The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism

[RFHendrix]

Intelligent Design is the scientific response to naturalism. Materialism or naturalism assumes that physical matter is the only reality in the universe and that everything else, including feeling, mind, thought and will can be explained in terms of physical laws. Intelligent Design (ID) on the other hand claims that all things cannot be explained by the laws of nature. The science behind intelligent design seeks evidence that may support either view. ID would more correctly be called simply; science, were it not for the extreme bias toward materialism currently in scientific theories, especially the theory of evolution.
One would think that scientists would follow evidence to wherever it leads. The facts and evidence should be evaluated logically, one would think, and then presented to the public with the benefit of the expert opinions. Unfortunately the facts and evidence are now required to be spun about or made to fit with a materialistic explanation before the public is considered worthy to digest the research. This is simply dishonest. If scientific research leads to Intelligent Design is a scientist allowed to tell us? Can one publish a thesis in a scientific journal that indicates intelligent design? Too often the answers to those questions are no. Intelligent Design is simply science without the requirement to mislead in the direction of naturalism.

http://www.blindatheist.com/linkbooks.htm

 

[Jet Black]

pushing me aren't you? The problem as I see it, is that you immediately want to jump to the complex behavior all the time. when really what you should be doing is breaking it down into more easily digested steps. Take one look at a 12oz steak, and you'd think no man alive could eat it without choking, chop it into bits and it is no problem. If we could stay away from analogies like sentences and words, I would be much obliged, since there are so many connotations with these things that it becomes uncertain as to the boundaries of the analogy.

What we have so far from my hypothetical example, is a string of RNA that can produce strings of protein, initially as catalysts, and then as rudimentary enzymes, you then have a situation where the protein is more important in the reproduction of the RNA strand than the initial bit of RNA which facilitated the RNA reproduction. This is pretty unsuprising, since the versatility of Amino Acids is far far far greater than the versatility of RNA catalysts (compare 20 amino acids to 4 bases, and think of the differences we see in protein structures). In essence you would kind of re-evolve the system that got us this far, but evolve it with a much more versatile protein system instead. Initially this system would simply be a facilitator, increasing the amount of reproduction of our RNA strand, and then overtaking it and eventually completely dominating it. in this we have now created a early catalyst/enzyme that has the ability to read RNA. It is probably pretty rubbish, and not a patch on modern enzymes and proteins, but hey, it's better than what everyone else has, so it wins.

About the folding of the chains. you use the word "anticipated" and I am inclined to disagree with this to a degree. We know that modern catalysts are highly efficient, they do a REALLY good job, and pretty much any alteration to the binding site will wreck it. But in an early stage system, this binding site does not have to be very good at all. Am I just making this up? no, not at all.

Now I refer you to one of my favourite examples of a brand new enzyme, in Flavobacterium sp.K172, the nylon eating bacteria. The purpose of this example is simply to show that a completely novel enzyme can come about, and do some job, without any real prior "anticipation" of what the polypeptide chain will fold into.

Well when first discovered, this was a really rubbish enzyme. the enzyme whose job it replaces was far more efficient, so why did this really lame enzyme win over? because it was the only one that could in it's new environment. It gave the organism an infinite advantage in it's new environment, so it won, hands down. since then the enzyme has mutated and the binding site has become much more effective at chopping nylon, increasing the efficiency again by 165x (I think, I will check this up if you like. I do know the enzyme has increased in efficiency though.)

we can see from this that we don't really require "anticipation" of how the polypeptide structure will fold if it works, it works. if it doesn't, then it offers no advantage and will either a) be selected out because it is wasting it's time not doing alot at all or b) just sit around doing not alot, with the possibility that it might mutate and do something really novel.

ok, so now let's look at the "meaning" of these letters. well what is it, when looking at these really rudimentary things. the fist, and most primitive element of this language would be "the ability to reproduce", the next step is "the ability to reproduce more accurately" the next is "the ability to reproduce better, more accurately and faster"

In summary: I have illustrated a number of ways that each of these steps could be achieved, and the language emerges from them. As I pointed out, proteins are far more versatile in the structures they can form and so they would incur a huge benefit to any chemical that strung them together, even if it was just as a catalyst. because there are so many AAs, then a rudimentary language would spring up from this, probably not a very good one, probably with alot of errors (there were probably codons that coded for several AAs at a time, but every time it became more limited, then this was an improvement in accuracy)

 

[Meatros]

Well why don't you read some of the threads on other topics on this forum? There is plenty of evidence for God but you won't find it mentioned in scientific papers because he is considered irrelevant to the knowledge of man.

I actually have read some of the other threads in this forum, but perhaps I've missed the evidence. Could you point me to a thread or two which has convincing evidence of God.

Your last point about God being irrelevant to the knowledge of man actually confuses me. Can you clarify how this could be?

The reason I ask is, speaking as an agnostic atheist, evidence/knowledge about a God (any, I'm not picky) is of supreme importance and I could fathom no reason as to why it wouldn't be.

 

[notto]

Right, materialism is always indicated. That is the problem with your view of science. You always assume a materialistic solution so facts cannot change your mind. It is a one sided approach to reality therefore it is not an honest search for reality but rather a confirmation of preconceived notions. On the other hand, one can argue either way for or against ID. That is why it is a better approach to the actual truth of a matter.

I think you will notice that I have repeatedly said that the intelletually honest conclusion is 'We don't know'.

You have not explored all of the possibilities and have not attempted to show any type of prediction or distinction within your model between what you discuss and other mechanisms. You have not shown us any way to determine what information is or how to measure it. You have not shown any way that the mechanisms perform in any way outside of a natural mechanism. Yet with all of this lacking, you come to a conclusion that 'God Did It'. Why?

Your premise lacks the whole range of facts related to the mechanisms you discuss. Your premise is based on your conclusion as well. Your conclusion is not intellectually honest or based on anything other than your preconceived conclusions.

 

[RFHendrix]

So many questions and I have to go to work but I will briefly touch on some of them before I go.

The nylon bug:

This is variation within an already programmed system. New enzymes are formed everyday just as a computer can form new information from properly programmed software. The question is not what the program can do but who or what designed the program.

Evidence for God:

Read this chapter of my book for a start:

http://www.puretolerance.com/chapter12.htm

My premise:

My premise is based on several thousand years of human experience as it relates to information and it's origin. The preponderance of evidence supports my view.

 

[notto]

S
The nylon bug:

This is variation within an already programmed system. New enzymes are formed everyday just as a computer can form new information from properly programmed software. The question is not what the program can do but who or what designed the program.

So, are all chemical compounds formed by a program that was designed?

Can you show us why not all compounds rely on a programmed system?

Please give us a way to distingish between compounds formed based on some intelligent programming versus ones that are simply formed based on their chemical makeup or the process that forms them.

You do realize that the new enzyme would have been formed from a 'glitch' in the 'program', right? Was this 'glitch' designed as well? Why?

 

[Jet Black]

The nylon bug:

This is variation within an already programmed system. New enzymes are formed everyday just as a computer can form new information from properly programmed software. The question is not what the program can do but who or what designed the program.

I knew you would say that, which is why I said:

The purpose of this example is simply to show that a completely novel enzyme can come about, and do some job, without any real prior "anticipation" of what the polypeptide chain will fold into.

I repeat again that the example was cited with a specific example in mind... there does not need to be any prior planning. a very rudimentary structure will do. It can be completely rubbish, but if it only helps you reproduce once more, then that one extra reproduction will be magnified millions of times by the rate of chemical reactions.

I appreciate that the whole structure in the nylon bug was pretty well organised beforehand in this example, but that is not relevant. it simply shows that there is no necessity for prior planning, as you implied. please go through the whole thing, taking all aspects of what I have said into account, rather than dismissing individual points when they are intended as a whole, otherwise it is like criticising a single brushstroke of the Mona Lisa for not being a proper picture. thanks.

 

[Phred]

A book that goes to show if you start with a flawed premise all the logic in the world won't get you to a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Jet Black]

I am doing a bit of looking round, so I thought I would throw in a link or two:

http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/thermalprotein.htm


to show that useful proteins can come about "randomly" and that the "randomness" isn't actually all that random at all.

 

[lucaspa]

Hi everyone.

I did not see a discussion on origins on this board so I thought I would start one. Here is an excerpt from my new book about the idea that DNA or RNA in a supposed "world" could somehow self-organize it self into meaningful coded communication that must exiist before life can come into being.

From the chapter;

The Foundation of All Life is the Written Word:

...Let’s say there is a pile of plastic letters lying around outside. The wind blows these millions of letters around for millions of years and eventually we come on the scene and look the situation over.

I hope this book isn't published yet. If so, you embarrassed yourself by failing to do research in three areas:

1. Ribozymes.
2. Thermal proteins and protocells.
3. Origin of the genetic code.

Information arises from chemistry and does so because different molecules are not identical. RNA can also act as an enzyme, catalyzing reactions necessary for life. The smallest ribozyme is three nucleotides long. Not hard to assemble by simple chemical reactions. Now, from the hydrogen bonding of nucleotides (used to make double stranded DNA) RNA can also serve as a template for it's own replication. Some relevant references are:
7. P S Chimmel and R Alexander, All you need is RNA. Science 281:658-659, Jul. 31, 1998. Describes research showing that RNA in ribosomes sufficient to make proteins. Intermediate step in going from abiogenesis to genetic code.

20. RJ Davenport, Making copies in the RNA world. Science 292: 1278, May 18, 2001. Used in vitro evolution to make ribozyme that can faithfully copy other RNA molecules up to 14 nucleotides long. Uses any RNA as sequence as template. Ribozyme itself is 189 nucleotides long. 98.5% accurate (99.9% for RNA polymerase). Screened 10^15 ribozymes. Primary paper is WK Johnston, PJ Unrau, MS Lawrence, ME Glasner, DP Bartel, RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: accurate and general RNA-templated primer extension. Science 292: 1319-1326, May 18, 2001.

3: J Theor Biol 2000 Jan 21;202(2):129-44
Physico-chemical constraints connected with the coding properties of the genetic system.

Nat Struct Biol 2000 Jan;7(1):28-33 Ribozyme-catalyzed tRNA aminoacylation. Lee N, Bessho Y, Wei K, Szostak JW, Suga H

Now, proteins also contain information. That is because amino acids are not identical chemically, so not every possible sequence of amino acids is possible. There is chemical selection. For instance, using just 3 differnt amino acids, you should get 27 different tripeptides. However, when you form these tripeptides by thermal heating (chemistry), you only get 6.

Some references for you in this field are:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
Tyagi S, Ponnamperuma C Nonrandomness in prebiotic peptide synthesis. J Mol Evol 1990 May;30(5):391-9
SW Fox, Self-sequencing of amino acids and origins of polyfunctional protocells. Origins of Life, 14: 485-488, 1984.Nakashima, T, Jungck, JR, Fox, SW, Lederer, E, Das, BC. A test for randomness in peptides isolated from a thermal polyamino acid. Intl. J. Quantum Chem. QBS4: 65-72, 1977.
Luque-Romero MM, de Medina LS, Blanco JM. Fractionation and amino acid composition of an aspartic acid-containing thermal proteinoid population. Biosystems. 1986;19(4):267-72.
Bahn, P. and A. Pappelis. 2001. HPLC evidence of nonrandomness in thermal proteins. In First Steps in the Origin of Life in the Universe. Julián Chela-Flores, Tobias Owen, and François Raulin, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Pp. 69-72.

As to the third, origin of the genetic code and directed protein synthesis, it can come from either protein first scenarios or RNA first scenarios. Again from chemical constraints. Some relevant references are:
Nakashima T, Fox SW. Selective condensation of aminoacyl adenylates by nucleoproteinoidmicroparticles (prebiotic-lysine-model system-genetic code).Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1972 Jan;69(1):106-8.
Yuki A, Fox SW. Selective formation of particles by binding of pyrimidine polyribonucleotides orpurine polyribonucleotides with lysine-rich or arginine-rich proteinoids.Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1969 Aug 15;36(4):656-63.
9. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful.

Good luck on revising your book before it's too late.

 

[lucaspa]

My premise is based on several thousand years of human experience as it relates to information and it's origin. The preponderance of evidence supports my view.

Unfortunately, you are not doing science. Science works by falsification. The "preponderance of evidence" doesn't outweigh evidence that simply can't be there if your statements are true. The evidence that contradicts your statements shows the statements to be false no matter how much evidence may support them. That you use the phrase "preponderance of evidence" indicates that you are aware of evidence that falsifies your statements on the origin of information.

BTW, the Argument from Design went out when natural selection was discovered, since it is an algorithm to get design.

Evidence for God:

Read this chapter of my book for a start:

http://www.puretolerance.com/chapter12.htm

Unfortunately, you are not discussing science anymore but rather the atheism vs theism debate. However, trying to win that debate on the battleground of science is the wrong fight in the wrong place. And one you can't win.

"God must have created life. There is no escaping that conclusion."

But that's not the question. The question is: HOW did God create life." You are proposing a particular how: zapping into existence without connection to a previous form. IOW, a gap. No life, then life. So, you are using god-of-the-gaps theology. That is contrary to Christianity because God did not create an incomplete universe. There are no gaps. If you have to have God fill such a gap, that reduces God to a creature of the universe and that is not acceptable to Christianity. So, not only do you have the wrong view of science, you are using a flawed theology as well. Struck out on both the science and theology side of the issue.

"There is nothing blind about true faith. It is simply the rational conclusion based upon evidence and unseen substance."

Here I agree. Based on your personal experience, your faith is rational and reasonable. Where the wheels come off is when you try to get objective, intersubjective "proof" of your faith. That you don't have and it is foolish to try to get it. Science is agnostic. It isn't going to provide the "proof" you want.

"Of course some atheists just pretend that God doesn’t exist."

Misunderstanding of atheism. The atheist simply has different personal experience from you.

"Evidence is not always available to everyone. Many things we can verify such as chemical reactions or mechanical laws. We can test certain claims and prove them to be true or false. We cannot prove all claims however. You cannot disprove the evidence which I have personally as to the existence of the God of the Bible. Neither can you claim that the evidence of millions of believers throughout history is false. That evidence is only available to them and not to the unbeliever. This evidence can come in various forms, not just spiritual. For instance, I can cite a string of hundreds of events that happened in my life in direct answer to prayer. The odds of this string of events happening by accident make that likelihood impossible. The atheist asks me to ignore that evidence as if it did not exist or pretend that it was just blind chance or internal delusion."

This is a good argument for defense against an atheist attack. However, it is just as true for the atheist if you turn it around. You can't disprove the personal evidence atheists have as to the non-existence of God. The unanswered prayers, etc. Neither of you has the objective, intersubjective evidence necessary to convince the other.

"Because the fanatical atheist will not admit that he does not know everything he must ignore the knowledge that is not available to him."

Unfortunately, this is just as true of you. There is knowledge available on the origin of information that you never went to find. There is even knowledge that you know about that falsified your statements but you ignored, claiming instead "preponderance of evidence".

"The God of the Bible is by his very definition a God of miracles; the miracles of creation, the miracle of the flood ... How then can there be any evidence that will ever prove to the skeptic which material was the act of divine intervention and that which is a remainder of the natural products that existed before the flood? What is the use of arguing what Noah did with all of the animal dung when God fit the entire creation into a dot? If God raised the dead and created the universe can he not dispose of excess water and animal dung?"

1. Genesis 6-8 doesn't invoke miracles. It is remarkably naturalistic.
2. If you invoke miracles that end up covering up the miracle, then you have a deceptive God that no one can worship. This is what got young earth and the Flood falsified to begin with. There is evidence out there that can't possibly be there if the earth is really young or if a Flood really happened. To have that evidence means God deliberately hid evidence of the Flood to deceive us. That isn't acceptable for Christians.

"True science has never disproved the truth in the Bible. Each new discovery only tends to confirm the truth it contains."

Maybe not, but it does disprove a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-8. Science doesn't address the theological truths.

 

[Meatros]

Evidence for God:

Read this chapter of my book for a start:

http://www.puretolerance.com/chapter12.htm

My premise:

My premise is based on several thousand years of human experience as it relates to information and it's origin. The preponderance of evidence supports my view.

So you are an author, I think that's cool. How are book sales, if I might ask?

In any event, on to your chapter. You wrote:

There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the instructions and complexity of life came from an intelligent source that preexists us. That is part of "the evidence of things not seen." There are really quite a few things on this earth that are believed but not seen. For instance, love is unseen but few would doubt its existence. Air is unseen but no one doubts that it exists. We observe its effects and we rationally conclude that it exists. Intelligent input is required in the process of life but it cannot be seen. It is invisible like love. People who are sightless do not have any problem understanding that things exist. They are surrounded with evidence and "substance" that they cannot see. They sense love or rejection or hostility or anger or kindness just like other people do.

Let's say I accept your initial premise, that an intelligent source must have created life on earth (we can't say it created life elsewhere because we have no evidence of this). Why must this intelligent source be a supernatural deity? Could it not be Aliens, who evolved in such a way as to make your initial premise not applicable? In other words, these aliens evolved without an intelligent hand, it took them longer and they aren't as well 'adapted' (or evolved-whatever) as we currently are. These aliens realized their limitations and decided to mess with the genetics on earth, in order to produce intelligently designed species.

Should we then pray to these aliens?

You wrote:

The God of the Bible has endured so long in history because he provides further evidence of his own reality. Empirically without the Bible a God must exist, but the God of the Bible must exist in light of the further evidence of history and that available to those who have placed their trust in him. No one knows exactly what goes on in the mind of a particular person. That evidence is available to him alone. The rest of us can only speculate as to what he was thinking. The evidence of what destroyed the dinosaurs would probably be rather obvious to anyone around at that time. That first hand observer actually knows what happened. He does not need to speculate as we do now. It is not reasonable to conclude that we know more than another who has more evidence than we do. In other words, how can ou be sure that evidence uniquely available to someone is false since you have not seen it?

Why didn't the bible start at the dawn of man? Did mankind just receive a soul when the old testament (or new testament) was written? You say, Empirically without the bible a God must exist, what is this empirical data? Why is there more then one religion on earth, if the truth is so obvious?

You wrote:

Evidence is not always available to everyone. Many things we can verify such as chemical reactions or mechanical laws. We can test certain claims and prove them to be true or false. We cannot prove all claims however. You cannot disprove the evidence which I have personally as to the existence of the God of the Bible. Neither can you claim that the evidence of millions of believers throughout history is false. That evidence is only available to them and not to the unbeliever. This evidence can come in various forms, not just spiritual. For instance, I can cite a string of hundreds of events that happened in my life in direct answer to prayer. The odds of this string of events happening by accident make that likelihood impossible. The atheist asks me to ignore that evidence as if it did not exist or pretend that it was just blind chance or internal delusion.

Why is the evidence not available to the unbeliever? Doesn't the unbeliever need it the most? Isn't believing in order to see evidence sort of circular in nature? I mean, I could find evidence for quite a lot of things that don't exist, if I start with the premise of believing.

You say that millions of believers are part of your evidence, well many more people do not believe in the Christian God then those who actually do (or they believe in other Gods) so if a popularity contest is essential for evidence, then doesn't Christianity lose by your own standards?

Now let’s consider some of the evidence that belongs to the believer alone. One of the first things that happened to me was that the Bible became a living book whereas before it seemed to be dry and irrelevant. As I began to take the lessons taught in it to heart and apply them in my daily walk I discovered that they were much more than just wise sayings but were a direct path to the one who gave this truth. I discovered a supernatural love within myself for complete strangers. A dramatic change took place in my life as I was directed by a spiritual power that had nothing to do with my mind or with dreams or with anything I did. Later I came to learn that my actions did have a bearing on this supernatural influence but in the very beginning it was absolutely separate as if I was acted upon by a supernatural force at random. The lessons of loving our neighbors and loving our enemies eventually became important in maintaining that intimate contact with God, but like a child starting out in life I was gently led by a loving father who happened to be the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What made you conclude that this 'love' was supernatural. In addition, why do you assume that no one else has this love, except for the believer in Christ? Is there some way we could measure love so that the claim can be verified?
How do you know that this love came from an outside source-and if you believe this, doesn't it mean that your freewill has been tampered with? If a supernatural force is giving you this power of love, then why do non-believers experience love? Why did many non-Christian peaceful leaders experience this sort of love?

Historically speaking it is impossible to ignore the influence of the God of the Bible as he acts upon those who either trust him or forsake him. Two thousand years of history is largely a matter of Christians killing each other. Then of course you have other religions entering into the picture along with atheistic systems destroying each other. Among those bloody groups you will find something else if you search close enough. There has always been some who refused to kill their neighbors and were often persecuted for actually doing what Jesus said to do. The Bible says that this is to be expected. Jesus never commended religious zealots, in fact he condemned them. He spoke of gentle people who would trust him while being opposed by religious people who did not know him. All of the historical evidence points to the truth that Jesus Christ spoke two thousand years ago. Some point out the atrocities of Christians thinking that they have proven that Jesus was a fraud but it was he who made it clear that those atrocities would be committed in his name. (Mt. 24).

So why wasn't God present before the bible was written? Did those people not have souls or did they just not matter to God? Why did they pray to other Gods, if the evidence for God comes from God directly?

What was the point of Jesus's message if untold bloodshed has been the result? Wouldn't it have been more morally correct for God never to have revealed himself to us, so that we wouldn't have had the untold bloodshed?

Others ignore the evidence of scripture because they do not like the God of the Bible. They cannot comprehend a God who would command the killing of children or allow the deaths of innocent people. They point to passages that present God as cruel and uncaring. Having done that they conclude that they are justified in ignoring him or pretending that he does not exist. They want God to do what they want him to do. They want him to be subject to them. Because he will not conform to their image they invent another God devised in their own imagination or constructed with passages of scripture that are more socially acceptable and politically correct. Then they defend this God which does not exist and wonder why this fictitious God does not help them. In their imagination he exists but reality knows nothing of him, or her, or it.

How is the bible different from any other mythological text? What passages prove it's authenticity? Why are there errors in the bible? And if you say that there are no errors, then why is the bible written so poorly as to mislead people into believing that there are errors? Couldn't God have inspired a book totally free of ambigious text?

Logic says to believe that which is, not that which we wish to be. Does not history prove that there is much more to God than pleasantries? Is it now incomprehensible to believe in a hell when we have experienced so much of it here? Is it hard to believe that there is a judge of the universe because we are all subject to earthly courts? Does not nature and history testify of God?

How does history prove that there is much more to God than pleasantries? In addition, how does nature testify to God?

Likewise we can logically assume that there is evil in the universe. The supernatural influences in the lives of billions throughout history cannot be simply cast off as mass delusion. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary. Sure there is such a thing as manipulating crowds and so forth but there have been too many instances where people have been affected alone. Everybody on this earth is not stupid except the atheists. An acquaintance from India once asked a little gathering that he was teaching if they thought all of his people that worshiped idols were stupid. No, they are just deceived by supernatural forces that react when they bow down and worship a statue. It is like a drug but one that is spiritually induced. They will never be atheists.

Why must there be evil? Why do we grant it as a logical assumption? Why is the supernatural influence so incredibly hard to verify, in addition, why does it point people to different Gods?

What is this evidence to the contrary?

It is clear from scripture for instance that time means something completely different to God than it does to us. When Einstein first discovered the relationship of time and matter we were given a clue to what the mind of God already knew. Endless arguments over the age of the earth and the effects of a cursed and fallen creation become rather absurd when we reflect on what we do not know about the miraculous intervention of God from time to time.

If this is true then why did God author what would only confuse us by listing specific days? Couldn't God have had the forsight to realize that many of his followers and non-followers would take what he said as literal and thereby disbelieving it based on the unbelievability of a 6-day creation?

 

[lucaspa]

Oh! I see your book is already published! Too bad. Sorry about that. Maybe you can change your name. I think there are too many errors to publish a retraction.

 

[Meatros]

If the God who said, "let there be light" is the real God, then there is a built in absurdity in trying to defend him using today’s form of scientifically accepted proof. If he made light then he made time. If he controls time and light then he can control everything. If God’s creation is now corrupt as the Bible teaches then what is "ineptitude" and what is the result of the natural order of events? If there is an evil spiritual force as well as the good one then what place does modern science, that inherently rejects such notions, have in determining or confirming that reality? I nevertheless commend the honest creationists for endeavoring to show their opponents the obvious evidence that refutes many of the claims of evolutionists but there is a built in limitation to that debate.

Why is it absurd to use our human standards of measurement? Why wasn't God more clear when inspiring the verses? Surely God would have known that it would confuse the readers? If God didn't care, then why does he punish those of us who can not understand his writings-only to send us to Hell for our inability to understand what God inspired?

Why must God have made time if he made light?

How can the evil spiritual forces be as powerful as God? I always assumed that God was the most powerful being, and as such, no evil forces had dominion over him-however it seems as though you are suggesting (and I could be wrong) that God and Evil are equal in strength. If this is true, then shouldn't we all stand by the sidelines and wait to see who wins before picking a side? How would it benefit us to side with God, if Evil wins?

True science has never disproved the truth in the Bible. Each new discovery only tends to confirm the truth it contains. Of course the Bible is a spiritual book so it is rather fruitless for an atheist to confirm anything by using it. He is denied its secrets so he ridicules that which he does not understand. I have always found it to be instructive to go down the lists of so called contradictions in the Bible put together by people who do not have the slightest idea of what the spiritual message is that they are trying to destroy. They are trying to use the plans for an airplane to construct a boat. They just do not get it. If they would have only read one verse first they could have saved themselves plenty of work; "These things are hid from the wise..." but God has "revealed them unto babes." One particular example that is all over the Internet is the supposed ineptitude of God because he does not know the formula for making a circle from a measurement of the diameter. I will give the atheists that are stumped by that question a clue: You forgot to consider the rim of the vessel. Therefore three times the diameter of the circle gives us both the definition of the vessel and the rim. Figure it out.

What is "true science"? Why does the bible deny the atheist-when it is precisely the atheist who would need the bible the most? That doesn't make sense!

Why preach to those who believe and confuse those who don't? Does God only want to take a certain number of people and cast the rest down to hell? If God doesn't then why confuse the nonbeliever with evidence to the contrary of what God has inspired?

Like a bug that I saw trying to fly through the window in my car one day, the atheist and the faithless must be frustrated in seeing something that they cannot reach. They peer through the glass and think that they see the way out but they only destroy themselves because they refuse the eye of faith. What if God has chosen to hide evidence from you? What if he has chosen to confuse you? What if you only think that your idea of logic is the way to all truth? Certainly the God of the Bible made it clear that he would do just that. The bug flies constantly into the glass. He explores every square inch of it. All day he flies up and down the glass seeing his goal clearly on the other side. Finally out of pity for the little fella I take a newspaper and try to gently nudge him to the metal frame and then outside. What does the little ingrate do? He gets mad! He is now furious at me because I am trying to help him find true freedom. None of it makes sense to him. He knows exactly what he is doing. He sees the way out and he certainly does not need my help.

How are atheists different from the faithless? If God has chosen to hide evidence and information from those who believe, doesn't that set up a deceptive God? If you can't trust God about evidence, then how can you trust God about salvation?






All in all, it doesn't appear that you have presented any evidence, as all I see is countless questions left for you to answer.

 

[Meatros]

BTW-Sorry for all the questions, it's just these all came up as I was reading your website.

 

[lucaspa]

BTW-Sorry for all the questions, it's just these all came up as I was reading your website.

Yes, Chapter 12 is full of assertions without data, isn't it? Mr. Hendrix thinks he has the evidence in the earlier chapters. As far as I can see, it is simply a reworking (without the appropriate credit) of other creationist arguments. For instance, there is the de rigeur Hoyle calculations about the probability of life occuring "by chance". The information argument is drawn from William Dembski without appropriate credit.

All in all, I can't find any evidence that Mr. Hendrix is aware of PubMed, has read the Origin of the Species or The Blind Watchmaker, or has read any scientific literature.

Mr. Hendrix, how much in royalties do you collect per book?

 

[Meatros]

All in all, I can't find any evidence that Mr. Hendrix is aware of PubMed, has read the Origin of the Species or The Blind Watchmaker, or has read any scientific literature.

I actually just finished the Blind Watchmaker, I thought it was a fantastic book....

 

[Jet Black]

you've probably scared hom off lucas

 

[lucaspa]

I actually just finished the Blind Watchmaker, I thought it was a fantastic book....

It's pretty good, except where Dawkins slips in his atheism as part of science. Leave those out and the science is fine.

The reason I said this is that Dawkins uses the "methinks it is like a weasel" example to demonstrate the ability of cumulative (natural) selection to cut down time and be not random. The creationist response to this is that since Dawkins picked the phrase and made the program that picked out letters that fit, that Dawkins was really using intelligent design. Hendrix repeats this argument verbatim.

The problem is 1) Dawkins just set up the environment in which phrases would survive and 2) that the program was simply natural selection. So, unless creationists want to claim the environment is made directly by God, they don't have a valid complaint. It's a good example for its limited goals -- demonstrating the ability of natural selection as a non-random search pattern to get to a goal a lot faster than pure randomness.

Anyone who has read the original can see the strawman that creationists have made. That Hendrix didn't see the strawman indicates that he never read the book.

 

[lucaspa]

you've probably scared hom off lucas

Let's not be hasty. He may have other committments or may simply be rechecking his sources for counter-arguments. I expect I'll get the standard erroneous objections to Fox's work.