Proof of God . . .

[Cowperson]

A Letter To The Editor in the Calgary Herald today, headlined "Proof of God:"

Evolution is a theory. For it to be considered a fact, the process would need to be observable and repeatable. Evolution is neither.

However, does evolution as a theory adequately explain the origins of life, given what we know?

Unfortunately, no. Evolution violates Newton's Second Law, which states that in a spontaneous process, the entropy (or disorder) of the universe will always increase. It also does not mesh with what we know about biochemistry.

Take the interaction of DNA and RNA within the human cell. DNA cannot be produced unless RNA is present. RNA cannot be produced without the blueprints from DNA. You cannot have one without the other. Examples that point to the design of life on Earth are endless.

Michael Behe's Theory of Irreducible Complexity states that in a system composed of many parts, such as a human cell, if any of those parts are removed, the system will stop functioning. Therefore, if all parts of the system are not present, it will never begin to function. This level of complexity is evidence of design.

An archeologist would never discover ruins and say, "These artifacts are the product of chance." Design is always the result of intelligence.

The truth is, there is a Designer. Call him God or Allah or whatever you want. You just cannot call him Chance.

Are you scared of finding the truth?

I'll leave the author's name out as its irrelevant. Agree or disagree?

Cowperson

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jun 13 2005, 08:37 AM
Are you scared of finding the truth?[/i]

Are you scared to have a thought of your own? I'd say so....

What a load of crap and double-talk.

(snarky comment is directed at the author of the letter, not Cowperson. )

[Table 5]

What I find hilarious about creationists is that they always discount nature just being way too compex and amazing to have been created naturally, yet then completely throw rationality out the window and declare it to be the work of some sort of super dude. How can people declare one ideal too unrealistic, when the alternative they propose is even more of a seemingly impossible feat?

[Frank the Tank]

Thats the beauty of religion Table5. You neither have to justify, nor proove anything. Just accept what the bible is telling you as fact!

[Cheese]

hmmm..so IF we have an empty universe...nothing in it....just a creator, where did he get the materials to build the world and humans from?

I know! Its going to be a movie this summer....wiggle my nose and voila! Bewitched!

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Cheese@Jun 13 2005, 06:59 AM
hmmm..so IF we have an empty universe...nothing in it....just a creator, where did he get the materials to build the world and humans from?

Better yet, who created the creator?

[Frank the Tank]

Just a little light reading...


1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her? She's pretty and rather bright.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours.
They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? Perhaps the CIA can lend a hand?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my guy friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. A friend of mine has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend, the evil wench!).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.
24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

[photon]

Newton's second law is F=ma.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a closed system must never decrease. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Also the second law permits part of a system to decrease in entropy as long as another part increases in entropy. The Sun is feeding the planet with energy and the entropy increase from the sun's fusion offsets the planet's decrease. The universe is a closed system and its entropy is always increasing, but local decreases are allowed.

You can't argue that the co-dependancy of DNA and RNA proves intelligent design; it only means that the system came from a less complex system.

Irreducible Complexity is fine but doesn't really apply; when people use that they assume that the previous "iteration" of the system was identical except missing a component so of course it wouldn't work. Evolutionary theory though has research that existing systems can become used in new ways in other systems, that complex patterns can arise from simple systems, and that often what was once thought an irreducible system (bacterial flagellum or blood clotting mechanism for example) actually has simpler precursors (there exist simpler flagellae than on a bacteria) or was preexisting (blood clotting seems to involve protiens that were originally used in digestion) so it isn't really irreducible at all.

That said, I don't call what the person wrote "double talk", it's simply a lack of understanding. People try to find meaning in their lives and when there's a schism between their beliefs and others' they try to find something to explain or bridge it.

Assuming there is a Creator.. Either the Creator wants us to be explicitly aware of their existance in which case it would be written in the sky, on the earth, a picture would be encrypted in the decimal places of PI, etc etc.. Or the Creator wants us to find them through faith, in which case they would have created the universe in such a way that there was no physical proof.

Or I guess a 3rd option is they wanted to attain the second option but made a mistake, but then we'd have to be at a level of technology near enough to be able to do the second option ourselves before being able to find flaws in it.

At any rate, knowing the science of our universe does not preclude the ability to believe in a Creator, or even the belief that it was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. If a Creator has the ability to generate the universe they have the ability to make it look like it's 14 billion years old (just like I can draw a picture of a old person).

So the people who don't want to have faith can relax because believing in a Creator doesn't mean their science is out the window. And the people who want to have faith can relax because pursuing science to describe the universe doesn't preclude there being a Creator.

Unless science proves there IS a creator, then all bets are off.

[flamingchina]

Well, supposidly these rules got thrown out in the New Testimate, as we obviously don't care about these, unfortunetly, some fundies like to pick and choose form the old testamate.
Admitedly, many of these came down to health and cleanliness, as well as codes of conduct in life. (it's a basic use of rules right? If you do this, this is your punishment...)

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally posted by photon@Jun 13 2005, 02:48 PM
Newton's second law is F=ma.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a closed system must never decrease. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Also the second law permits part of a system to decrease in entropy as long as another part increases in entropy. The Sun is feeding the planet with energy and the entropy increase from the sun's fusion offsets the planet's decrease. The universe is a closed system and its entropy is always increasing, but local decreases are allowed.

You can't argue that the co-dependancy of DNA and RNA proves intelligent design; it only means that the system came from a less complex system.

Irreducible Complexity is fine but doesn't really apply; when people use that they assume that the previous "iteration" of the system was identical except missing a component so of course it wouldn't work. Evolutionary theory though has research that existing systems can become used in new ways in other systems, that complex patterns can arise from simple systems, and that often what was once thought an irreducible system (bacterial flagellum or blood clotting mechanism for example) actually has simpler precursors (there exist simpler flagellae than on a bacteria) or was preexisting (blood clotting seems to involve protiens that were originally used in digestion) so it isn't really irreducible at all.

That said, I don't call what the person wrote "double talk", it's simply a lack of understanding. People try to find meaning in their lives and when there's a schism between their beliefs and others' they try to find something to explain or bridge it.

Assuming there is a Creator.. Either the Creator wants us to be explicitly aware of their existance in which case it would be written in the sky, on the earth, a picture would be encrypted in the decimal places of PI, etc etc.. Or the Creator wants us to find them through faith, in which case they would have created the universe in such a way that there was no physical proof.

Or I guess a 3rd option is they wanted to attain the second option but made a mistake, but then we'd have to be at a level of technology near enough to be able to do the second option ourselves before being able to find flaws in it.

At any rate, knowing the science of our universe does not preclude the ability to believe in a Creator, or even the belief that it was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. If a Creator has the ability to generate the universe they have the ability to make it look like it's 14 billion years old (just like I can draw a picture of a old person).

So the people who don't want to have faith can relax because believing in a Creator doesn't mean their science is out the window. And the people who want to have faith can relax because pursuing science to describe the universe doesn't preclude there being a Creator.

Unless science proves there IS a creator, then all bets are off.

This is by far the smartest thing I've ever read on this site.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by photon@Jun 13 2005, 10:48 AM
Newton's second law is F=ma.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a closed system must never decrease. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Also the second law permits part of a system to decrease in entropy as long as another part increases in entropy. The Sun is feeding the planet with energy and the entropy increase from the sun's fusion offsets the planet's decrease. The universe is a closed system and its entropy is always increasing, but local decreases are allowed.

You can't argue that the co-dependancy of DNA and RNA proves intelligent design; it only means that the system came from a less complex system.

Irreducible Complexity is fine but doesn't really apply; when people use that they assume that the previous "iteration" of the system was identical except missing a component so of course it wouldn't work. Evolutionary theory though has research that existing systems can become used in new ways in other systems, that complex patterns can arise from simple systems, and that often what was once thought an irreducible system (bacterial flagellum or blood clotting mechanism for example) actually has simpler precursors (there exist simpler flagellae than on a bacteria) or was preexisting (blood clotting seems to involve protiens that were originally used in digestion) so it isn't really irreducible at all.

That said, I don't call what the person wrote "double talk", it's simply a lack of understanding. People try to find meaning in their lives and when there's a schism between their beliefs and others' they try to find something to explain or bridge it.

Assuming there is a Creator.. Either the Creator wants us to be explicitly aware of their existance in which case it would be written in the sky, on the earth, a picture would be encrypted in the decimal places of PI, etc etc.. Or the Creator wants us to find them through faith, in which case they would have created the universe in such a way that there was no physical proof.

Or I guess a 3rd option is they wanted to attain the second option but made a mistake, but then we'd have to be at a level of technology near enough to be able to do the second option ourselves before being able to find flaws in it.

At any rate, knowing the science of our universe does not preclude the ability to believe in a Creator, or even the belief that it was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. If a Creator has the ability to generate the universe they have the ability to make it look like it's 14 billion years old (just like I can draw a picture of a old person).

So the people who don't want to have faith can relax because believing in a Creator doesn't mean their science is out the window. And the people who want to have faith can relax because pursuing science to describe the universe doesn't preclude there being a Creator.

Unless science proves there IS a creator, then all bets are off.

oh wishy washy...cmon Photon...say what you REALLY mean.

[Buff]

Like the lyrics from the song Heaven by Live state:

I don't need no one to tell me about heaven
I look at my daughter, and I believe.
I don't need no proof when it comes to God and truth
I can see the sunset and I perceive

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jun 13 2005, 01:37 PM
A Letter To The Editor in the Calgary Herald today, headlined "Proof of God:"

[i]Evolution is a theory. For it to be considered a fact, the process would need to be observable and repeatable. Evolution is neither.

This person hasn't a clue.

Evolution in indeed observable and repeatable. In organisms that have fast generational turnovers; like microbes, insects, and even some mammals, we can observe the effects of evolution.

For example, when we breed animals for desirable characteristics, we select which animals can reproduce based on characteristics that we want them to have. Over several generations, the whole population will display those characteristics. That is artificial selection, but when natural environmental conditions select which individuals survive long enough to reproduce, that is natural selection. It's the same principle, and it is impossible to deny that it would occur. We know that environmental conditions affect survival of species.

The fact that such things as; weiner dogs, chihuahuas, and toy poodles exist, is a testament to this process. These animals never existed in the wild and only do now because of selective breeding of traits.

[Hakan]

One of the most misleading things that most western spiritualists think of when they think of 'God' is that they anthromorphize the concept. All too often in Christianity and Islam we are taught that somehow God is some unitary sentient being sitting on some throne or something similar. With this understanding we falsely attribute these assinine human characteristics to the concept of a God. This is problematic because it muddles and confuses our understanding of what a 'God' is and it is all too easy to manipulate this view of a god to serve our own selfish human interests.

If you look at the Buddhist, Taoist or even Hindu enderstandings of 'God' they refer to it as just everything. Brahmin is all. Sit back and think about that. It's difficult to understand but has much more useful explanatory and spiritual power. If god is just everything then the concept of some type of larger spiritual essence is much more palatable. Unfortunately, this view is much harder to conceptualize because understanding the image of God is just and difficult as understanding God itself.

I hope this makes sense. Haven't had my coffee yet.

edit: coffee being drank

[ricosuave]

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 13 2005, 10:04 AM
Like the lyrics from the song Heaven by Live state:

Lyrics from undertow, from REM

Brother can you see those birds?
They don't look to heaven
They don't need religion, they can see

They go down to the water
Drink down on the water
Fly up off the water, leave it be

rico

[Calgary Flames]

Originally posted by Table 5@Jun 13 2005, 07:50 AM
What I find hilarious about creationists is that they always discount nature just being way too compex and amazing to have been created naturally, yet then completely throw rationality out the window and declare it to be the work of some sort of super dude. How can people declare one ideal too unrealistic, when the alternative they propose is even more of a seemingly impossible feat?

Bravo! I could try to get the same point across but i'd probably look like an idiot in the process. Good post Table 5.

[Cheese]

Isnt this a multiple choice question...plain and simple...

Two propositions. Which one is true?

(1) God created man
(2) Man created God

Is this an answer?

There is not a single religion founded by God. There is always a man or a group of men behind making of religions. Does that tell you anything?

[evman150]

As Carl Sagan once said:

"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable."

[Frank the Tank]

I have yet to find a reasonable answer for the New Testament. I mean, really, what was wrong with the Old Testament? Is it not God's law? You're telling me that somewhere down the line a decision was made to edit God's Law? Puh-lease!

[Mike Oxlong]

Originally posted by Frank the Tank@Jun 13 2005, 06:15 PM
I have yet to find a reasonable answer for the New Testament. I mean, really, what was wrong with the Old Testament? Is it not God's law? You're telling me that somewhere down the line a decision was made to edit God's Law? Puh-lease!

Actually the New Testament is basically everything happened since Jesus was born. It isn't an edit of the Old Testament it more like a continuation.