I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by JAG*, Sep 1, 2020.

  1. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83

    The Watchmaker Argument still Lives On And On , , ,


    It is, in my view, absurd and irrational to believe that non-intelligent Time
    plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have assembled
    a "highly complex working Rolex watch" , , ,

    If you can believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus
    non-intelligent Matter could have assembled the "highly complex human eye"
    and the "highly complex human brain" , , ,

    , , , Then you can just as easily believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent
    Chance plus non-intelligent Matter assembled a "highly complex working Rolex Watch" , , ,

    You are depending on , , ,

    non-intelligent Time , , ,
    non-intelligent Chance , , ,
    non-intelligent Matter , , ,

    , , , to do your creating and assembling . . .

    This is absurd, irrational, and illogical because non-intelligent entities cannot
    create and assemble highly complex entities.

    _____________

    "There is no fine-tuning problem"___Ann Evolutionist


    Ann, My view is your statement is a Faith-based statement.

    My Faith-based view is that human life is to complex and saturated with obvious
    Intelligent Design to have arisen from a combination of non-intelligent Time
    plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter.

    My Faith-based view is that the odds of this level of Complexity and Design are
    so astronomically low that it is unreasonable NOT to conclude that an Intelligent
    Designer created and designed Human Beings and the World we see all around
    us -- and when we add in the known Universe, this factor all the more demands
    an Intelligent Designer.

    It is, in my view, absurd and irrational to believe that non-intelligent Time plus
    non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have assembled the
    "highly complex human eye" and the "highly complex human brain" , , ,


    _________________



    The Atheist Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747 , , , ,

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle

    My view is that Fred Hoyle's quote that said, in effect, that the notion that
    human life could have assembled itself through non-intelligent natural
    processes using non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus
    non-intelligent Matter "is no greater that the chance that a hurricane
    sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a
    Boeing 747."

    That last paragraph deserves to be enhanced . . . lets use color to
    enhance it , , ,

    My view is that Fred Hoyle's quote that said, in effect, that
    the notion that human life, could have assembled itself
    through non-intelligent natural processes using
    non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance
    plus non-intelligent Matter "is no greater that the chance
    that a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard, would
    have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."


    Boeing 747 , , ,

    What do you think are the chances and odds that a hurricane sweeping through
    a large airplane scrapyard that had all the parts of a Boeing 747 laying here and
    there --- would assemble a Boeing 747 ? Just think about how complex is the wiring
    in a Boeing 747 and all the hundreds of screws and other fasteners that would be
    needed. Just think how complex would be the "dashboard" of that Boeing 747 with
    all the intricate instruments , , ,

    , , , it is no wonder that many Theists have said that Evolution functions, for all
    practical purposes, as a Secular Religion that is held tenaciously by Faith.


    It requires a HUGE amount of Faith to believe that non-intelligent Time plus
    non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter assembled the "highly
    complex human eye" and the "highly complex human brain" , , ,


    JAG
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
  2. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    “I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear
    war goes, I tell them not to worry.”___Fred Hoyle
    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quo...992.Fred_Hoyle

    "Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating
    intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon
    atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom
    through the blind forces of nature would be utterly
    minuscule. A common sense 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."
    — The Atheist Fred Hoyle
    Source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_H...ucleosynthesis

    _____________________________________________

    “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so
    utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the
    favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect
    deliberate ... . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of
    intelligence must reflect ... higher intelligences ... even to the limit of
    God ... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
    widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
    rather than scientific.”___ Fred Hoyle
    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle

    JAG


    ``
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  3. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There might be some nano-infinitesimal random chance that random chance and tempus fugit could vulcanize the tires, but not enough of a chance to mention.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  4. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Is Evolution literature, to some significant extent, "iffy" science?
    True science is not saturated with "iffy" language, is it?
    Is Evolution literature packed with "iffy" language?

    ■ "iffy" language
    ■ "maybe" language
    ■ "but" language
    ■ "probably" language
    ■ "it is thought" language { that is, thought to be the case and NOT, , , KNOWN to be the case} See bolded red below
    ■ "may have" language {see bolded red below}

    Does Evolution literature have many expressions of language that
    clearly indicates that evolutionists are guessing and do not know
    what they are saying is factually true?

    Here below is just one quick sample from the Wikipedia article
    titled "Evolution:"

    Note what I bolded red -- is that clear and bold "iffy" language?

    And note that this below is just 3 short sentences taken from
    that Wikipedia article titled "Evolution" and I was not even looking
    for "iffy" language either. If you really "went looking" for "iffy"
    language in Evolution literature could you find hundreds
    of instances of "iffy" language?

    And if you colored each instance with a bright red highlighter,
    would your Evolution literature look like it was "bleeding
    to death."?

    Would it be page after page that was highlighted bright red with
    constant "iffy" language?

    Is Evolution a very "iffy" Faith-based Religious Belief?

    "Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a
    self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half
    a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.
    The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry
    that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions. The
    beginning of life may have included self-replicating
    molecules such as RNA and the assembly of simple cells."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life

    Is our beloved Evolution literature packed and saturated with
    clear "iffy" language?

    Can it be trusted as a reliable source of established scientific
    facts?

    It is intellectualized guesswork in a significant number of instances?

    Have you ever noticed the "iffy" language when you are reading
    in Evolution literature? , , ,

    , , , "iffy" English constructions like , , ,

    "if" language
    "maybe" language
    "but" language {that is, "but this may not be the case" language}
    "probably" language
    "it is thought" language
    "may have" language

    JAG
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  5. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Cool comment.
    Interesting too.
    Thanks.
    "tempus fugit" - time flies {I had to google it}
    "vulcanize the tires" -- Goodyear? or Maybe the Planet Vulcan , , lol , ,
    Lets go with the Planet Vulcan as in Star Trek's Mr. Spock

    JAG


    ``
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
  6. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ``

    “I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a
    nuclear war goes, I tell them not to worry.”___Fred Hoyle


    Better version of the Fred Hoyle , , ,

    , , , Boeing 747 Quote , , , ,


    “A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747,
    dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow
    through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage
    a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing
    there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were
    to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.”
    ___The Atheist Fred Hoyle

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle


    JAG


    ``
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,486
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These are all totally nonsense arguments.

    We know exactly how a Rolex was made, and it had nothing at all to do with chance or evolution.

    We know exactly how a Boeing 747 is made, and again it had nothing to do with chance or evolution.

    Humans won by gradually developing intelligence. We can't run woth crap, we don't depend on huge numbers of progeny (making it OK to lose significant numbers to predators), we don't have poweful jaws or claws, we didn't lose body weight, etc., so we could fly away when threatened. Our distant relatives succeeded by meeting challenges with increasing smarts.

    Humans got better and better at learning to use sticks to hunt and defend, putting points on them, creating throwing sticks and bows to extend their range, etc., etc., etc. Those ancestors which got smarter and better in that dimension survived - just like Cheetahs got better and better at running fast and having impressive jaws survived - improving by NOT developing brains, since brains for them are excess weight and would slow them down.

    We got smart enough that we could create more than sticks with points. We could build shelters, create pottery for storage to last the winter (or whatever), create clothing, build fires, and even to use evolution to create wheat and other crops. In fact, we got smart enough to build watches and airplanes.

    Suggesting that is somehow wildly impossible is just plain ridiculous. We see evolution working today - both with nature providing the selection and with humans providing the selection needed to drive evolution.

    Suggesting that is like having a hurricane build an airplane is just too stupid for words.
     
  8. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "Watchmaker" is a non-intelligent argument.
     
  9. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A few theists who believe in evolution!

    On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything."

    Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
    Williams backs science over Bible
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3


    A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[1]

    According to Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church".[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

    Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007)
    Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth
    Source: Pew Forum[12]Buddhist

    81%Hindu

    80%Jewish

    77%Unaffiliated

    72%Catholic

    58%Orthodox

    54%Mainline Protestant

    51%Muslim

    45%Hist. Black Protest.

    38%Evang. Protestant

    24%Mormon

    22%Jehovah's Witnesses

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

    So as we can see many more theists believe in evolution than atheists, but you refuse to accept that fact! Do other theists have two religions?
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    James California, Cosmo and Diablo like this.
  10. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,141
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  11. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    False.
    These are all totally logical arguments.

    By the way, here is a cheerful thought that could be true , , ,

    "In past human history, major scientific revolutions have
    overturned theories that were at the time considered
    near-certain. { So? } So current evolutionary theory is likely
    to undergo such a revolution in the future, on the basis
    that it is a 'theory in crisis' for one reason or another."
    __Wikipedia

    Wikipedia Article Titled "Objections To Evolution."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object...iable_evidence

    {The above point was made by people who were arguing
    against Evolution.}
    An absurd ridiculous comment that deliberately ignores the
    crucial point about the Rolex Watch as it relates to the OP.
    Another absurd ridiculous comment that deliberately ignores
    the crucial point about the Boeing 747 as it relates to the OP.
    I'm not "suggesting" anything, I am boldly saying that it is
    absurd and irrational to believe that non-intelligent Time plus
    non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have
    created the "highly complex human eye and the "highly
    complex human brain" which is the same as believing that
    non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus
    non-intelligent Matter could have assembled a "highly
    complex working Rolex watch."
    If you can believe any of that, then you can believe all
    of that --- which means that you can believe pure absurd
    ridiculous nonsense. And pure absurd ridiculous nonsense
    is exactly what you do believe.
    My view is that you believe in the Religion Of Evolution.
    That you are a Man Of Faith and you hold Faith-beliefs.

    My view is Evolutionary "biologists" are the High Priests of
    your personal Religion Of Evolution and your personal
    Religion Of Atheism.
    .It appears that most of them reject exercising faith in the
    God that created them and have turned to one or more of
    the following 21st century false secular gods known as , , , ,

    ~ Secular Intellectualism
    ~ Secularized Logic
    ~ Secularized Empiricism
    ~ Rationalism
    ~ Secularized Science
    ~ Secular Humanism
    ~ Atheism

    "And the unbelievers bowed and prayed
    to the Secular gods they had made."

    False.
    Wrong again.
    The atheist Fred Hoyle made that point.
    And he did not "suggest" anything.
    Fred boldly declared it to be true.

    Said the atheist Fred Hoyle , , ,

    “A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747,
    dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow
    through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage
    a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing
    there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were
    to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.”
    ___The Atheist Fred Hoyle

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle

    JAG.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
  12. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That is a powerful argument.
    It is so powerful that I am going to also make that same
    type argument.
    Here tis:
    "The "Watchmaker" is a highly intelligent argument..

    JAG
     
  13. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    personal incredulity
    Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
    Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
     
  14. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Cybred Asserts , , ,
    "there's already proof"___Cybred

    JAG Asserts , , ,
    "There is NOT any Empirical proof that non-intelligent Time
    plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could
    have assembled the "highly complex human eye" and the
    "highly complex human brain."___JAG

    Posting a Wikipedia link means no more than posting a
    Wikipedia link.

    Maybe Theistic Evolution is true?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

    _________________


    One man's proof is another man's Not-proof.

    One man's science is another man's Not-science.

    Christendom has thousands of highly trained scholars
    that do not agree with what you may claim to be
    scientifically true.

    I am not impressed with human proclamations regarding
    what is, or is not, scientifically true.

    X may be scientifically true as far as YOU are concerned,
    but that does not mean X is scientifically true as far as
    I am concerned and NOT scientifically true as far as the
    world's some 5 billion Theists are concerned either.

    Just because somebody plays the S-Card, does not mean
    they win the argument. The S-Card is, "Hey, I have Science
    on my side, and you do not have Science on your side, so
    I win and you lose."

    People on opposing sides of what is, or is not, scientifically true,
    both can, and do, play the S-Card --- and they both play the
    S-Card constantly -- so the arguments continue on and on
    regarding what is, or is not, scientifically true.


    My view is that, not all, but a significant amount of what some
    atheists and Secular Humanists call "scientifically true" in
    nothing more than their " Religious beliefs" which are based
    on a huge amount of very "iffy" and "probably true" language
    --- and NOT based on true science.

    JAG
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
  15. Diablo

    Diablo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is just plain stupid. There's a lot of evidence for evolution, observation, the fossil record, DNA etc, if you can't understand it then you could try reading some articles about it - it should be possible for anyone to grasp at least the principles, even if the details are too difficult.
     
  16. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again the rather well known theists the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury say otherwise!

    On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything."

    Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
    Williams backs science over Bible
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  17. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So how did EMBL researchers finally trace the evolution of the eye?

    By studying a "living fossil," Platynereis dumerilii, a marine worm that still resembles early ancestors that lived up to 600 million years ago. Arendt had seen pictures of this worm's brain taken by researcher Adriaan Dorresteijn (University of Mainz, Germany). "When I saw these pictures, I noticed that the shape of the cells in the worm's brain resembled the rods and cones in the human eye. I was immediately intrigued by the idea that both of these light-sensitive cells may have the same evolutionary origin."

    To test this hypothesis, Arendt and Wittbrodt used a new tool for today's evolutionary biologists – "molecular fingerprints". Such a fingerprint is a unique combination of molecules that is found in a specific cell. He explains that if cells between species have matching molecular fingerprints, then the cells are very likely to share a common ancestor cell.

    Scientist Kristin Tessmar-Raible provided the crucial evidence to support Arendt's hypothesis. With the help of EMBL researcher Heidi Snyman, she determined the molecular fingerprint of the cells in the worm's brain. She found an opsin, a light-sensitive molecule, in the worm that strikingly resembled the opsin in the vertebrate rods and cones. "When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain – it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution."

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...aboratories of,initially located in the brain.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes it does.
    You completely miss the entire point.
    The point is the Working Rolex Watch is just as highly complex
    as is the Working Human Eye and the Working Human Brain , , ,

    , , , and that it requires an Intelligent Designer to create and
    assemble a Working Human Eye and a Working Human Brain,
    just as it would require an Intelligent Designer to create and
    assemble a Working Rolex Watch , , ,

    , , , but , ,

    Natural Processes are not intelligent.
    Natural Processes had no Intelligent Goal.
    Natural Processes had no Intelligent Plan.

    And the human eye and human brain is as complex as a
    Working Rolex Watch.

    So?

    So on your Religion Of Evolution and on your Religion Of Atheism , , ,
    Non-intelligent nature and , , ,
    Non-intelligent natural processes , , ,
    , , ,created the complex human eye and complex human brain which is
    equivalent to creating a "Working Rolex Watch" using non-intelligent
    Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter with no
    Intelligent Plan and no Intelligent Goal , ,

    Faith in God? Oh no, I could never do that , , ,

    But you will not have faith in God -- who is an Intelligent Designer
    and who does have an Intelligent Plan and who does have an
    Intelligent Goal.

    But non-intelligent nature with no Intelligent Goal and no Intelligent
    Plan --- you can believe with the greatest of ease , , ,

    But an Intelligent God with an Intelligent Plan and an Intelligent Goal
    ,, no you cannot believe that.

    You realize, do you not, that is irrational?

    And that you are a man Of Great Faith in your Religion Of Evolution
    and in your Religion Of Atheism.

    JAG
     
  19. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's not an argument.
    That's an emotional response rooted in the fact that
    you do not emotionally like the OP and do not emotionally
    like the points made in the follow up posts.

    How is this for an argument?
    "This is NOT just plain stupid."___JAG

    {1) Theistic Evolution might be true?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

    {2} Evolution literature contains a lot of "iffy" English constructions
    like , , ,

    "if" language
    "maybe" language
    "but" language {that is, "but this may not be the case" language}
    "probably" language
    "it is thought" language
    "may have" language , , ,
    , , which indicates that the Evolutionists are guessing and speculating
    rather than stating solid scientific facts based on Empiricism.

    {3} Just because somebody plays the S-Card, does not mean
    they are scientifically correct. The S-Card is, "Hey, I have Science
    on my side, and you do not have Science on your side, so
    I am correct, and you are not correct."

    Opposing sides always play the S-Card --- but that don't actually
    prove anything with Empirical evidence.

    JAG
     
  20. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Theistic Evolution might be true?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

    ___________


    “I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear
    war goes, I tell them not to worry.”___Fred Hoyle

    “Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that
    there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them
    all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously
    small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe
    consisted of organic soup.”___Fred Hoyle

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle


    JAG
     
  21. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A few theists who believe in evolution!

    On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything."

    Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
    Williams backs science over Bible
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3


    A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[1]

    According to Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church".[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

    Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007)
    Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth
    Source: Pew Forum[12]Buddhist

    81%Hindu

    80%Jewish

    77%Unaffiliated

    72%Catholic

    58%Orthodox

    54%Mainline Protestant

    51%Muslim

    45%Hist. Black Protest.

    38%Evang. Protestant

    24%Mormon

    22%Jehovah's Witnesses

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

    So as we can see many more theists believe in evolution than atheists, but you refuse to accept that fact! Do other theists have two religions?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yep, a God would need a watchmaker

    anything that amazing and complex could not just pop into existence
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    trevorw2539 and Cosmo like this.
  23. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Here is a thought for you , , ,

    "Around 97% of all biologists believe in Evolution."___Ann Evolutionist

    JAG Replies:
    Huge numbers of human beings have been collectively bad wrong in past
    human history.

    Italy, say from 1939 to 1945, allowed the dictator Mussolini to come to power.
    Japan, say from 1939 to 1945, allowed the military fanatics to come to power.
    Germany, say from 1939 to 1945, allowed very Bad People to come to power.

    The ultimate results of all those tens of millions of people being Bad Wrong was
    disaster for Italy, Japan, and Germany before and after the year 1945.

    I am not comparing biologists to Japan, Italy, Germany --- I am making only
    the point that large numbers of humans have been proven to be bad wrong
    in human history.

    ___________




    "Around 97% of all biologists believe in Evolution."___Ann Evolutionist

    Also , , ,

    Does "biologists" include High School Biology Teachers?
    College professors who teach Biology?
    Anybody with a degree in Biology?
    Or degrees in related areas?
    If so, how many Christian High School and College Biology teachers
    do NOT believe in Evolution or Do believe in Theistic Evolution?
    Probably many. But they don't count, right?
    Gotta be on the "front lines" of actual biology-research, right?

    But , , ,

    Of all the world's "biologists", how many are actually on the "front lines" of
    actual research? Not very many, I'd bet.

    And , , ,

    Of these how many are saturated with their atheistic biases and prejudices
    AGAINST Intelligent Design? Biased and prejudiced to the extent that we
    can not trust their "scientific" publications to be academically disinterested
    on the subject at hand.

    Biased and prejudiced , , ,

    You do not know the answers to those very crucial questions , , ,

    Also there is a lot of "politics" going on within the so-called
    "scientific community" --- as can be easily demonstrated by
    the constant bickering among the scientific "experts" regarding
    so-called "Climate Science."

    On Science-Politics , , ,

    So called "science" is saturated with politics , , , both externally and internally.

    {1} External means outside the scientific community as they "hold forth" to
    outsiders on say Climate Science -- with a lot of politics in play.

    {2} Internal means inside the scientific community -- where they will eat each
    other alive via "black-listing" and "ruined-reputations" if one of "their own" refuses
    to march in "lock-step" with the herd mentality of conformity to their interpretation
    and application of their views on what is, or is not, true "Science."

    JAG
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
  24. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One could argue that far from being an atheist, Hoyle was in his own way an ID advocate who believed in a form of classical panentheism.
     
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evolution is a reality - this is a fact - not a belief. Mutations happen. Claiming that mutations are fiction is preposterous nonsense.
     

Share This Page