Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[Polycarp_fan]

Unlike you, no.

I presented evidence.

You presented one sided hyperbole.

You presented a tear-down of a man for certain things he said. Behe has started a conversation that even Francis Collins, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and many other scientists recognize and have been affected by:

Contrary to some interpretations, Intelligent Design, or ID, makes no specific theological claims. Proponents of ID only argue that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This definition can be confusing because Theistic Evolutionists also believe an intelligent being created the world.

Theistic Evolutionists, however, also believe evolution by natural selection is the process God used to create. Although advocates of ID do not disagree that evolution is change over time, they deny the biological process of evolution by natural selection could account for the present complexity of life forms on Earth.


Intelligent Design proponents argue evolution cannot explain certain aspects of creation. In particular, ID claims certain features of the world are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved from less complex predecessors. Although ID supporters believe that such findings refute evolution, Theistic Evolutionists —along with the vast majority of mainstream scientists — do not see these examples as a threat to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Dr. Francis Collins writes about several popular examples of irreducible complexity in chapter nine The Language of God.

- http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning/

Unlike you, no.

Care to take another shot? I doubt it.
For one reason- You cannot defend Behe's statements when he was forced to admit his reasoning under oath.

And you hold this guy up?
Seriously?

Behe is no more or less as impressive as Darwin.

Like I said, despite the fact that you and I disagree often, I thought you were more intelligent than to back up someone who equates Astrology with his personal version of science.

Do you know any scientists? I do and none of them are without their wierdness.

I thought you were more intelligent than to back up a person who admitted, under oath, that their idea of "irreducible complexity" could have evolved within a short 20 thousand years.

I thought you were smarter than that (no, really, no sarcasm intended, I really did think that)

You are attempting a semi-ad hom and the tiredness of that tactic does not make for an intelligent comeback.

Now, do you care to actually address my previous post, or are you going to (once again) just wimp out with one-line jabs?

Behe is just one man of many. Let it go. Darwin to me is a pathetic man that tried to hurt God and exclusively Christians, because his daughter was tragically taken from him. His life boils down to such a basic emotionlaism. And that still resonates in those that disbeleive in God because of this 19th century man.

In the 1950s, Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." *
​

Hoyle did not mean to argue in favor of divine intervention as an answer. The scientific explanation of carbon’s development was readily accessible, although this explanation offers no insight into why the fundamental forces cooperated to produce the unusual energy match up. Hoyle’s remark should be understood as an acknowledgement of how startling it is that the universe has the exact properties that enable the existence of life.

- Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science (1981): 12. Quoted in: Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?"

The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation

There is a moral beauty within certain Atheists, that I and other Christians are realizing and teaching about, so please let's stay on this new path of respect. Tearing down Behe, whose ID/IC work has started a wave of intense activity within the scientific community, because he has some beliefs that look silly to you, is not called for.

 

[corvus_corax]

You presented a tear-down of a man for certain things he said. Behe has started a conversation that even Francis Collins, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and many other scientists recognize and have been affected by:

I presented his testimony under oath.

Contrary to some interpretations, Intelligent Design, or ID, makes no specific theological claims.[/quote]
And yet the Wedge Document states otherwise
Go figure

Behe is no more or less as impressive as Darwin. [/quote}
Far less so as he equates the "science" of ID with Astrology

Do you know any scientists? I do and none of them are without their wierdness.

Actually yes I do and some of them are "weird" in regard to social norms.
But that's not what we are talking about here at all.

You are attempting a semi-ad hom and the tiredness of that tactic does not make for an intelligent comeback.

Sorry my boy, but that wasn't an ad hominem. I really did think you were smarter than this male bovine feces.

Behe is just one man of many. Let it go.

Ahem~
YOU brought him up
And he loses regarding the whole Creationis....Scientific Creationis...Intelligent Desi...O what are we going to call it now movement.

Darwin to me is a pathetic man that tried to hurt God and exclusively Christians

Despite the fact that he was a Christian when he wrote his book

His life boils down to such a basic emotionlaism.

Pot meet kettle

And that still resonates in those that disbeleive in God because of this 19th century man.

Many disbelieved in your personal interpretation of some deity FAR before Darwin came on the scene.
DO NOT conflate acceptance of the ToE with Atheism.

Tearing down Behe, whose ID/IC work has started a wave of intense activity within the scientific community, because he has some beliefs that look silly to you, is not called for.

And what serious "wave of intense activith within the scientific community" has Behe ( who equates Astrology* with HIS interpretation of science)actually created?

I got a lotta Steve scientists to defeat your "creationist" scientists.


* Seriously? Cmon, you are smarter than this garbage

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I presented his testimony under oath.

Contrary to some interpretations, Intelligent Design, or ID, makes no specific theological claims.

Folowing the evidence does though. You know, science.

And yet the Wedge Document states otherwise
Go figure

No True Scotsman atheist style.

Behe is no more or less as impressive as Darwin.

Far less so as he equates the "science" of ID with Astrology

Isn't astrology all about reading the stars and getting a message out of that? Sounds familiar?

Actually yes I do and some of them are "weird" in regard to social norms.
But that's not what we are talking about here at all.

Comparing size. That's what this is about. Your scientists are true scientists because they are atheist. You know how silly that is?

Sorry my boy, but that wasn't an ad hominem. I really did think you were smarter than this male bovine feces.

It was a semi.

Ahem~
YOU brought him up
And he loses regarding the whole Creationis....Scientific Creationis...Intelligent Desi...O what are we going to call it now movement.

Boring eltism. Can't think of any other smug style?

CSC director Stephen C. Meyer launched his important new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and Evidence for Intelligent Design, with a speech today at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

In Signature, Dr. Meyer exposes the increasingly evident hopelessness of materialist explanations of life’s origins and makes a fresh, powerful, and seemingly conclusive new scientific argument for intelligent design.

Dr. Meyer began by noting that in this Charles Darwin dual anniversary year, we should keep in mind that Darwin’s presumed “primary legacy is that he refuted the design argument.” That argument, in turn, had long been regarded as the most compelling that exists for religious belief. The phenomenal success of the New Atheist movement, represented by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens & Co., is based on the premise that Darwin successfully explained “the appearance of design without real design.” But what if the premise is mistaken?

"The biological information in DNA runs the show in biology," Meyer said.

Explaining where it comes from is the enigma faced by life-origins researchers.

- Evolution News & Views: Stephen Meyer Launches Signature in the Cell With a Speech at the Heritage Foundation

Despite the fact that he was a Christian when he wrote his book

I indicated that. His was a common man's path away from God. Heartbreaking, but common. Emotionalism, then as now.

Pot meet kettle

Not hardly. I use science and logic far more often to prove my positions than my detractors.

Many disbelieved in your personal interpretation of some deity FAR before Darwin came on the scene.

I'm well aware of that.

DO NOT conflate acceptance of the ToE with Atheism.

Obviously I do not. I equate atheism with emotionalism and other base human feelings. Nothing more deep than surface reactionary responses.

And what serious "wave of intense activith within the scientific community" has Behe ( who equates Astrology* with HIS interpretation of science)actually created?

There are far more than just some Fundy Christians repping ID.

I got a lotta Steve scientists to defeat your "creationist" scientists.

You have your Scotsmen. That is to be expected.

*

Seriously? Cmon, you are smarter than this garbage

Way more.

 

[DeathMagus]

Hey Poly - You aren't ignoring me, are you?

 

[corvus_corax]

<snip>

I'll reply tomorrow if you don't mind.
It's nearly 11 pm here and time for bed for bonzo
Talk to you tomorrow, k?


All the best to you and yours,
CC

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hey Poly - You aren't ignoring me, are you?

No Demi.

What do you want to go at it about? I try as hard as possible to respond to responses. I'll look for your last few posts.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hopefully Deathster, this is what you're referencing.

Is your essential argument here from the law of conservation of mass/energy? "Something cannot be created from nothing" - is that the gist of it?

That seems like a good query. You would have to not have a lab and not have people or anything else existing to prove it.

To what are you assigning values of zero in your equation, and why?

Fabulous question. Finally someone with the wit to ask how 0 x 0 = atheism.

The decimal point makes zero exist. Which means something has to make nothing become a something.

What do you mean by the universe being "a representation of zero"? Zero is a symbol - a representation of something.

I am singing your praise!!!!

Yes and no. Zero awaits a command to be something. Your keyboard proves that. You are not typing letters, you are sending commands. Every letter is really a number.

Essentially, you're saying "a representation of another representation" which makes no sense. What does it mean for the universe to "act", and why would it "act" on "nothing"? What is the nothing?

The miracle of the internet. I have found an atheist willing to not be spiteful. Zero has no value, no representation of anything until it is gicen power and authority by an act of will. 0 is still nothing until the . is applied. The Applier makes it something.

I'm not trying to sidestep here - you seem to have a view of our universe that I've never encountered before, so you'll have to explain the model slowly so I can talk about it.

You need to read Francis Collins and Stephen Meyer. What is happening in the "information age" is that information is of the ages.

You are the best I have ever dealt with here. Serioulsy, I am nothing special but I feel like it because no one has thought to question the assertion as to its why and how.

Questions are proof of our supernatural origin.

Modern atheists are driving science to design and a designer more effectivley than almost any other type of person.

How can anyone be afraid of questions?

 

[roflcopter101]

I get the impression that more people in this topic, nay this entire forum, are opposed to people like Polycarp_fan, which I find surprising.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I get the impression that more people in this topic, nay this entire forum, are opposed to people like Polycarp_fan, which I find surprising.

I have grown a tremendous respect for atheists since I have been interacting with sincere people in real life and possibly some on the internet.

It's boring to hang with bobbleheads anyway. Why wouldn't atheists want to interact with an honest Fundy? Secular bobbleheads are just as dull.

There is no threat from modern morals-based, science-based atheism. Hitchens, is so positive in many ways. The basic message of this kind of atheist is peace, nonviolence and enjoying others. How can a Christian not like that? It's just when _____ when, when _____ uh, um, people like Bill Maher, pretend they have some intellect higher than a dog in heat, and come after Christians as if most of us are idioits, then I feel payback is only natural. Securalism is a failure in the evolutionary sense, and the base and debased hedonism peddled in its name, shows that atheists have to distance themselves from reprobates ever bit as much as Christians do.

I have a powerful desire for revenge when attacked. Yeah, yeah, "it's not Christian," to do so, but it is another proof of the supernatural nature of humans.

But when I step back and study the issues, some atheists are more than worthwhile. And in fact are very beneficial for a Christian to engage.

www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com

If you have the time.

 

[DeathMagus]

Hopefully Deathster, this is what you're referencing.

That seems like a good query. You would have to not have a lab and not have people or anything else existing to prove it.

I think that's a "yes". In that case, what makes you think there was ever nothing?

Fabulous question. Finally someone with the wit to ask how 0 x 0 = atheism.

The decimal point makes zero exist. Which means something has to make nothing become a something.

Assuming you start with nothing to begin with. Why should we assume that is the case?

I am singing your praise!!!!

Yes and no. Zero awaits a command to be something. Your keyboard proves that. You are not typing letters, you are sending commands. Every letter is really a number.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain further. Why, in your mind, does [universe=0]?

The miracle of the internet. I have found an atheist willing to not be spiteful. Zero has no value, no representation of anything until it is gicen power and authority by an act of will. 0 is still nothing until the . is applied. The Applier makes it something.

Again, why should we assume that we start with zero to begin with?

You need to read Francis Collins and Stephen Meyer. What is happening in the "information age" is that information is of the ages.

Recommend one book. Seriously - One book, and I'll read it cover-to-cover. It will take a while - I've got a long list of stuff to read already, but I'll get there.

You are the best I have ever dealt with here. Serioulsy, I am nothing special but I feel like it because no one has thought to question the assertion as to its why and how.

The long and the short of it is that we don't know much about anything going back past a certain point. Since the laws of our universe and even such familiar things as time and space are merely traits of our universe, we have no idea what things were like "before" our universe existed. Really, the use of "before" is likely completely erroneous, as time is just another attribute of our universe.

One cannot make an argument for God out of a lack of knowledge, however.

Questions are proof of our supernatural origin.

You're going to have to run that by me again.

Modern atheists are driving science to design and a designer more effectivley than almost any other type of person.

How can anyone be afraid of questions?

Not at all. We've developed robust, naturalistic models for much of the universe as it appears after the big bang, and we know so little about "beforehand" that we can't even begin to speculate. There's not really support for a god anywhere in there.

 

[roflcopter101]

Interesting.

I came to this forum after reading FSTDT and seeing AV1611VET's posts being hosted on Christian Forums. Seeing this is an excellent way to troll and practice for debate tournaments, I signed up under a ridiculous name and began the lulz.
Now, I legitimately enjoy hanging around just to combat the horribadly evil forces of religious fundamentalism, eat ice cream, and learn other people's views.

As for religion, I really don't care that much about what people think as long it doesn't affect me. Specifically, my right to marry a boyfriend/dude-I-met-in-Vegas-who-I-got-drunk-with, and the ability to sleep until 12:00 PM without having to dissuade the ever-present men in suits that show up on my doorstep at 9:00 in the freakin morning on Saturday to sell me on an ideology before I've even gotten enough sleep to offset going to bed at 2:00 AM daily during the weekdays from cramming for 5 APs. Everything else is usually just interesting discussion.
I suppose a lot of the stuff I do on this forum is to do my tiny part to fight religious extremism exemplified by, say, Jesus Camp. Though not everyone is like that, I do cherish techno. And evolutionary biology. And John Safran.

Forgive me if I sound patronizing. I really do love you, Polycarp_fan.

As for your video: it seems to be intriguing. I will take the time to watch this after class tomorrow.

 

[Psudopod]

Intelligent Design proponents argue evolution cannot explain certain aspects of creation. In particular, ID claims certain features of the world are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved from less complex predecessors. Although ID supporters believe that such findings refute evolution, Theistic Evolutionists —along with the vast majority of mainstream scientists — do not see these examples as a threat to the theory of evolution by natural selection.

This means their examples do not stand up. I am not aware of anything that has actually shown to be irriducibly complex.

Dr. Francis Collins writes about several popular examples of irreducible complexity in chapter nine The Language of God.

- The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation

Fine tuning and irreducible complexity are two different concepts. Fine tuning is looking at various funamental properties of the universe and showing that they are "tuned" for life. Ie if a constant was a bit bigger or a bit smaller, we wouldn't be here. Irriducible complexity is a claim that a certain property or function of a living organism couldn't have evolved from earlier components. As Collins says, irriducible complexity can be dismissed with scientific evidence, fine tuning is a bit harder to explain away.
He's right, to a certain extent, we cannot explain why funtamental constants have the values they have, so it could be that they are fine tuned. However, it makes sense to me that the universe looks like this. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here. Fine tuning has always appeared to me to be looking at the issue backwards - the universe must be fine tuned because we exist. I think it's more a case that we are here because the universe has the properties it does. Fine tuning is like saying the hole is the right shape for the puddle, rather than the puddle fits the hole.

Behe is just one man of many. Let it go. Darwin to me is a pathetic man that tried to hurt God and exclusively Christians, because his daughter was tragically taken from him. His life boils down to such a basic emotionlaism. And that still resonates in those that disbeleive in God because of this 19th century man.

Whatever you think of any one scientist, you can take the claims they make and test them to see if they stand up. Can you show ID is more scientific than astrology?
And at the time of his research into evolution, Darwin was a Christian, or at very least a deist. He certainly believed in a creator, as you can see from his works. He lost faith later in life, because he could not reconsile the idea of a loving, omnipotent God with what happened to his daughter. Darwin's work (and the work that many others have done after him) do nothing to God. If God created, then science is the study of God's creation, and that should do nothing to damage one's faith, as seen by men like Collins. What it may damage is the faith of those who are bound to a literal interpretation of a religuous text (doesn't just happen to Christians). It's why creationsim as a scientific consept is dangerous. If someone is brought up with a literal interpretation and creationism to back it up, and then starts looking at the world, they can come away with the conclusion that Christianity is wrong, rather than their literal interpretation.

whose ID/IC work has started a wave of intense activity within the scientific community,

Other than those organisations like the Discovery Institute who have a vested interested in ID (see Wedge Document), I'm not aware of any wave of intense activity in the scietific community. Can you point me in the direction of any papers?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I think that's a "yes". In that case, what makes you think there was ever nothing?

I don't believe in Greek mythology.

In all seriousness, as you say below, it's really tough to contemplate what happened before the start of everything - as you seem aware of. I'm totally satisfied to follow the evidence where it leads. Math and life are not pointing us towards affirming an unreasoning universe. In my opinion, sooner or later, even you guys are going to have to give God "it's" due.

Don't forget, I'm a Fundy Christian and science doesn't look to be our enemy anytime soon. Never has been. Even before the start of whatever we assume is everything, there will be a cause. Science is not moving towards chaos as an answer. Just the opposite.

Assuming you start with nothing to begin with. Why should we assume that is the case?

Looks to add up.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain further. Why, in your mind, does [universe=0]?

The way it is presented by so many non-God agendaists. What started the cosmos moving? You can't get away from that very simple reality. Oh wait, that extremely complex reality.

Again, why should we assume that we start with zero to begin with?

There is no longer a reason to believe that. We have assumed that because of people that do not want to be told how to live their lives. This is why I hold out the Humanists as the definers of what atheism is.

Recommend one book. Seriously - One book, and I'll read it cover-to-cover. It will take a while - I've got a long list of stuff to read already, but I'll get there.

What's So Great About Christianity. Dinesh D'Souza. As an atheist, you should move that to the front of the line.

On the science level: Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer. (Interestingly enough, his father taught evolutionary biology.) It's new so we should get a decent amount of references to follow. The only serious criticism I have about common atheists, is that they spout No True Scotsman about "scientists" far too often.

As something that will absorb you: The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation. As a former atheist myself, I like the direction of BioLogos. It may unsettle Fundies at first impression (and second and third) , but its positions have every right to be in the debate. And it's free by the way.

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

Dr. Meyer shows how each successive attempt to solve the mystery of the origin of life has exposed the Achilles heal of evolutionary science: its inability to account for information apart from mind.

[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]&#8220;DNA functions like a software program,&#8221; adds Dr. Meyer. &#8220;Software comes from programmers. Information generally -- whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal -- always arises from an intelligent source.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Signature in the Cell shows that Darwin did not refute the argument from design, as New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins claim. Instead, using the same scientific method that Darwin himself pioneered, Meyer shows that modern discoveries about DNA have revived the design hypothesis, thereby providing modern scientific support for religious belief.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Stephen C. Meyer is Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.A leading proponent of intelligent design, a geophysicist and a Cambridge-trained philosopher of science, Dr. Meyer presents a compelling case that will generate heated debate, command attention, and find new adherents among scientists and open-minded readers around the world.[/FONT]

The long and the short of it is that we don't know much about anything going back past a certain point.

Yup. That seems like a good position to assert.

Since the laws of our universe and even such familiar things as time and space are merely traits of our universe . . .

Traits? "Triats?" Be careful now.

. . . we have no idea what things were like "before" our universe existed.

And that is what the atheist hat is hung on. A negative? This is why 0 x 0 = atheism, is not an insult but is an evidenced based label.

Really, the use of "before" is likely completely erroneous, as time is just another attribute of our universe.

And "time" is yet one more proof of a watchmaker.

One cannot make an argument for God out of a lack of knowledge, however.

What? Huh? You can't have it both ways. That actually makes the argument against God ignorance based. Or, that every atheist is really an agnostic. I'm not that impressed with an I don't know shrug as the foundation of a immutable assertion. Hearing "ah-UHHHH-uh" as the answer to lifes most challenging questions is almost laughable if it weren't for the tragic world in which the story of mankind is. It's OK from a five-year old, but not someone with advanced degerees or a quetioning mind.

You're going to have to run that by me again.

Nature has no justice or compassion evident working through it. We on the other hand, do. We appear to have evolved past nature.

Not at all. We've developed robust, naturalistic models for much of the universe as it appears after the big bang, and we know so little about "beforehand" that we can't even begin to speculate. There's not really support for a god anywhere in there.

And we've arrived at your opinion. And it is no more authoritative than mine, that all of the evidence of the universe itself champions the reality of a Designer. It looks like the "New Atheists," just have the typical problem with Christians and Christianity. The age old "I'm not going to be told what to do."

In my evidence-based life experience, that doesn't paint atheism as anything but common human nature of wanting cookies and not having to wait until mommy tells me I can have one. I understand that perspective well.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

This means their examples do not stand up. I am not aware of anything that has actually shown to be irriducibly complex.

How long has Behe's queries been around? You can't say that it didin't shock the darwinians. It made them scramble and react. They fought over the body of the education system as if they were a lion holding a fawn.

Fine tuning and irreducible complexity are two different concepts.

That's the rumor.

Fine tuning is looking at various funamental properties of the universe and showing that they are "tuned" for life.

And ID set the wheels in alginment to even dare to go that direction.

Ie if a constant was a bit bigger or a bit smaller, we wouldn't be here.

Hugh Ross has been saying that for years.

Irriducible complexity is a claim that a certain property or function of a living organism couldn't have evolved from earlier components. As Collins says, irriducible complexity can be dismissed with scientific evidence, fine tuning is a bit harder to explain away.

Any questioning of darwinsim as "proving" atheism has been seen as an afront to "science." Those days appear over. Unless of course you apply No True Scotsman to every scentist that doesn't walk and talk like just another new ape.

He's right, to a certain extent, we cannot explain why fundamental constants have the values they have, so it could be that they are fine tuned. However, it makes sense to me that the universe looks like this. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

I swear, if, or when I ever get a PhD, I'm still going to use the word "Duh." Looking at coded language (DNA) it looks like we are looking at logical origins and not chaos to order.

Fine tuning has always appeared to me to be looking at the issue backwards - the universe must be fine tuned because we exist. I think it's more a case that we are here because the universe has the properties it does. Fine tuning is like saying the hole is the right shape for the puddle, rather than the puddle fits the hole.

The odds are not favoring luck becoming us. God didn't throw dice. Or if you will, the cause of it all.

Whatever you think of any one scientist, you can take the claims they make and test them to see if they stand up. Can you show ID is more scientific than astrology?

No more or less the case as with darwinism. ID is not ignorance, but is observation based theory. I don't care if Behe plays with Barbie Dolls, the man's works is not going to be un-influential.

And at the time of his research into evolution, Darwin was a Christian, or at very least a deist.

He certainly believed in a creator, as you can see from his works. He lost faith later in life, because he could not reconsile the idea of a loving, omnipotent God with what happened to his daughter.{/QUOTE]

That is both respectable and pathetic at the same time. You don't like Behe because he reads his horoscope in the Sunday Times and yet you think a highly emotional 19th century man is all-time impressive?

Darwin's work (and the work that many others have done after him) do nothing to God.

You cannot get a grieving parent to hear anything. I know that personally. And if there is a way to get God to answer pain, a person will do anything for that.

If God created, then science is the study of God's creation, and that should do nothing to damage one's faith, as seen by men like Collins. What it may damage is the faith of those who are bound to a literal interpretation of a religuous text (doesn't just happen to Christians).

But, it is "Christians" willing to engage the skeptical endeavor with a zeal that shows a healthy mind and mindset.

It's why creationsim as a scientific concept is dangerous. If someone is brought up with a literal interpretation and creationism to back it up, and then starts looking at the world, they can come away with the conclusion that Christianity is wrong, rather than their literal interpretation.

I just spoke to Dr. Meyer about a similar aspect to that. Aren't scientists, presenting "evidence for God" worried that they are giving fundamentalists, zealots, and terrorists a "base" on which to launch their efforts?

Other than those organisations like the Discovery Institute who have a vested interested in ID (see Wedge Document), I'm not aware of any wave of intense activity in the scietific community. Can you point me in the direction of any papers?

That is because you are applying the No True Scotsman to "scientific community."

The wave of defense of Darwinism by exclusivity in the education system has generated many, many "scientific" papers, and has launched the neologism New Atheists onto the worldwide scence. And as can be seen from billboards about Atheism on busses, this looks to be the start of a beautiful relationship.

 

[LittleNipper]

I look at Creation this way. Prior to it there was no time. There simply was. GOD existed and that is all there was to anything.

GOD then created time, space and matter. The fact that GOD created time and existed prior to such, makes HIM eternal. The fact that GOD can exist appart from time keeps GOD eternal. The fact that GOD transcends time keeps HIM the master of it and not subject to it. However, the fact that GOD came to earth as a human makes GOD the Savior.

 

[Psudopod]

quote]Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7344273-24/#post52222102
This means their examples do not stand up. I am not aware of anything that has actually shown to be irriducibly complex.
How long has Behe's queries been around? You can't say that it didin't shock the darwinians. It made them scramble and react. They fought over the body of the education system as if they were a lion holding a fawn. [/quote]
Darwin mentions it himself though not quite in so many words, so it&#8217;s hardly a new concept. I don&#8217;t recall any scambling or reacting of a scientific nature, although of course all the irreducibly complex examples were refuted. It&#8217;s not really surprising that individuals challenged adding this to the education system though, there&#8217;s only so much time in the day for science as it is, and you don&#8217;t want time wasted on false ideas, unless you&#8217;re studying that in particular!

Fine tuning and irreducible complexity are two different concepts.

That's the rumor.

No, not really. They&#8217;re two separate concepts. They might be related in what people think they show, but they&#8217;re not the same thing.

Fine tuning is looking at various funamental properties of the universe and showing that they are "tuned" for life.

And ID set the wheels in alginment to even dare to go that direction.

The concept of fine tuning has been around for longer than the ID movement.

Ie if a constant was a bit bigger or a bit smaller, we wouldn't be here.

Hugh Ross has been saying that for years.

So has anyone who understands cosmology.

Irriducible complexity is a claim that a certain property or function of a living organism couldn't have evolved from earlier components. As Collins says, irriducible complexity can be dismissed with scientific evidence, fine tuning is a bit harder to explain away.

Any questioning of darwinsim as "proving" atheism has been seen as an afront to "science." Those days appear over. Unless of course you apply No True Scotsman to every scentist that doesn't walk and talk like just another new ape.

Not at all. Science is agnostic. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, Dawkins included. Note, I don&#8217;t know if this is something he actually says, I&#8217;ve never really bother paying much attention to him. But any scientist who disputes evolution is wrong (and usually talking outside their field of experience).

He's right, to a certain extent, we cannot explain why fundamental constants have the values they have, so it could be that they are fine tuned. However, it makes sense to me that the universe looks like this. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

I swear, if, or when I ever get a PhD, I'm still going to use the word "Duh." Looking at coded language (DNA) it looks like we are looking at logical origins and not chaos to order.

Looking at DNA is like looking at chemistry. Complex chemistry, but chemistry following chemical rules.
And you&#8217;re right about the dur, that&#8217;s why the fine tuning argument is so silly. Who knows how many universes there have been where there hasn&#8217;t been any life to sit there looking at the stars and wondering what it&#8217;s all about.

Fine tuning has always appeared to me to be looking at the issue backwards - the universe must be fine tuned because we exist. I think it's more a case that we are here because the universe has the properties it does. Fine tuning is like saying the hole is the right shape for the puddle, rather than the puddle fits the hole.

The odds are not favoring luck becoming us. God didn't throw dice. Or if you will, the cause of it all.

So you&#8217;ve got nothing to say on fine-tuning then.

Whatever you think of any one scientist, you can take the claims they make and test them to see if they stand up. Can you show ID is more scientific than astrology?

No more or less the case as with darwinism. ID is not ignorance, but is observation based theory. I don't care if Behe plays with Barbie Dolls, the man's works is not going to be un-influential.

So why are there no irreducibly complex examples then? What influence has Behe had outside of the ID movement? What has been changed since this was proposed by him?

And at the time of his research into evolution, Darwin was a Christian, or at very least a deist.

He certainly believed in a creator, as you can see from his works. He lost faith later in life, because he could not reconsile the idea of a loving, omnipotent God with what happened to his daughter.

That is both respectable and pathetic at the same time. You don't like Behe because he reads his horoscope in the Sunday Times and yet you think a highly emotional 19th century man is all-time impressive

He lost his daughter after he wrote Origin of the Species. And even if he had not, we could look at his claims and see if they held water (they do, largely. Darwin didn&#8217;t get everything right, but as a man who didn&#8217;t know about about genetics he did a good job.) We can look at Behe&#8217;s ideas and see that nothing yet has been turned up, no research has been published, no changes have been made to evolution. And it&#8217;s not that Behe believes in astrology (I have no idea if he does or not, and it would have no baring on his research), it&#8217;s the fact that even he admits it&#8217;s not scientific.

If God created, then science is the study of God's creation, and that should do nothing to damage one's faith, as seen by men like Collins. What it may damage is the faith of those who are bound to a literal interpretation of a religuous text (doesn't just happen to Christians).

But, it is "Christians" willing to engage the skeptical endeavor with a zeal that shows a healthy mind and mindset.

Of course, but that healthy mindset should have no problem with facing up with the evidence. There should be no need for taking evolution off the curriculumn, or putting silly stickers on textbooks, or demanding equal time for false ideas.

I just spoke to Dr. Meyer about a similar aspect to that. Aren't scientists, presenting "evidence for God" worried that they are giving fundamentalists, zealots, and terrorists a "base" on which to launch their efforts?

I&#8217;m not aware of any scientist presenting evidence for God. There are those like Collins who see God reflected in their work, but that&#8217;s not the same thing. And no, any scientist who thought he was on a new breakthrough that would put his name in the history books would publish.

That is because you are applying the No True Scotsman to "scientific community."

Not sure what you mean. The scientific community are the ones researching science. They then publish their results in papers. They don&#8217;t have to be part of a university, or employed in a particular field, and you don&#8217;t have to publish to be doing science, but that&#8217;s where it gets reviewed and investigated.

The wave of defense of Darwinism by exclusivity in the education system has generated many, many "scientific" papers, and has launched the neologism New Atheists onto the worldwide scence. And as can be seen from billboards about Atheism on busses, this looks to be the start of a beautiful relationship.

Can you give me the abstract (or at least titles) of some of these papers? Obviously there&#8217;s been lots of papers published on evolution, but I&#8217;m not aware of many particularly counteracting ID. What gets put on buses is nothing to do with science.

 

[DeathMagus]

I don't believe in Greek mythology.

In all seriousness, as you say below, it's really tough to contemplate what happened before the start of everything - as you seem aware of. I'm totally satisfied to follow the evidence where it leads. Math and life are not pointing us towards affirming an unreasoning universe. In my opinion, sooner or later, even you guys are going to have to give God "it's" due.

Don't forget, I'm a Fundy Christian and science doesn't look to be our enemy anytime soon. Never has been. Even before the start of whatever we assume is everything, there will be a cause. Science is not moving towards chaos as an answer. Just the opposite.

I don't see any evidence to suggest the existence of a deity, and certainly not enough evidence to suggest a very specific deity such as YHWH.

Looks to add up.

What looks to add up? To what?

The way it is presented by so many non-God agendaists. What started the cosmos moving? You can't get away from that very simple reality. Oh wait, that extremely complex reality.

The big bang doesn't state that something came from nothing. Anyone who presents it as such is wrong. The correct answer to "what started the cosmos moving" is "we don't know". Not only that - the real correct answer is that we don't even know if that's a sensible question. None of that implies a god, however.

There is no longer a reason to believe that. We have assumed that because of people that do not want to be told how to live their lives. This is why I hold out the Humanists as the definers of what atheism is.

The only person I've ever heard say that [universe=0] is you. I see no reason to say that the universe is or has ever been equal to zero. I do not believe because I remain unconvinced, not because it would be inconvenient to believe.

What's So Great About Christianity. Dinesh D'Souza. As an atheist, you should move that to the front of the line.

Blech... D'Souza. Alright. I'll read it. Wasn't impressed with his debates, however.

On the science level: Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer. (Interestingly enough, his father taught evolutionary biology.) It's new so we should get a decent amount of references to follow. The only serious criticism I have about common atheists, is that they spout No True Scotsman about "scientists" far too often.

Well...given that Stephen Meyer holds no biology degree...can you blame them?

As something that will absorb you: The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation. As a former atheist myself, I like the direction of BioLogos. It may unsettle Fundies at first impression (and second and third) , but its positions have every right to be in the debate. And it's free by the way.

It seems to be theistic evolution. I was a Roman Catholic before I figured out that I had no good reason to be - I've already been there.

Traits? "Triats?" Be careful now.

Why should I be careful? A trait is simply an attribute. Is time not an attribute of our universe?

And that is what the atheist hat is hung on. A negative? This is why 0 x 0 = atheism, is not an insult but is an evidenced based label.

Except your equation is an abstract application of numbers without actual meaning, which means it doesn't really say anything at all. If you don't know the answer to a question, it doesn't make sense to make up a god and stuff it into the gap in knowledge - you simply admit you don't know what the answer is, and you try to find out.

And "time" is yet one more proof of a watchmaker.

Not at all.

What? Huh? You can't have it both ways. That actually makes the argument against God ignorance based.

Indeed. We don't know of any evidence that legitimately supports a god, therefor it is not reasonable to believe in one. Of course, theists also don't know of any evidence that legitimately supports a god, which makes their argument for god based upon wild speculation.

Or, that every atheist is really an agnostic.

Most are. The two are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is a position that addresses theism, whereas agnosticism addresses gnosticism. The two labels have completely different applications. I happen to be both, as it's the only reasonable option - you can't prove that a god doesn't exist in general.

I'm not that impressed with an I don't know shrug as the foundation of a immutable assertion. Hearing "ah-UHHHH-uh" as the answer to lifes most challenging questions is almost laughable if it weren't for the tragic world in which the story of mankind is. It's OK from a five-year old, but not someone with advanced degerees or a quetioning mind.

I don't personally know of any atheists who find their position immutable. We're simply waiting for evidence of a god. None has turned up yet.

Nature has no justice or compassion evident working through it. We on the other hand, do. We appear to have evolved past nature.

Not quite - we've evolved to incorporate some of the most powerful natural tools we've ever seen, such as justice and compassion. These traits give us powerful advantages over other species, but aren't "unnatural".

And we've arrived at your opinion. And it is no more authoritative than mine, that all of the evidence of the universe itself champions the reality of a Designer. It looks like the "New Atheists," just have the typical problem with Christians and Christianity. The age old "I'm not going to be told what to do."

Unfortunately, the universe doesn't provide evidence for a designer. This is the fundamental weakness of the theist position (from an evidence-based standpoint). It is foolish to extrapolate wildly and argue for the existence of something (a god) without evidence. On the other hand, waiting until there is evidence of something to believe it is simple pragmatism. This is where Occam's Razor kicks in.

In my evidence-based life experience, that doesn't paint atheism as anything but common human nature of wanting cookies and not having to wait until mommy tells me I can have one. I understand that perspective well.

Oh please. I live in the American Midwest. Are you honestly going to argue that it's "convenient" for me to be an atheist? Don't go around assigning motives to the conclusions I've reached. I don't decide what's true based on what's convenient for me. That'd just be stupid.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

quote]Originally Posted by Psudopod
This means their examples do not stand up. I am not aware of anything that has actually shown to be irriducibly complex.
How long has Behe's queries been around? You can't say that it didin't shock the darwinians. It made them scramble and react. They fought over the body of the education system as if they were a lion holding a fawn.

Darwin mentions it himself though not quite in so many words, so it&#8217;s hardly a new concept.

Of course it's not. Darwin is a product of the enlightenment. A period of time that did little more than sponsor inappropriate content and promiscuity as a civil right. And of course Marxism. Same old, same old. And the Bible mentioned atheists long before they were pop icons.

I don&#8217;t recall any scambling or reacting of a scientific nature, although of course all the irreducibly complex examples were refuted. It&#8217;s not really surprising that individuals challenged adding this to the education system though,[/quote]

Oh, so you do now recall scramblings.

.

. . there&#8217;s only so much time in the day for science as it is, and you don&#8217;t want time wasted on false ideas, unless you&#8217;re studying that in particular!

Darwinism is one thing, Social Darwinism is another and that needs to be expunged from our schools before our schools are further infected to the point of no cure, as evidenced by its ubiquitous immorality sponsering results.

No, not really. They&#8217;re two separate concepts. They might be related in what people think they show, but they&#8217;re not the same thing.

Behe's black boxes say otherwise. Darwin knew nothing of them. Now science is proclaiming them.

The concept of fine tuning has been around for longer than the ID movement.

In one form or another, though as a rose called by any other name.

So has anyone who understands cosmology.

Anyone who grasps an understanding of cosmology is more accurate.

Not at all. Science is agnostic.

How refreshing an admission. Then tell your atheist buddies to stop using as immutably. It is not helping their cause.

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, Dawkins included. Note, I don&#8217;t know if this is something he actually says, I&#8217;ve never really bother paying much attention to him. But any scientist who disputes evolution is wrong (and usually talking outside their field of experience).

That is exactly what he proclaims from the rooftops. Evolution is proof of no God. www.dawkinslennoxdebate.org for his statement. Or his book.

Looking at DNA is like looking at chemistry. Complex chemistry, but chemistry following chemical rules.

And that is a good thing in regards to showing evidence for God. We are NOTHING but chemicals. I've talked to water and salt and dirt before and got no response. There was no life within it. Yet break us down to our elements and we are water, salt and elements.

And you&#8217;re right about the dur, that&#8217;s why the fine tuning argument is so silly.

Good luck with holding that position.

Who knows how many universes there have been where there hasn&#8217;t been any life to sit there looking at the stars and wondering what it&#8217;s all about.

So your views boil down to how many times mud was thrown against a cosmological wall and we stuck? Man I'm trying to see the worth in atheism, but it is really tough when you present argument like that.

So you&#8217;ve got nothing to say on fine-tuning then.

Huh? Are we at the impasse of progresive comeback where evidence is shown and the response is where's your proof? Nyah, nyah, nuh, nyah nah, is making you atheists look out of the loop. Your post shows that I am responding about fine-tuning.

So why are there no irreducibly complex examples then?

What influence has Behe had outside of the ID movement? What has been changed since this was proposed by him?

Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Stephen Meyer are presenting a scientific perspective and bringing along with that Behe's little black boxes. That you deny that is not my problem. I was informed about this guy last year from his talks at Berkeley I found this about that: UC Berkeley Events Calendar: Francis Collins: The Language of God

He lost his daughter after he wrote Origin of the Species. And even if he had not, we could look at his claims and see if they held water (they do, largely.

OK. But the loss of his daughter prompted the bad God outcome.

Darwin didn&#8217;t get everything right, but as a man who didn&#8217;t know about about genetics he did a good job.) We can look at Behe&#8217;s ideas and see that nothing yet has been turned up, no research has been published, no changes have been made to evolution. And it&#8217;s not that Behe believes in astrology (I have no idea if he does or not, and it would have no baring on his research), it&#8217;s the fact that even he admits it&#8217;s not scientific.

Within cells is a more complex workings. And within those complexities is more complexities. Behe is awesome for his "observations."

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "LIFE&#8217;S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information" in Bruce Gordon and William Dembski, editors, THE NATURE OF NATURE (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009).

ABSTRACT: Laws of nature are universal in scope, hold with unfailing regularity, and receive support from a wide array of facts and observations. The Law of Conservation of Information (LCI) is such a law. LCI characterizes the information costs that searches incur in outperforming blind search. Searches that operate by Darwinian selection, for instance, often significantly outperform blind search. But when they do, it is because they exploit information supplied by a fitness function&#8212; information that is unavailable to blind search. Searches that have a greater probability of success than blind search do not just magically materialize. They form by some process. According to LCI, any such search-forming process must build into the search at least as much information as the search displays in raising the probability of success. More formally, LCI states that raising the probability of success of a search by a factor of [FONT='Times New Roman', Times, serif]q/p[/font] (> 1) incurs an information cost of at least [FONT='Times New Roman', Times, serif]log(q/p).[/font] LCI shows that information is a commodity that, like money, obeys strict accounting principles. This paper proves three conservation of information theorems: a function-theoretic, a measure-theoretic, and a fitness-theoretic version. These are representative of conservation of information theorems in general. Such theorems provide the theoretical underpinnings for the Law of Conservation of Information. Though not denying Darwinian evolution or even limiting its role in the history of life, the Law of Conservation of Information shows that Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms.

Of course, but that healthy mindset should have no problem with facing up with the evidence. There should be no need for taking evolution off the curriculumn, or putting silly stickers on textbooks, or demanding equal time for false ideas.

When atheists and secularists and Humanists teachers use the opportunity to preach their dogmatic views on life and reality, then that needs to countered and there is ONLY one place that can happen. The disclaimers NEED to be on the walls of the classrooms NOT just the textbooks. Social Darwinism is an utter failure based ON scientific evolution and social measured outcomes.

I&#8217;m not aware of any scientist presenting evidence for God. There are those like Collins who see God reflected in their work, but that&#8217;s not the same thing.

Time to start reading their works.

And no, any scientist who thought he was on a new breakthrough that would put his name in the history books would publish.

And Meyer told that exact thing directly.

Not sure what you mean. The scientific community are the ones researching science. They then publish their results in papers. They don&#8217;t have to be part of a university, or employed in a particular field, and you don&#8217;t have to publish to be doing science, but that&#8217;s where it gets reviewed and investigated.

By bobbleheads. Peer reviewed has shown itself a closed system.

Can you give me the abstract (or at least titles) of some of these papers?

Design Inference Website: The Writings of William A. Dembski

Discovery Institute - Stephen C. Meyer

UC Berkeley Events Calendar: Francis Collins: The Language of God

Obviously there&#8217;s been lots of papers published on evolution, but I&#8217;m not aware of many particularly counteracting ID.

There are court cases that document these occureneces.

What gets put on buses is nothing to do with science.

C'mon now, the atheist billboards running around are 100&#37; science selling.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I don't see any evidence to suggest the existence of a deity, and certainly not enough evidence to suggest a very specific deity such as YHWH.

I'm OK withn that. I see great evidence literally all around us to believe YHWH is the God that created everything.

What looks to add up? To what?

Creation speaks of a Creator. Design to a designer. Logic to Logos.

The big bang doesn't state that something came from nothing. Anyone who presents it as such is wrong. The correct answer to "what started the cosmos moving" is "we don't know". Not only that - the real correct answer is that we don't even know if that's a sensible question. None of that implies a god, however.

What the big bang shows us is that stuff got moving from a non-moving state. And we know something at rest stays that way unless acted upon. In the science we have at our disposal, something not moving getting moved is not possible "naturally."

The only person I've ever heard say that [universe=0] is you. I see no reason to say that the universe is or has ever been equal to zero. I do not believe because I remain unconvinced, not because it would be inconvenient to believe.

I say that in regards to Atheists thinking they have concrete evidence that atheism is sensible. It isn't. It is just emotionalism causing thoughts to move in a direct plain.

Blech... D'Souza. Alright. I'll read it. Wasn't impressed with his debates, however.

I read Hitchens and dawkins with no similar reaction, and both men could cause me nausea for what horros they are bringing upon an already sick world.

Well...given that Stephen Meyer holds no biology degree...can you blame them?

Then education does not garener a person an intellect? Hmm, I think I may like your opinion if that is what you are saying. I can discard Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris (et al) whenever they speak out of discipline.

It seems to be theistic evolution. I was a Roman Catholic before I figured out that I had no good reason to be - I've already been there.

I was an atheist while my parents took me to Church a few times as I was growing up. I was an atheist until I tested the views of Christians and atheists. I almost became a Buddhist. I am a Christian now.

Why should I be careful? A trait is simply an attribute. Is time not an attribute of our universe?

It is an attribute of a Watchmaker to set "it" in motion.

Except your equation is an abstract application of numbers without actual meaning, which means it doesn't really say anything at all.

I don't know how long you've been here, but my numbers cause the reactions from atheists that prove they have meaning. But as I've said, only you have asked the right question about it.

If you don't know the answer to a question, it doesn't make sense to make up a god and stuff it into the gap in knowledge - you simply admit you don't know what the answer is, and you try to find out.

But that is not what scientific Christianity is doing. The gaps are not as important as what we can observe and deduce. The evidence looks like a Designer, a Programmer.

Not at all.

If science is agnostic, you need to tell that to your absolutist atheist pals. Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as well. They are presenting a done deal, so let's move on because science has settled the issue of God, salespitch. Absolutist is the word.

Indeed. We don't know of any evidence that legitimately supports a god, therefor it is not reasonable to believe in one.

Excuse me? Am I not in the room? "I" am part of "we." I see great solid and defensible reasons for belief in God.

Of course, theists also don't know of any evidence that legitimately supports a god, which makes their argument for god based upon wild speculation.

That's a personal opinion that is not backed up by evidence. There are plenty of really smart people that believe there is more then enough evidence for God. Ever notice how many are "Christians?"

Most are. The two are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is a position that addresses theism, whereas agnosticism addresses gnosticism.

The lines are so blurred now, from the treatises of the vocal atheists as to be no longer seperable. That's the fault of you guys. Freethinker, Skeptic, Atheist, Agnostic, all blend as one in social work and play.

The two labels have completely different applications. I happen to be both,

And I have shown why that has to be the case now.

. . . as it's the only reasonable option - you can't prove that a god doesn't exist in general.

In general? There is far more proof of existence in God. It is the fine-tuning where atheism grasps its voice for endeavor. I see know logical reason to hold atheism as reality.

I don't personally know of any atheists who find their position immutable. We're simply waiting for evidence of a god. None has turned up yet.

Well you may be busy with classes, but the three amigos of atheism say it's a done deal. The bird is cooked and ready on the table. And they are not alone.

Not quite - we've evolved to incorporate some of the most powerful natural tools we've ever seen, such as justice and compassion.

Nope. You can't show that as happening from a natural cause. There is no ubiquitous supporting evidence from naturalism. Justice is claw and tooth, stealth and cunning and compassion is non-existent in animal biology. The facts don't make your point.

These traits give us powerful advantages over other species, but aren't "unnatural".

Extinction is the natural process of human life. Yet, we struggle to avoid that at all costs. Again, "we" seem to be outside of naturalism. If lions had the numbers, they would have cannablism as their last meal. And I hardly expect evolution from plants to produce humans in the near trillions of years.

Unfortunately, the universe doesn't provide evidence for a designer. This is the fundamental weakness of the theist position (from an evidence-based standpoint).

Man, you're driving a Model T in an computerized unmanned aircraft age. That position of yours has come and gone. Again. To look at the cosmos and a baby human's face makes mincemeat of the anti-God thesis. Ora baby humback for that matter.

It is foolish to extrapolate wildly and argue for the existence of something (a god) without evidence.

Those days are long gone my friend. Even Christians are asking the Fundy-zealots to stop already. The new news is better than the old routine. Science is driving us to God as a matter of observed evidence.

On the other hand, waiting until there is evidence of something to believe it is simple pragmatism.

If that's what you're doing fine. Then please get out of the way and stop all the advertisements about atheism being sensible. It isn't. And social darwinism has really got to be buried for the dead thing that it is.

This is where Occam's Razor kicks in.

Oh please. Tag lines and rote pop philosophy 101? Please, I'll senmd the mods twn dolars to send to you if you don't bring up Pascal's Wager. AHHH, I just did.

Oh please. I live in the American Midwest. Are you honestly going to argue that it's "convenient" for me to be an atheist?

I was just at a seminar in a suburb outside of Chicago (pure midwest) just a few weeks ago, and the Shock-Goths and Skeptics are legion. Truly ubiquitous. And I wasn't even on a High School campus or College the whole time.

Don't go around assigning motives to the conclusions I've reached. I don't decide what's true based on what's convenient for me. That'd just be stupid.

I am only human. Usually being an Atheist follows observable patterns.

Being a Christian, BTW, is probably the most inconvenient lifestyle there is. I love women.

 

[mpok1519]

I look at Creation this way. Prior to it there was no time..

actually time is a man-created concept; we constructed time, not God. We created the hour, the second, the year, the calander, etc.