Who should you listen to for the Truth?

Is it science, the god of Islam, the no god of Buddhism, the God of Christianity, meaning Biblical Christianity or who exactly?

Please enighten me.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

RE: Epistle

Submitted by PTC Guy on Sun, 06/04/2006 - 12:14pm.

Trying to justify religion or no religion with a bunch of so called logic only goes to show an indifference or a lack of personal faith.

Really? Isn't that a statement born of your so-called logic? Your faith?

The argument alone means there is a severe problem!
Yes. There is a problem... with people who refuse to deal with fact.

Christ did miracles. He healed people right in front of the Pharisees. He fulfilled OT prophecy they were very much aware of.

Their response? They killed him.

Why? Because he did not give they answers they wanted to hear.

It is never an issue of logic, proofs or any other such things for such people. It is a problem with what they want to hear versus fact.

As for the Ultimate Beginnings question. Where is the illogical in the mere fact that science cannot produce an answer that satsifies their laws of physics and such?

That is a fact. Whether eternal or out of nothingness, science cannot abide the question of Ultimate Beginnings. And is why, as in here, Atheist and such, avoid that question like a plague.

Doesn't even make sense, nor should it. Religion is private and doesn't need amateurs trying to convince people of it's authentisity.

God is not private. That is your logic and your religious beliefs.

But beliefs that come from you. Because you want to believe what you want to believe. Facts be damned.

That is why it does not make sense to you.

Atheism is a religion. Don't try to get around that fact. So, your statement includes them as well.

Amateurs? By whose superior analysis? Yours? An amateur.

But you are right. Many people don't need anyone else to believe in something. They can believe in little green Martian Gods, which for them seem absolutely valid and true.

But do you think God gives a hoot what you decide to believe over what he demands you believe? Probably do. But God will still decide for himself... and you... where you end up.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Double Post

Submitted by PTC Guy on Sun, 06/04/2006 - 12:13pm.

Please disregard.

Evasive Non-Answers

Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 05/31/2006 - 3:31pm.

While Peter Duran's response to Pepper Adams will set well with atheist, the fact is that it evasive and pretty much baseless rhetoric.

I will highlight a couple of statements to make the point.

What this evades is the fact that science demands cause and effect. Declaring an Eternal Universe, without beginning or end, defies cause and effect. It just says the Universe was always here for no reason.

Very unscientific.

And it is bizarre to hear such an arguments when one of Atheism's rejection of God and the Bible is that it says God is eternal. Without beginning or end.

You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Duran. Yet that is exactly what you are trying to do.

An Eternal Universe is, by definition, supernatural. For the natural is bound by laws of physics and so on. And science says there must be a reason the Universe exists. Period.

Science has shown that the Universe cannot be eternal without a beginning. For, the materials of the Universe do have a life span and do die.

This is a faith statement on your part. Meaning you have chosen to believe this without proof.

The science you are speaking of deals with what is. Not how it got there.

Again, you are espousing the supernatural. For the Universe cannot possess order coming from disorder. You are saying the order always existed for no reason.

This is a faith statement on your part. Meaning you have chosen to believe this without proof.

Claim 5: “To be an atheist you have to believe Darwin was right even though the fossil record contradicts the Darwinian model.” Pepper Adams, stop spreading creationism myths.

That is totally false. Many scientist reject evolution. Others observe it for what it is. A Theory.

It is not the 'Law of Evolution.' It is the 'Theory of Evolution,' meaning it is not proven.

I have watched Nova and many more shows. Those missing pieces have been theorized to have been found. And over time the claims prove false.

A historical look at Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy and so own show they have all ended in the Evolutionists' Embarrassment File at the end of the day.

Here are the alternatives for the Ultimate Beginning:
1. The Universe has always existed.

As stated above this is impossible. Science recognizes this simple fact.

2. The Universe popped into existence for absolutely no reason. Out of absolute nothingness, meaning not even the place for it to exist was there, it just appeared.

Most assuredly this is a supernatural position. Science cannot embrace this as being a natural event.

3. It was created by a god, superior race or so on.

A god is back to the without beginning and end issue. That is supernatural.

A superior race and so on simply moves the Ultimate Beginning issue back prior to them. It does not negate it.

Atheism is a religion. And its adherents operate on faith, as demonstrated above using your own statements.

Show me an Ultimate Beginning possibility that is not supernatural by demand. You cannot do it.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

More evolution bashing

Submitted by Basmati on Sat, 06/03/2006 - 11:21am.

PTC Guy is correct when he points out that not all scientists believe in evolution. But the vast majority of scientists do. According to Newsweek magazine, 95% percent of all scientists believe in evolution. LINK

He then goes on to point out, correctly, that certain scientific frauds such as Piltdown man and Nebraska man have been proven to be unable withstand the scrutiny of the Scientific Method. There is a certain irony in his claim since latter-day scientific hoaxes such as “creationism”, “creation science” and “intelligent design” have also failed to pass muster in most scientific circles for the same reason.

Had PTC Guy attended an accredited college, he might have learned that “Scientific Theory” is far different from the general colloquial usage of the word “theory”. In the scientific community, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences, and capable of being tested through experiment (or otherwise falsified through empirical observation). To a scientist, "theory" and "fact" are not mutually exclusive. Virtually every scientist living concurs with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (E=mc²) but as of today no one has “proven” it.

PTC Guy falls back on the traditional “creation science” talking point about the lack of transitional fossils, seemingly unaware or unconcerned that more and more transitional fossils are found each day, particularly at higher orders of taxonomy.

As I mentioned the last time evolution was brought up on this forum, PTC Guy has every right to regard the Flintstones as a documentary and to believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.

Having said that, there is a reason evolution is taught in Fayette county schools: it has strong scientific underpinnings. Contrast that to the faith-based pseudoscience of “intelligent design”.

Hang on there, Basmati

Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 06/03/2006 - 5:36pm.

Hmmm. What about the hiring and publishing issues where those in control refuse to allow non-evolutionist to degree or be hired? That has a big impact on numbers.

That is a faith statement from you. Based on your evolutionist faith.

When I was in college no one dared call a theory a fact(Law) until it stopped failing tests.

In the proving of a theory as a Law, all it takes is one failure in application to send the theory back to the drawing board. And that is why it remains a theory constantly being tweaked and fiddled with. It keeps failing the tests.

That is false.

The correct statement is that there is a constant flow of new fossil finds that are theorized to be transitional life forms.

The key word is theorized. And over time they prove to not be transitional, but misidentified or new species that were non-transitional.

And that is why theories such as Punctuated Equilibrium exist. Meaning there is a solid recognition, in the majorty, that the fossil record does not contain transitional life forms. And that no living transitional life forms can be found today.

Two very difficult and embrassing problems for evolution.

Yet, in shear faith, evolutionist just blindly declare it is true.

As I mentioned the last time evolution was brought up on this forum, PTC Guy has every right to regard the Flintstones as a documentary and to believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.

Actually, I do not believe dinosaurs coexisted with Man. I believe the Bible and science clearly demand there was what is called Pre-Adamic Creation as well.

And please, no one launch into telling me what I believe conerning Pre-Adamic. If you want to know I will give you a link to read before you comment.

Having said that, there is a reason evolution is taught in Fayette county schools: it has strong scientific underpinnings. Contrast that to the faith-based pseudoscience of “intelligent design”.

That is false. It is taught because of the Secularist wins in the courts over the non-existent Separation of Church and State claims.

While I agree the majority of scientist embrace evolution, It is not 95%.

You are throwing out the athiest talking points here.

But that is another argument that gets into the issues of Secularists controlling key positions and refusing to hire and deal with scientist who do not share their evolutionary views.

Finally, I point out the other nice little thing demonstrated here. The total avoidance of the issues that Atheist have no ability to deal with.

Basmati, what is the Ultimate Beginning model you embrace that has a scientific basis to it?

I can tell you why you avoided that issue and jumped to periphrial, cliche responses. Because it is impossible for scienct to deal with that topic. Totally and completely beyond your Religions ability to answer.
-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

There you go again!

Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 06/05/2006 - 4:14pm.

Hmmm. What about the hiring and publishing issues where those in control refuse to allow non-evolutionist to degree or be hired? That has a big impact on numbers.
That’s quite a charge. Unfortunately, based on your history of fabricating data, I have little hope in asking that you provide evidence to the contrary via a link (you’ll note, btw, that I always provide a link when I make factual claims).

(On an unrelated side note, I am still waiting for you to provide me with proof that CNN intentionally biases its polling samples. I asked you for that in a thread two weeks ago and have yet to here from you, other than a non-sequitur reply about graph scales and colors).

That is a faith statement from you. Based on your evolutionist faith.
That’s your prerogative to feel that way. The major difference between you and I is that *I* base my opinions on facts, and *you* base your facts on opinions.

To claim that empirical science is a "religion" simply serves to point out the paucity of your argument.

That is garbage. Evolutionist have begun playing games with the terms to just declare it a fact. The new argument of 'We know it is a fact, but just have not got the bugs worked out of the theory yet.'
When I was in college no one dared call a theory a fact(Law) until it stopped failing tests.
In the proving of a theory as a Law, all it takes is one failure in application to send the theory back to the drawing board. And that is why it remains a theory constantly being tweaked and fiddled with. It keeps failing the tests.
The theory of evolution is modified as new scientific data becomes available via research. I did not claim that it was a “law”, I did not claim it was a “fact”, although factual data is certainly available to back up the theory of evolution. The same cannot be said of your faith-based creationist pseudoscience.

That is false.
The correct statement is that there is a constant flow of new fossil finds that are theorized to be transitional life forms.
The key word is theorized. And over time they prove to not be transitional, but misidentified or new species that were non-transitional.
And that is why theories such as Punctuated Equilibrium exist. Meaning there is a solid recognition, in the majorty, that the fossil record does not contain transitional life forms. And that no living transitional life forms can be found today.
Two very difficult and embrassing problems for evolution.
Yet, in shear faith, evolutionist just blindly declare it is true.
Yes, “theorized” is the appropriate term at this point. Your semantic juggling notwithstanding, very few fossils are “misidentified” or “non-transitional new species”. If you have facts to the contrary, please (once again) supply a link.

Actually, I do not believe dinosaurs coexisted with Man. I believe the Bible and science clearly demand there was what is called Pre-Adamic Creation as well.
And please, no one launch into telling me what I believe conerning Pre-Adamic. If you want to know I will give you a link to read before you comment.
Ah yes, “pre-Adamic Creationism”. The belief that since Adam must have been white, all these “lesser” “inferior” races pre-dated Adam. This novel interpretation of the Bible was very popular in the 17th and 18th centuries….a lot of Christian nations used “pre-Adamic Creationism” to justify racism and particularly slavery.
That is false. It is taught because of the Secularist wins in the courts over the non-existent Separation of Church and State claims.
Ah yes, I was wondering when Secular Humanism would rear its ugly head. You do not disappoint, PTC Guy!
While I agree the majority of scientist embrace evolution, It is not 95%. You repeat yourself. I understand that’s a very effective propaganda technique in lesser developed cultures, but it doesn’t hold much weight here. Repitition doesn't make your argument any more persuasive.

Simply put: put up or shut up. Give me some verifiable data to back up your claims.

You are throwing out the athiest talking points here.
No, I’m articulating a well-reasoned critique of your specious hodgepodge of half-truths and deliberate falsehoods.
But that is another argument that gets into the issues of Secularists controlling key positions and refusing to hire and deal with scientist who do not share their evolutionary views.
Secular humanism? Again? I bet you look back fondly on the Reagan years when Secular Humanism was a catch-all excuse for all of society’s ills. Heck even Jerry Falwell has “evolved” (pun intended) beyond blaming all of society’s ills on the “secular humanism” canard.
Finally, I point out the other nice little thing demonstrated here. The total avoidance of the issues that Atheist have no ability to deal with.
Basmati, what is the Ultimate Beginning model you embrace that has a scientific basis to it?
I can tell you why you avoided that issue and jumped to periphrial, cliche responses. Because it is impossible for scienct to deal with that topic. Totally and completely beyond your Religions ability to answer.
Quite honestly, I have no interest in discussing “Ultimate Beginnings” with you. I’m more than content to sit here and poke holes in your rhetorical excesses condemning evolution. Frankly, I find your prickly intolerance of people who don’t hold your particular worldview regarding evolution much more amusing.
On a final note, I’m going to ask you once again not to put words in my mouth or tell me what I believe. That may have been deemed an acceptable debate technique when you attended the Prince of Lies Bible college, but I consider this both inappropriate and unseemly on a public forum.

Thanks for Proving my Point, Basmati

Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 06/05/2006 - 5:29pm.

Ah yes, “pre-Adamic Creationism”. The belief that since Adam must have been white, all these “lesser” “inferior” races pre-dated Adam. This novel interpretation of the Bible was very popular in the 17th and 18th centuries….a lot of Christian nations used “pre-Adamic Creationism” to justify racism and particularly slavery.

That is hysterical. You don't have a clue what I believe.

And that is not even close to majority of Pre-Adamic beliefs out there. Just liberal ignorance spouted as fact.

Try reading HERE for what I believe.

Quite honestly, I have no interest in discussing “Ultimate Beginnings” with you.

Of course you do not. Because you cannot. It is an issue that no Atheist or Humanist wants to deal with because it defies science.

I’m more than content to sit here and poke holes in your rhetorical excesses condemning evolution.

I have seen no hole poking. Just rhetoric.

And refusing to touch a valid question that you cannot twist and spin just proves my point.

If you had an answer, you would have slammed it out to put me in my place. And thus why I asked it. It never fails to anger such as you.

Frankly, I find your prickly intolerance of people who don’t hold your particular worldview regarding evolution much more amusing.

Typical. I disagree with you and get labeled intolerant.

Belief what you want. But that does not change Truth. And that is what I was discussing.

That may have been deemed an acceptable debate technique when you attended the Prince of Lies Bible college, but I consider this both inappropriate and unseemly on a public forum.

The University of Maryland is not a Bible college.

And obviously you don't know the rules of debate nor debate technique.

You have done the typical response tactics of those who cannot answer a direct question. You evade the question with rhetoric.

Yes. You made a lot of faith statements. You have a doctrine. You have a god. You have a religion.

Look up the definitions and you will see everyone has all of them.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Search the Archives

Navigation

Contact Information

Biblical claims by Adams are easily refuted by honest look at science

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options