Atheists, read and inwardly digest...

[paul becke]

https://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/entry/spiritualityphysics?team=1

https://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/entry/creationsmodernbio?team=1

https://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/entry/whyadamisfoundationaltomedicine?team=1

 

[Blayz]

SO I got as afar as "Jonathan Bartlett", then scrolled down to see if he was the Blythe Institute Bartlett, which he was, and suddenly found myself unable to digest inwardly, but instead found myself digesting outward a little, in my mouth.

Pseudo-scientific creationist propaganda.

 

[AECellini]

the title pulled me in to a bunch of bunk.

 

[hollyda]

I'm stuck on the title of this thread. How does one outwardly digest, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[The Engineer]

In all of these advances of physics, there was another underlying assumption which was about to be removed as well. All physics until this point had relied on a mechanistic idea of the universe. The idea was that, given the starting positions and motions of every element, one could predict the outcome of the universe. Theologians, not scientists, only spoke of “choice,” “free will,” and other non-deterministic concepts. But the next major revolution in physics was quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics removed the mechanical conception of nature. It rewrote physics from the ground up, saying that determinism was false.

Quantum mechanics only apply in certain situations, and without a quantum conscience, our mind is none of those. As far as I know, quantum conscience was already refuted, or at least it's far from being consensus.

 

[sfs]

I'm stuck on the title of this thread. How does one outwardly digest, if you don't mind my asking?

Spiders and thrips do it. Just inject your prey with digestive enzymes and then slurp up the goodness.

 

[Jamin4422]

Quantum mechanics only apply in certain situations,

So you do not believe in the "theory of everything"? Good to know.

 

[Jamin4422]

I'm stuck on the title of this thread. How does one outwardly digest, if you don't mind my asking?

In the nursing home it is common to run food though a chopper or a blender. This makes the digestion process easier. Otherwise you could marinate the food to start to break down the fibers and enzymes to make the food easier to digest. Also cooking breaks food down and makes it easier to digest. People talk about eating raw food but that is a urban myth. We are better able to extract nutrition from cooked food. We try to do our own cooking and avoid processed foods as much as we can. It is easy and cheap for science to extract (natural) flavor from food. Giving you cheap, good tasting food that has no real nutrition. Also science likes to give people genetic modified (GM) food that the body does not have the ability to be able to digest or process. Of course rich people get the good stuff. But they pay a lot for it. I went to one of those fancy expensive restaurants once and they said they would pretty much cook me whatever I wanted from scratch. That is considered to be a factor in why rich people live longer then poor people. Otherwise if I want it the way I want it, then I got to cook it.

 

[Davian]

https://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/entry/spiritualityphysics?team=1

Science is anti-Christian? No, religious claims are usually without scientific significance.

https://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/entry/creationsmodernbio?team=1

"Michael Zimmerman, for instance, wrote in the Huffington Post that the notion that there are scientific challenges to evolution is "utter garbage.” He says that the idea of Intelligent Design is "scientifically and religiously bankrupt,” which is an interesting assertion coming from an atheist. Paul Hanle, writing in the Washington Post, says, "Proponents of 'intelligent design' in the United States are waging a war against teaching science.” Lawrence Krauss, writing in the New York Times, compared belief in the doctrine of creation to belief in UFOs."

The remainder of the article did nothing to dispel the accuracy of these opening statements.

https://www.classicalconversations.com/easyblog/entry/whyadamisfoundationaltomedicine?team=1

"...modern medicine relies on the story of Adam and Eve."

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

[hollyda]

Spiders and thrips do it. Just inject your prey with digestive enzymes and then slurp up the goodness.

In the nursing home it is common to run food though a chopper or a blender. This makes the digestion process easier. Otherwise you could marinate the food to start to break down the fibers and enzymes to make the food easier to digest. Also cooking breaks food down and makes it easier to digest. People talk about eating raw food but that is a urban myth. We are better able to extract nutrition from cooked food. We try to do our own cooking and avoid processed foods as much as we can. It is easy and cheap for science to extract (natural) flavor from food. Giving you cheap, good tasting food that has no real nutrition. Also science likes to give people genetic modified (GM) food that the body does not have the ability to be able to digest or process. Of course rich people get the good stuff. But they pay a lot for it. I went to one of those fancy expensive restaurants once and they said they would pretty much cook me whatever I wanted from scratch. That is considered to be a factor in why rich people live longer then poor people. Otherwise if I want it the way I want it, then I got to cook it.

Cool beans!

 

[jayem]

I only read the little discourse on medicine.

"Therefore, medicine is coherent as an enterprise because of the notion that there was, at one time, an Adam—a perfect human archetype. In addition, we are not models of this perfection ourselves because of the biblical fall. Therefore, medicine attempts to restore, as closely as possible, each person into the originally designed wholeness of life. That only makes sense if there is an original design in which we are not fully participating..."

Preposterous. What is considered a healthy physiologic state is not based on "Adam." Even if "Adam" really existed, how could we possibly know his blood pressure reading, or his total cholesterol, or glucose, or his triglyeride, or HDL levels? The Bible doesn't tell us his pulmonary capacity, or how many METS he could achieve on an exercise treadmill test. The fact is, we can only identify a healthy physiologic state as one that is not associated with disease. The "normal" values for most all blood and urine tests, and for functional tests of the heart, lungs, and other organ systems are derived from testing large samples of persons without any signs of disease. And the "normal" range for these results becomes 2 standard deviations on either side of the mean result. When we treat illness, our target is not some absolute standard of physiologic perfection. What would that even be? We can only try to restore that physiologic state which we know to be associated with the least chance of disease.

 

[The Engineer]

So you do not believe in the "theory of everything"? Good to know.

There is no theory of everything yet, so no, I don't believe in it.

The thing is, quantum mechanical effects can't be applied to every situation, contrary to what some people would like to think.

I'll give the medicine text a look, now. EDIT: Looks like it's the biology text.

Paul Hanle, writing in the Washington Post, says, "Proponents of 'intelligent design' in the United States are waging a war against teaching science.”

True.

Lawrence Krauss, writing in the New York Times, compared belief in the doctrine of creation to belief in UFOs.

I agree with Krauss' on that one.

Contrary to popular opinion, the doctrine of creation is not antiscientific.

It's just untestable and unfalsifiable, which is totally different from being antiscientific!

It is not a recent invention of fundamentalists to try to remove evolution from public school systems.

It does not put modern science education at risk in any way.

Sure. I guess replacing science with GODDIDIT is not going to hurt science education at all.

In fact, the doctrine of creation has been fundamental to the development of many of the most important branches of modern biology.

For example?

What is the Doctrine of Creation?

When many people hear about the "doctrine of creation,” most people think specifically about "special creation" - the idea that God made a multiplicity of creatures in the beginning, and their forms more-or-less persist to this day, with creatures reproducing according to their kind. This is not unwarranted (I myself believe in special creation), but it is not the whole story, either. The doctrine of creation, at its core, says that biology is primarily the result of intention, rather than accident.

Some evidence would be nice.

This is not to say that accidental causes have no place in biology - they certainly do.

This statement is so generalized, it hurts. Biology is a whole scientific branch, of course accidental causes have a place in it!

All sorts of things are the result of the accidents of history.

Cool story, bro.

But, in the long view, the doctrine of creation says that we will obtain better results if we start from the assumption of intention rather than the assumption of accident.

First of all, how does the doctrine back this claim up?

Second, assuming an intelligent creator when an accidental creation would suffice for explanation is irrational.

Or, at the very least, that intention should be considered as one possible source of causation.

Why should it be considered if accidental creation is a sufficient explanation?

Most people don't realize the impact that the doctrine of creation has had on the study of biology. Here we will take a few snapshots from the history of biology, and show how the doctrine of creation has led the way for new insights and understandings.

Okay.

Biological Science in the Ancient World

King Solomon was considered one of the wisest people to have ever lived. Most people don't realize that one of the main topics of his wisdom was biology. As recorded in the book of Kings, leaders from around the world came to listen as Solomon "described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish." (1 Kings 4:33)

Not much has survived about Solomon's biological knowledge. We only know that, based on other writings attributed to Solomon, Solomon believed that seeking God first was the foundation of knowledge (Proverbs 9:10).

I don't think King Solomon helped advance modern biology, nor do I think the assumption of intention helped his studies, even if it didn't hinder them, either. I'm sure King Solomon didn't study any phenomenons where the belief in evolution or creation would have mattered much.

A more concrete figure, whose writings are still with us, is Aristotle. Aristotle is considered the father of the biological sciences. He wrote about the method of investigation and the process of reasoning used for biological studies, which have lasted for centuries. He is, for all practical purposes, the founder of the modern study of biology.

That's nice to know, but it doesn't matter, again. Just because some smart people were creationists doesn't mean it's right, and whether a biologist was a creationist or not didn't matter back then, either. At that time, scientists didn't even have a theory of evolution, nor did they have the technology to know about the existence and behavior of DNA, which is one of the man aspects of the theory of evolution.

The doctrine of creation permeates Aristotle's philosophy of biology. When Aristotle was writing, there was already a well-established science of physics, based largely on the work of Democritus. This did well to explain matter and movement. However, such explanations left out an important aspect of nature, especially in biology.

That's cool, but it doesn't matter.

There was a real, regular connection between parts of animals, and their usefulness to the animals. A science, which is focused on matter and movement, simply does not have the categories to describe such connections. In order to do so, one must include the idea of purpose into the description of nature.

I think I see where this is going: Now, the author will expand the idea of purpose into a divine purpose.

Therefore, Aristotle was able to expand science from physics to biology by recognizing the importance of the doctrine of creation - recognizing that purpose and intention were key to understanding the world of life.

There is no intention, there is no purpose. Animals are able to function because natural selection killed every animal that wasn't.

One could not properly understand an embryo until one understood the final purpose of an embryo. One cannot understand most of the functions of an organism unless one understands how they function towards the final purposes of that organism.

There is no purpose, just the tiny little fact that every organism is designed for survival. Any organism that isn't designed for survival is dead, and can't pass on its genes.

Designed is a bad word, I just realized, as it implies intention. Shaped would be a better word, but it sounds weird in the context above.

The Birth of Experimental Biology and Microbiology

Most people don't realize that experimental biology and microbiology initially arose as a science in defense of the doctrine of creation.

What they initially were is irrelevant.

Spontaneous generation was a common belief by scientists and non-scientists. Francesco Redi had a firm belief in scripture, and that life only reproduces after its kind. Therefore, he constructed what some consider the first experiment in biology. He crafted an experiment to prove that flies are born from other flies, and do not spontaneously generate from decaying meat. He took decaying meat and sealed it, and was able to show that when the meat was sealed, it did not produce maggots. In addition, by adding netting over the meat, he was able to attract flies and show them laying the eggs for the maggots on the netting.

Honestly, this paragraph is genuinely interesting! Really!

Inspired by scripture, Redi managed to demonstrate several things. First, he showed the reasonableness of the doctrine of creation against spontaneous generation.

Soon, the author will attack abiogenesis, I can see it coming.

Redi demonstrated that flies are not spontaneously generated. He didn't show that life itself can't be spontaneously generated.

There's a huge difference between a fly, and the most simple life form we can imagine. The simplest life would be even simpler than an individual cell from any contemporary animal.

Second, he provided a template for future researchers to carry out biological experiments. Prior to Redi, biology was primarily observational, not experimental. Redi demonstrated how experiments can be brought to bear upon biological problems, and created the whole field of experimental biology.

Interesting.

Finally, Redi had showed that the problem wasn't with the doctrine of creation, but rather with the limitations of our eyes.

No, he didn't.

Thus, Redi established the existence of complex biological activity at the tiniest levels, which created the field of microbiology.

If I understood the text correctly, he didn't do so with this experiment. He showed that flies are born, just like more complex animals; he didn't demonstrate anything on the cell-level of biology.

Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, and Hooke, all Christian men, further carried out Redi’s work.

The religion of a scientist is irrelevant, as long as they make good science. Of course, if they use religious beliefs as scientific explanations, the science won't be good.

It is interesting to note that Aristotle's biggest deviation from the doctrine of creation was that he believed that there were a few forms of life, which sprang up from decaying substances. It wasn't quite spontaneous generation (Aristotle believed that the decaying substances contained a "vital heat" that allowed it to generate life), but nonetheless, it was one place where Aristotle did not bring his full support of the doctrine of creation. And it was his most glaring error.

I thought his biggest error was that he thought women had fewer teeth than men?

Aristotle may have been a genius, but we must still not forget that this guy has never seen a cell or DNA. Bringing his beliefs up as an argument against evolution doesn't work.

Modern Taxonomy

Scripture states that everything reproduces after its kind. However, it does not answer the quest of how many kinds there are, or what the kinds are. Therefore, one of the most interesting questions in biology for a creationist is "what are the created kinds"? This question was the inspiration for the development of taxonomy.

So there was one thing that creationists did right because of their beliefs? Wow!

Still doesn't change the fact that this was a very long time ago, that the taxonomy changed a lot since then and that it's a completely arbitrary, anyway. It's not a natural construct, it was invented by biologists to order the species.

Carl Linnaeus is considered the father of taxonomy. His goal was to catalog God's creations, and to find out what the "created kinds" are. He took on a role very much similar to Adam in the first chapters of Genesis, naming all of God's creatures. Linnaeus himself seems to have made this connection, saying of his own life's work, "God created, Linnaeus classified.”

The focus on reproduction after its kind is very present in Linnaeus' work. Prior to Linnaeus, plant classification systems were based on the uses of plants in society. Linnaeus, however, believing that reproduction after its kind was the key to understanding God's creation, developed the sexual system for plant classification. While sexual reproduction does not today have the same weight as it did for Linnaeus' system, it was a tremendous step forward from previous classification systems, and represented the first major effort at an objective classification of living organisms.

Interesting story, but how does this change anything?

Will continue in the next post, this one is getting too long.

 

[The Engineer]

Continuing.

Genetics

Genetics is one of the foundations of the modern biological enterprise. Few people realize, however, that it was developed as a response to evolutionary theory in support of the doctrine of creation.

We can see how well this effort worked.

Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk doing research out of his monastery.

Again, the religious beliefs of a scientist is unimportant for his work unless it interferes with his work.

While he developed his ideas prior to Darwin's version of evolution, the idea of evolution was already very popular among biologists and was often being set against the doctrine of creation.

Aha.

The question was this - if we see continual change in organisms through the generations (by breeding, selection, etc.), why should we assume that there is anything in them that isn't the result of the accidents of time?

Exactly!

Just as Redi used experiments to show that there was more than what could be seen, Mendel wanted to show that despite the ability of plant populations to change characters over time, these changes were actually a part of the original plan.

Aha.

He proposed that what was actually happening in biological change was not a continuous evolution, but rather a simple shifting of static traits. Therefore, the changes in species were neither accidental nor permanent, but rather a simple shifting of pre-existing traits.

Come on guys! I'm getting sick of mentioning Richard Lenski all the time!

There is absolutely no evidence that suggests that the traits have existed before and are just shifting! Not only that, it isn't compatible with modern genetics. Why would your DNA care whether it is coding for a new trait, or whether it is simply re-using a trait your grandfather had?

In his landmark paper, "Experiments in Plant Hybridization," Mendel concluded by Saying:

Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change. Although this opinion cannot be unconditionally accepted we find on the other hand in Gärtner's experiments a noteworthy confirmation of that supposition regarding variability of cultivated plants which has already been expressed.

So, what does this mean for modern biology?

Among the experimental species ... [hybrids] lost none of their stability after 4 or 5 generations. (emphasis mine)

Why should they lose their stability? Which stability, anyway?

From this simple defense of the doctrine of creation the idea of the "gene" is born, which fuels the most profitable century so far in biological investigation.

This was over a hundred years ago. Science moves on.

Conclusion

As is evident from this short history, the doctrine of creation has been of foundational importance to the largest advances in biological history.

So creationism helped create taxonomy and genetics. As I said, this was over a hundred years ago, so I don't see how this is important for modern biology.

What the author seems to forget is that back in Mendele's time and prior, there was no solid evidence against creationism, so belief in it wasn't irrational (or at least not more irrational than all other religious beliefs). Nowadays, this evidence exists, which is why creationism is irrational nowadays.

The notion of purpose fueled Aristotle's investigation of biology as a serious science. Redi's defense of the doctrine of creation was responsible for the founding of both experimental biology and microbiology.

True, creationism might have helped advance science then, but we're living in the now.

The Linnaean taxonomy, inspired by the notion to catalogue God's creation, is still with us today.

Sure, but it has lost its original purpose.

Finally, Mendel's defense of the doctrine of creation was the basis for the whole field of genetics, which continues to produce medical and scientific benefits.

Again, this was back then.

As such, science has nothing to fear from "creationism in the classrooms" or "stealth creationism.”

Nowadays, it does.

If the history of science has any bearing, it should be welcomed. Whenever the doctrine of creation is defended from its detractors, whole new fields of science develop. And that has been good for everyone.

It doesn't matter how helpful creationism might have been back then, nowadays it's not helpful.


I must say, the historical facts in this text were interesting, but its arguments for creationism are very weak.

 

[Elgibbor]

Intelligent design? lol

 

[Jamin4422]

2. If god was laughing while condemning me to hell I'd willingly go,

Perhaps you would like to read that in context.

You say you have done nothing wrong, so perhaps you have nothing to worry about.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22[/FONT]“How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How long will mockers delight in mockery[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and fools hate knowledge?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]23[/FONT]If you had responded to my rebuke,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I would have poured out my heart to you[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and made my thoughts known to you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24[/FONT]But since you rejected me when I called[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25[/FONT]since you ignored all my advice[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and would not accept my rebuke,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]26[/FONT]I in turn will laugh at your disaster;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I will mock when calamity overtakes you—[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]27[/FONT]when calamity overtakes you like a storm,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]when distress and trouble overwhelm you.[/FONT]

 

[Elendur]

Perhaps you would like to read that in context.

You say you have done nothing wrong, so perhaps you have nothing to worry about.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22[/FONT]“How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How long will mockers delight in mockery[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and fools hate knowledge?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]23[/FONT]If you had responded to my rebuke,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I would have poured out my heart to you[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and made my thoughts known to you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24[/FONT]But since you rejected me when I called[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25[/FONT]since you ignored all my advice[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and would not accept my rebuke,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]26[/FONT]I in turn will laugh at your disaster;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I will mock when calamity overtakes you—[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]27[/FONT]when calamity overtakes you like a storm,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]when distress and trouble overwhelm you.[/FONT]

I haven't said I haven't done anything wrong, I have done plenty things wrong and I regret those mistakes daily.

But given the context I would say that I would probably be alright.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I love how quoting text from two different books in two different "testaments" is context.

 

[Jamin4422]

So, If you end up sharing a cell with us in Hell, will you promise not to be surprised? We certainly won't.

There is a scripture for that. Jesus did not say a FEW He said MANY.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’[/FONT]

 

[Gadarene]

There is a scripture for that. Jesus did not say a FEW He said MANY.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’[/FONT]

Rather inefficient of him, really.

 

[TerranceL]

I'm stuck on the title of this thread. How does one outwardly digest, if you don't mind my asking?

Glad I wasn't the only one.