Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Hoghead1]

Hello, Paul. Nice to hear from you. I am deeply interested in mysticism. However, I was largely inspired by the panpsychism or two major contemporary philosophers, Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. I don't follow you when you contrast the mystical with the dynamic. Could you explain, please?

 

[BobRyan]

I have three points for people with doubts, read thoroughly, I hope they be the reason to guide you:
"We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?" (41:53)
"O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot, and then from a lump of flesh, formed and unformed - that We may show you. And We settle in the wombs whom We will for a specified term, then We bring you out as a child, and then [We develop you] that you may reach your [time of] maturity. And among you is he who is taken in [early] death, and among you is he who is returned to the most decrepit [old] age so that he knows, after [once having] knowledge, nothing. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down upon it rain, it quivers and swells and grows [something] of every beautiful kind." (22:5)

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (21:30)
"I will turn away from My signs those who are arrogant upon the earth without right; and if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. And if they see the way of consciousness, they will not adopt it as a way; but if they see the way of error, they will adopt it as a way. That is because they have denied Our signs and they were heedless of them."
(7:146)

So then not "quoting you" and not "quoting the Bible" -- what are you quoting and how does it address the OP??

 

[BobRyan]

Dawkins admits to the design observed in nature.

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature even though he can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose.

Don't miss that last sentence -- "Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature even though he can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose."

Saying that there is the appearance of design does not mean it WAS design.

And "yet" DNA segment activation, -transcription-and-translation, error correction -- still beyond your "chemistry set"??

But of course --- "not designed -- even though it is apparently designed when you observe it"

And in this case - it is purely biochemistry -- no evolution of the molecule needs a million years for the chemical reaction to happen.

-_- you should obviously know that "appear to have been designed" is not the same as saying something was designed. .

Because in the example at hand "a sufficiently talented 'story teller' can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature even though he can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose."

 

[Kylie]

Don't miss that last sentence -- "Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature even though he can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose."

You are missing the point completely.

And "yet" DNA segment activation, -transcription-and-translation, error correction -- still beyond your "chemistry set"??

But of course --- "not designed -- even though it is apparently designed when you observe it"

And in this case - it is purely biochemistry -- no evolution of the molecule needs a million years for the chemical reaction to happen.

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what evolution actually IS.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Don't miss that last sentence -- "Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature even though he can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose."

Have you even read The Blind Watchmaker? I'm guessing you didn't. You just copy/pasted a dishonest quote mine. I grabbed the book off my shelf so we can take a look at what comes after the quote. Funny that this quote mine is taken from the first page of a 329 page book and neglects to address the rest of the book. I guess it doesn't matter when the goal is to mislead the reader.

"....Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood."- Page 1

"What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is no." Page 3

I even did you the favor of finding a PDF version of the book that is entirely free. If you're interested in learning anything at all, please read it and then come back and apologize for being dishonest.

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

 

[bhsmte]

You are missing the point completely.



Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what evolution actually IS.

He has to miss the point, he has no choice.

 

[Jimmy D]

Each of Bob's quote mines have been extensively discussed and addressed previously so I'd like to ignore them but I have to wonder what the point of them is anyway?

a) I haven't bothered checking them but aren't all the people quoted professional scientists and fully accept evolution?
b) Why is Bob prepared to accept one or two sentences they say which support his point,yet reject the other 99.999% of their work which disagrees with his 'opinion'?
c) Does one comment (even if it were shown to be in context) negate actual evidence. Opinions are not facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why should I expect them too, they are separate species..... You just proved my point not even realizing it.

We have evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, such as shared genetic markers and transitional fossils.

 

[Loudmouth]

Looking at the title of this thread - and the OP -- it is easy to understand why it is that atheist settle for ignoring the entire subject - and confine themselves to 'repeating false accusations' accompanied by "no evidence whatsoever" other than the "repeat of the accusation".

How sad.

Even more sad is that some feel this is their justification for choosing what the Bible calls 'the lake of fire' for themselves and those family members "influenced" by them.

I myself would rather see them choosing life - over the Rev 20 "alternative"

We aren't the ones ignoring evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

But none of them identified a single substantive flaw in any post of mine.

Were we simply supposed to "imagine it" for you??

Please be serious.

The flaw is that one comment by one scientist does not make the evidence go away.

 

[Extraneous]

We have evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, such as shared genetic markers and transitional fossils.

Sure you do.

 

[Extraneous]

The flaw is that one comment by one scientist does not make the evidence go away.

Yes but many flaws in ToE do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes but many flaws do.

Huh?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure you do.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Humans share over 200,000 retroviral insertions with chimps. That's 200,000 pieces of evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hello, Paul. Nice to hear from you. I am deeply interested in mysticism. However, I was largely inspired by the panpsychism or two major contemporary philosophers, Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. I don't follow you when you contrast the mystical with the dynamic. Could you explain, please?

Dynamic: essentially a naturalistic explanation, but taking into account active processes instead of mere passive responses such as we see in rocks and riverbeds.

Mystical: Ascribing the wonders life and/or other aspects of the universe to mysterious spiritual aspects that cannot be explained by mere naturalistic reactions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes but many flaws in ToE do.

The flaws of...?
Just saying they exist doesn't do much. Anyone can make empty claims about anything.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Each of Bob's quote mines have been extensively discussed and addressed previously so I'd like to ignore them but I have to wonder what the point of them is anyway?

a) I haven't bothered checking them but aren't all the people quoted professional scientists and fully accept evolution?
b) Why is Bob prepared to accept one or two sentences they say which support his point,yet reject the other 99.999% of their work which disagrees with his 'opinion'?
c) Does one comment (even if it were shown to be in context) negate actual evidence. Opinions are not facts.

The whole point behind a quote mine is that the person doing the mining has abandoned precepts of honesty, integrity, and accuracy, and instead is merely going for the appearance of honesty, integrity, and accuracy.

It's a cheap and lazy ploy, which only succeeds when the audience is as cheap and lazy as the miner... as such, it's usually only effective when preaching to the choir... not in an actual discussion or debate.

 

[BobRyan]

Each of Bob's quote

Each quote has been proven beyond all doubt - and the only complaint that has been substantiated is that the quote is "inconvenient for blind faith evolutionism" -- and that fact "alone" is the only fact presented so far for arguing 'well then it must be a quote mine' -- as if that is some sort of odd substitute for "logic" and reason.

By simply offering non-substantive posts whenever an inconvenient quote surfaces the 'true believer' in the mythology of evolutionism can add this

quotes have been extensively discussed and addressed previously so I'd like to ignore them

How sad that such nonsense passes for the excuse to take the worst-upside and the worst-downside (Combined) path - clinging to mythology that "a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit".

but I have to wonder what the point of them is anyway?

a) I haven't bothered checking them but aren't all the people quoted professional scientists and fully accept evolution?

Interesting that after having claimed to rigorously find some flaw in the quotes we get "I haven't bothered checking them".

interesting that after my post after post claiming that these guys are atheist-diehard-true-believer-evolutionist scientists (because that is the WHOLE POINT of the post) -- this question comes up...

What then do atheists and evolutionists mean by "extensively discussed and addressed"????

Notice that in the oft-repeated wishful thinking - that claims the junk-science of evolutionism should be regarded in the same way as real sciences such as math, chemistry, physics, observable-biology etc - we find a useful "contrast" .. because the leading figures on REAL science - are not making the 'this is all junk-science religion' sorts of lament about their own fields of study - as we find among the diehard professors of junk-science evolutionism.

 

[BobRyan]

The whole point behind a quote mine is that the person doing the mining has abandoned precepts of honesty, integrity, and accuracy, and instead is merely going for the appearance of honesty, integrity, and accuracy. .

which is the heart and soul of junk-science evolutionism.

And the whole point in making factless and false accusations regarding quote-mining whenever an unflattering quote surfaces from your own junk-science religion of evolutionism... is that people who believe in evolutionism "care about the accusation" but not about the lack of substance in it.

 

[Hieronymus]

The flaws of...?
Just saying they exist doesn't do much. Anyone can make empty claims about anything.

O come on, please...
You're smarter than that.
I can't believe you're oblivious to the problems ToE has.
The emptiness is not in the claim.