The best evidence for Creationism

[CaliforniaSun]

The best evidence right now is: Stephen C. Meyer: Signature in the Cell: DNA the Evidence for Intelligent Design. This is of course an ongoing discussion and the book will soon be outdated. Then on the other side you will find the skeptics like Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins.

For me the skeptics look tired and drained. They do not seem to have an energy at work in them that believers have. Some call this energy Chi, others call this the power of God. Although Stephen Hawking is clearly an enigma because something is keeping him alive.

Stephen C. Meyer: Is intelligent design science - Signature in the Cell - YouTube

Michael Shermer has participated in the Race Across America several times, and continues to be in fantastic health to this day. Hawking should have been dead decades ago, but he continues to live on, despite the odds. Dawkins, well, for his height and weight, his BMI looks to be about right.

So what's this chi stuff you're talking about? Do you drink it?

 

[Elias526]

Michael Shermer has participated in the Race Across America several times,

Shermer actually was a Christian at one time. So you would need to look at skeptics like Dawkins or Gould toward the end of their life. They do not seem to have the peace that Christians have. Not just their face but also study their hands.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Shermer actually was a Christian at one time. So you would need to look at skeptics like Dawkins or Gould toward the end of their life. They do not seem to have the peace that Christians have. Not just their face but also study their hands.

WTH are you even talking about? What do you even base these absurd opinions on?

 

[CabVet]

They do not seem to have the peace that Christians have.

Oh, you mean this kind of peace?

 

[bobsterInJapan]

Oh, you mean this kind of peace?

That is truly a horrid photo.

 

[CabVet]

That is truly a horrid photo.

Yeah, so much that it was making me sick and I deleted it. Will leave it up for people's imagination. If anybody wants to see it just search google images for "westboro signs", so much for peaceful Christians.

 

[bobsterInJapan]

Yeah, so much that it was making me sick and I deleted it. Will leave it up for people's imagination. If anybody wants to see it just search google images for "westboro signs", so much for peaceful Christians.

It reminds me of my first day at computer science class at university. There's always one person who can't even find the switch to turn the computer on!

In the same way, you are bound to find the odd odd Christian who is well, a few bricks short of a house.

 

[CabVet]

It reminds me of my first day at computer science class at university. There's always one person who can't even find the switch to turn the computer on!

In the same way, you are bound to find the odd odd Christian who is well, a few bricks short of a house.

Well, the thing is, lately it does not seem like it is just an "odd" one. To me, the odd ones are those that actually follow what Christ taught.

 

[bobsterInJapan]

Well, the thing is, lately it does not seem like it is just an "odd" one. To me, the odd ones are those that actually follow what Christ taught.

Oh dear, I find myself in difficultly denying that.

Well, at the end of the day, when looking into Christianity we should be looking at Christ rather than Christians.

 

[USincognito]

Shermer actually was a Christian at one time. So you would need to look at skeptics like Dawkins or Gould toward the end of their life. They do not seem to have the peace that Christians have. Not just their face but also study their hands.

This photo is from 8 years ago, but Dawkins looks fine in it. I look like crap, but that's what a weekend in Vegas will do to you even if you don't party at all.

 

[someguy14]

Neat picture.
However, calling Americans that believe in God, a "remarkable demonstration of educational failure" is a hand against America in general, and portrays a hatred against those that desire to love and be loved, a division.
It is the ones that insist hatred on one another, that are blind. However temporary that may be.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Indeed there is sufficient evidence from DNA to conclude that every living thing has a common ancestor that evolved in a hierarchical manner. My concern is that, is this the only possible conclusion?

I've yet to see one more plausible. Indeed, I've yet to see one that isn't as contrived and ad hoc as ID.

I wonder if the likes of Richard Dawkins, who is very intelligent, pretended to believe in God the creator for 12 months, would come up with a different solution/conclusion.

Why would pretending to believe in God change what can be deduced from the evidence? Few atheists are strong atheists; that is, the vast majority of atheists, including myself and Professor Dawkins, are of the "I don't assert that God doesn't exist, nor that he does" variety. We haven't a priori excluded the possibility that God exists, or that he might be behind it - logically, that possibility will always be there, in general terms. The fact is, the evidence simply doesn't point to an intelligence behind anything not made by animals.

The scientist who proves otherwise will go down in history as the greatest scientist of all time, trumping Newton, Darwin, and Einstein - they would have answered one of the oldest questions mankind has ever pondered.

That's why I find it amusing when Creationists (not yourself, but other Creationists) say that scientists are scared of changing the status quo, that science is stuck and stagnant, etc. It's not. It embraces change as its greatest strength.

I will read that paper when I find the time. I understand the DNA/RNA to be a digital system. A 3rd Generation programming language (or higher) that converts (via a compiler or two) its code into machine code would be absolutely useless if we did not first understand Boolean algebra, which is essential to utilize ON/OFF gates (or whatever they're called) in, e.g., a CPU. Since DNA/RNA is a digital system, it would have to obey Boolean algebra (or an equivalent) principles, it cannot rely on a hit-and-miss principle in order to function, surely. Don't we observe DNA pushing all the right buttons?

Nope. We see DNA operating largely OK, with mistakes being incorporated into the overall architecture.

You have to be careful when analogising how DNA works; yes, computer languages are a good analogy, with binary code underlying more abstract language. But, it's fallacious to say, "and since computer languages are made by an intelligence, therefore DNA is too". Society of the economy can be likened to a biological organism, but clearly they're not; likewise, just because DNA can be likened to a computer language, doesn't constitute evidence for design, or a designed.

Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't. If you can show that the operation of DNA couldn't have evolved (not that we don't know, but that it fundamentally couldn't), that's a whole other argument

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Neat picture.
However, calling Americans that believe in God, a "remarkable demonstration of educational failure" is a hand against America in general, and portrays a hatred against those that desire to love and be loved, a division.

Hatred? No. Pity? Yes. He considers religion to be a failing of education, something people grow out of as they learn - thus, the amount of religious people in the US is, to him, indicative of a poor educational system.

Whether you agree with him or not, the fact remains that he's not espousing hatred.

It is the ones that insist hatred on one another, that are blind. However temporary that may be.

Like Westboro Baptist Church? It always amazes me the hate Christians give atheists - including unwarranted hate, as you showed above - yet they turn a blind eye to their own number.

 

[someguy14]

Hatred? No. Pity? Yes. He considers religion to be a failing of education, something people grow out of as they learn - thus, the amount of religious people in the US is, to him, indicative of a poor educational system.

Whether you agree with him or not, the fact remains that he's not espousing hatred.


Like Westboro Baptist Church? It always amazes me the hate Christians give atheists - including unwarranted hate, as you showed above - yet they turn a blind eye to their own number.

God is good.

 

[Elias526]

This photo is from 8 years ago, but Dawkins looks fine in it. I look like crap, but that's what a weekend in Vegas will do to you even if you don't party at all.

Actually your photo is a good example of what I am talking about if you see it or not. Not just the need to have his eye brows trimed or his balding condition. Not just his red blotch skin condition but what is obvious to most Christians, that he does not have the eternal life of God working in him. From a Christian perspective this is a person who is perishing. Actually he would be the first to tell you that he is perishing and does not have the eternal life of God in him. Nothing personal, I like the questions he raises and the points he makes. There are answers for all his questions and all his objections have been refuted. What they call a [FONT=arial, sans-serif][/FONT]sounding brass[FONT=arial, sans-serif] or a clanging cymbal that will soon fade away and be no more. [/FONT]

 

[Elias526]

Few atheists are strong atheists; that is, the vast majority of atheists, including myself and Professor Dawkins, are of the "I don't assert that God doesn't exist, nor that he does" variety.

On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God is good.

There are rules against off-topic spam.

 

[toLiJC]

the most absurd statement in the faith is that everything in the universe is created by itself, or that the true God is just some primitive/unwise energy

 

[AV1611VET]

He considers religion to be a failing of education, something people grow out of as they learn - thus, the amount of religious people in the US is, to him, indicative of a poor educational system.

He never met the Heaven's Gate Cult, did he?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

That's a matter of definition. Sagan starts with a definition: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist". This definition doesn't jive with history, etymology, theological philosophers, nor self-professed atheists. What Sagan calls an 'atheist' I call a 'strong atheist'.