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

I wouldn’t necessarily assign a great deal of fault, understanding of the Theory of Evolution can be challenging for many and has been since Victorian days not only because that understanding requires the understanding of consistent supporting evidence across many scientific disciplines and because the is a considerable body of work that purports to discredit the Theory with most of it being the product of either those seeing a challenge to religious doctrine or based on ignorance driven misrepresentation of how natural selection has resulted in the diversity of life we observe in nature. Interestingly, Darwin and Wallace’s work anticipated what we have learned from DNA studies with technology that didn’t exist in their time.
I maintain two fundamental things in regard to Evolutionary Theory. First, that all life as we know it is DNA based, suggesting common ancestry of all life we know. Second, the nature of DNA itself and the reproductive process provides an inevitability to the genetic variation within any species, which provides with the process of natural selection, a virtual guarantee of increasing diversity within the combined genetic pool of life. Genetic change and speciation is a continually happening process of which can be observed even today.

 

I forgot to mention that JAG doesn't believe in microevolution because that follows from natural selection. Young earth creationists accept microevolution.
Here is a post by JAG:

"I DO reject natural selection which is another name for the Religion
Of Evolution. I DO believe in an Intelligent Designer who created
Human Beings and the Earth and the Universe and I DO believe
this Intelligent Designer constantly intervenes in His creation and
that He "keeps it on course" so to speak."

I said that if there is no natural selection, then all of the diversity of life on earth would require constant intervention by some Creator. I also said

that the constant intervention would have to be done in such a way as to make it appear as if evolution had occurred naturally.

JAG posted this:

"My view is "biologists" are the High Priests of the Religion Of Evolution
and as such they may indeed be confused about many things that they
presently believe themselves to know for certain."

"I do not speak for God, but for all I know God Almighty may be
deliberately working in such a way that confuses biologists, since
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 gods known as , , , ,"

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

"Back to God deliberately confusing your anti-faith-anti-God secular biologists , , ,
"For this **reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie."
2 Thessalonians 2:11
Note: The **reason was stated in the verse prior to 2 Thess. 2:11
which said "They perish because they refused to love the truth and ..."
so be saved." So? So this was the reason that God sent them "strong
delusion" so they would believe lies."

.I posted, "You should not have an opinion on evolution until you have studied it and understand it". He isn't interested in trying to understand it.

JAG responded:

"All I need to konw about your Religion Of Evolution is this below , , ,

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" , , ,"

 

No debate. rather just you practicing your Religion Of Evolution.
We said goodbye on the other forum, but I see you're back
again with your Religion Of Evolution. Just can't "let it go"
can you.

Who do you think you are to be speaking for me and telling
other people here on this forum what YOU have personally
concluded about what I believe based upon what was said
on another forum. Rule Violation?
There is something "not quite right" about you doing that.
What does your Secular Moral Code tell you about doing
that? I don't know, but what you are doing here could be a
Rule Violation. Anyway, what you are doing here is nothing
to be proud of. What about your Secular Atheist Moral Code?

I am not interested in YOUR Religion Of Evolution and I am
not interested in what YOU have to say on the subject of your
Faith Based Beliefs as you practice your Religion Of Evolution.


JAG

 

You are posting my posts, that I posted in another forum. Rule Violation?



``

 

Anything to say about the arguments that he puts forward, do you have anything to say about Microevolution?
Do you have anything to say about natural selection?
Do you have anything to say about evolution not being random chance?
Or are you going to just dismiss it as gobbledygook, only understandable by your god?
My best guess will be that you will just stick to insulting the poster with churlish comments!

 

That's just more of your Faith Based Religious Beliefs that
are associated with your Religion Of Evolution.

Your "quote mine" accusation was invented by your fellow
religionists the atheists as a crafty ploy to escape from
having to face quotes from people on their own side
who said things that they did not want to face -- so they
invented "quote mine" to wiggle and squirm out of having
to face the unfavorable quote -- from members of their
own Ideological Tribe.

That's what you say.
Of course you're not biased against "creationists" any at all. Oh no.
Of course you're not prejudiced against "creationists" any at all. Oh no.
You're just a disinterested seeker of truth that will follow the
evidence where ever it leads.
You're not prejudiced in favor of your dearly beloved secularized
"scientists" any at all. Think anybody really believes you're not
strongly prejudiced against people who believe in Intelligent Design?

False.
Here are 2 points right here.

Point 1
“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

Point 2
Regarding Dr. Gunter Bechly Losing His Wikipedia Page Because He Dared To Defy
The High Priests Of The Religion Of Evolution

The article is pro-Wikipedia but it still makes my point that the so-called "scientific community"
is saturated with "science politics" and will "black-list" and destroy the academic reputations
of any one of "their own" that dares to defy the rigid lock-step orthodoxy of their Religion Of
Evolution.

Dr. Gunter Bechly dared to defy their Religion Of Evolution and he paid the price for his defiance
and lost his Wikipedia Page. How noble of the "scientific community" and how noble of Wikipedia.

If your dare to disagree with the "scientific community" they will "get together" and they will ruin you.

"becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world’s origin story."___from the linked article

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and...inst-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page-1.5466166

__________

■ So you were WRONG. There are 2 points up there. I have many more points.

■ By the way, take note that some members of your Ideological Tribe are saturated with HATE
for any who oppose their Religion Of Evolution -- and they will destroy them if they go against
your Religion's orthodoxy.

JAG

 

You cannot make this stuff up!

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.

Its as if you are doing it deliberately!

As stated in the quote, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are astronomers and should not be considered experts on abiogenesis. They are critical of evolution, promoting instead panspermia, and their ideas do not represent the scientific consensus. Besides which, panspermia doesn't replace evolution or abiogenesis, but merely pushes back the question of where life arose—and it's indisputable that wherever life began, it has evolved here on Earth since then. These fellows are quoted many times in Life.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_...es#Hoyle.2C_Fred.3B_Wickramasinghe.2C_Chandra

 

False.
Both the Universes and the Human Person are clearly
and obviously fine-tuned.

That's your Faith Based Belief to escape Intelligent Design.
It is obvious that the Complex Human Brain is fine-tuned.
As is the Complex Human Eye , , ,
As is the Complex Solar System , , ,
As is the Complex Universe.
As is the Complex Earth.

An Article On Fine Tuning , , ,
"The probabilities involved with the fine-tuning of the universe
aren’t comparable to winning the lottery or being struck by lightning.
Lottery odds are represented using eight or nine digits, e.g., 1:10/9.

Randomly dealing a deck of 52 playing cards in perfect order presents
odds of 1:10/68. Physicists express the odds of “randomly” arranging
universal physical constants in the present arrangement using numbers
more like 1:10/120.

In that sense, a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life is like a
treasure hidden in safe whose dial has millions of numbers and whose
proper combination is millions of digits long. A single wrong digit,
anywhere, and there is no result. It can’t be partly opened, or
mostly opened—the door is entirely closed unless the combination
is perfect."
https://www.gotquestions.org/fine-tuning-argument.html

JAG



``

 

And how many christians are actually Christians because of indoctrination by the Church over 2000 years. Many 'christians' are that out of convenience, or being baptised into the Church, registered - and never visiting the church again. Making promises they never intended to keep at Christenings of their children, marriage etc. 'Christianity/religion' expands in mainly backward countries, often where superstition exists or it is enforced.

What will you say when, sometime in the future, science shows us the 'nothingness' that the universe sprang from, was actually something we have not discovered. Science and astronomy are discovering new things continually which give us greater insight into our universe and existence.

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."

And just what do you think Christianity has been doing down through the ages.

 

That's just more of your Faith Based Religious Beliefs that
are associated with your Religion Of Evolution.

Your "quote mine" accusation was invented by your fellow
religionists the atheists as a crafty ploy to escape from
having to face quotes from people on their own side
who said things that they did not want to face -- so they
invented "quote mine" to wiggle and squirm out of having
to face the unfavorable quote -- from members of their
own Ideological Tribe.

JAG

 

Got Questions is written from a typical conservative Evangelical point of view. To no surprise, Got Questions denies Darwinian evolution,[1] supports Young Earth Creationism and seems to be highly skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.[2]
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Got_Questions
Your source is biased with no intention of being objective; it can therefore be summarily dismissed.

 

Even if each and every one of the quotes used by creationists truly reflected the opinions of the authors, it would not begin to tip the consensus formed by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of scientists from a broad range of fields that firmly hold evolution to be the only current scientific theory that explains all the myriad facts surrounding the nature of life on Earth.

 

You do not and can not KNOW that there was no Intelligent Designer.
Your "enough times" principle does not rule out an Intelligent Designer.
You do not and can not KNOW that the planets that support life were
the results of the "enough times" principle at work.

Your "enough times" is guesswork and speculation regarding what
actually caused the fine-tuned , ,

~ Planets that can support life
~ Human Brain
~ Human Eye
~ Human Body
~ Solar System
~ Universe
~ Earth

Scientists who are Theists or Christians present a
different interpretation of the numbers than do
secularized "scientists." who are obviously strongly
biased and strongly prejudiced against Intelligent Design
and strongly biased FOR their Secular god named
secularized "science" -- that excludes the God that
created them --- and, for all practical purposes, leaves
them "free" to function as their own god.

On Fine-tuning , , ,

Start quote.
"The probabilities involved with the fine-tuning of the universe
aren’t comparable to winning the lottery or being struck by
lightning. Lottery odds are represented using eight or nine
digits, e.g., 1:10/9. Randomly dealing a deck of 52 playing
cards in perfect order presents odds of 1:10/68. Physicists
express the odds of “randomly” arranging universal physical
constants in the present arrangement using numbers more
like 1:10/120.

In that sense, a universe capable of sustaining intelligent
life is like a treasure hidden in safe whose dial has millions
of numbers and whose proper combination is millions of
digits long. A single wrong digit, anywhere, and there is
no result. It can’t be partly opened, or mostly opened—the
door is entirely closed unless the combination is perfect."
https://www.gotquestions.org/fine-tuning-argument.html

Your "Evolution" is an unthinking non-intelligent entity
Your "selection" is an unthinking non-intelligent entity

Your "isn't a random process", if true, is a product of
your unthinking non-intelligent "Evolution" , ,
, , ,and , ,
your unthinking non-intelligent "selection" , , ,

, , , was brought into being by , ,

unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus
unthinking non-intelligent Chance
plus
unthinking non-intelligent Matter


So?

So it is irrational to believe that unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus unthinking non-intelligent Chance plus unthinking non-intelligent
Matter could have assembled a "highly complex Working Rolex Watch" , , ,

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

and the , , ,

~ Highly complex Planets that can support life
~ Highly complex Human Body
~ Highly complex Solar System
~ Highly complex Universe
~ Highly complex Earth

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

You are depending on , , ,

■ unthinking non-intelligent Evolution
■ unthinking non-intelligent Selection
■ unthinking non-intelligent Time , , ,
■ unthinking non-intelligent Chance , , ,
■ unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,

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

All that up there is irrational, and illogical because
unthinking non-intelligent entities cannot create and assemble
highly complex entities like the Human Brain, the Human Eye,
and a Working Rolex Watch.

The fine-tuned Human Person and the fine-tuned Earth and
the fine tuned Universe demands an Intelligent Designer -- and
it requires Great Faith to believe otherwise.

My view:
If you can believe all that up there, then you are a Man Of Great Faith.

JAG



``

 

Evidence of God? there is a preponderance of Evidence for God, people just ignore it or explain it away. As for a multiverse.. perhaps that is where the "black shadow" came from. This is a phenomena I witnessed and it was independently verified by 4 other people in two locations. My wife asked the Lord to remove it from an old house on our estate and awhile later, renters from another house on our estate came to us mumbling about something weird in the house.. turns out it was the "black shadow" and while the male was skeptical (tho't wife was spending too much time alone) they both saw it at the same time.. science doesn't even try to explain something a empheral as that thing.. but it was witnessed by over 5 people at least and left when supplications where made to God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit to remove it...
So yeah, I believe in God and especially the Christian God, that little incident fairly well cemented my belief.. every other argument is superficial to me.

 

A perfect description of ALL your posts.
ALL your posts are biased with no intention of being objective.
and can therefore be summarily dismissed.

JAG


``

 

And not a single word of your heavily biased and strongly prejudiced post
refutes a single word of the quote I posted. You don't emotionally like the
truth in the quote below, so you, with your Strong Bias in hand, seek to
discredit that which you are Strongly Prejudiced against.

An Article On Fine Tuning , , ,
"The probabilities involved with the fine-tuning of the universe
aren’t comparable to winning the lottery or being struck by lightning.
Lottery odds are represented using eight or nine digits, e.g., 1:10/9.

Randomly dealing a deck of 52 playing cards in perfect order presents
odds of 1:10/68. Physicists express the odds of “randomly” arranging
universal physical constants in the present arrangement using numbers
more like 1:10/120.

In that sense, a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life is like a
treasure hidden in safe whose dial has millions of numbers and whose
proper combination is millions of digits long. A single wrong digit,
anywhere, and there is no result. It can’t be partly opened, or
mostly opened—the door is entirely closed unless the combination
is perfect."
https://www.gotquestions.org/fine-tuning-argument.html

_________


Rule 1 Of Ideological War is to seek to discredit your enemies.

Rule 2 is to hypocritically pretend that you do not actually have
any Ideological Enemies so you can pretend to be objectively
unbiased.

Rule 3 is to keep repeating Rule 1 and keep pretending Rule 2


JAG

``

 

In an attempt to be positive here, I'm posting this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

Many religions accept evolution:
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   8% Total U.S. population   48%

Even these groups have accepted the science, which is overwhelming; continuing to argue against it is futile and just results in car crashes like this thread.

 

God created the Universe and God created Man.. arguing about how He did it is just nitpicking.

 

Posted it earlier it did no good!

 

Which one?

 

That up there is Majority Vote to establish Truth.
Your "consensus" is another word for Majority Vote.
Speaking of Scientific Consensus , , ,
, , , See Old Piltdown Man below , , ,

Meanwhile back to your Majority Vote , ,
On your Religion Of Evolution, truth can be established
by talking a Majority Vote among the High Priests of
your Religion Of Evolution -- you say scientific "consensus"
claiming that "consensus" establishes what is true.

Moreover, you have been told 3 or 4 times that
Theistic Evolution might be the way that it happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Also you do not speak for "perhaps millions" of scientists.
That's just a nonsense notion. You have no remote idea
what "perhaps millions" of scientists believe about say
Intelligent Design.

_____________


Regarding your present claim about "consensus" , ,

Regarding the scientific consensus on Piltdown Man , , ,

Remember Piltdown Man?

There was a broad scientific "consensus" on Piltdown Man too.

"The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the
attention it generated around the subject of human
evolution, and the length of time, 41 years, that
elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its
definitive exposure as a composite forgery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

The ONLY point I have about Piltdown Man is that
there was a scientific consensus for decades
before the "brainy ones" figured out that Old Piltdown Man
was a fraud.

JAG

``

 

Yawn.
I read that the other day.
That's common knowledge.
I have mentioned Theistic Evolution as a possibility
at least 5 or 6 times in this thread -- but you felt the
need to post something similar as if it was a
Hot News Item.

I see you're still posting in the "car crashes" thread.
You must like it over here.
At least enough to show up and post Hot News Items.

By the way, regarding your "car crashes" remark
about this thread , , ,

You're not biased any at all, right? , , ,lol , ,
You're not prejudiced any at all, right?
You're just a noble seeker of truth, that will follow the
evidence anywhere it leads, right?
And everybody here knows that you are unbiased and
unprejudiced and that you love God and are not strongly
prejudiced against Intelligent Design?

__________


By the way, would you give me a detailed refutation of this below?
I will be waiting breathlessly for your detailed refutation of this below:

JAG Writes , , ,
Your "Evolution" is an unthinking non-intelligent entity
Your "selection" is an unthinking non-intelligent entity

Your "isn't a random process", if true, is a product of
your unthinking non-intelligent "Evolution" , ,
, , ,and , ,
your unthinking non-intelligent "selection" , , ,

, , , was brought into being by , ,

unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus
unthinking non-intelligent Chance
plus
unthinking non-intelligent Matter


So?

So it is irrational to believe that unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus unthinking non-intelligent Chance plus unthinking non-intelligent
Matter could have assembled a "highly complex Working Rolex Watch" , , ,

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

and the , , ,

~ Highly complex Planets that can support life
~ Highly complex Human Body
~ Highly complex Solar System
~ Highly complex Universe
~ Highly complex Earth

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

You are depending on , , ,

■ unthinking non-intelligent Evolution
■ unthinking non-intelligent Selection
■ unthinking non-intelligent Time , , ,
■ unthinking non-intelligent Chance , , ,
■ unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,

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

All that up there is irrational, and illogical because
unthinking non-intelligent entities cannot create and assemble
highly complex entities like the Human Brain, the Human Eye,
and a Working Rolex Watch.

The fine-tuned Human Person and the fine-tuned Earth and
the fine tuned Universe demands an Intelligent Designer -- and
it requires Great Faith to believe otherwise.

My view:
If you can believe all that up there, then you are a Man Of Great Faith.

JAG

 

Already answered the first one in post #43 so did Ronald Hillman in post #48.
He also replied to your post on Bechly (#45).
I concur with him.
You can go back and read them, or not.
I see no need to repost them.
Unlike you, I find no joy in mindless repetition.

 

On Christianity you will remember for all Eternity that you said that.
On Christianity its just a matter of Time before you will "run into" a Deity.
Its also just a matter of Time before we all "run into" Mr. Death.
On Christianity after you "run into" Mr. Death, you then "run into"
a Deity --- but "coffee" is not going to be part of the proceedings.
Are you absolutely sure you are correct in your rejection of spiritual
realities? You ever have any doubts? Suppose you're wrong, and
have reached incorrect conclusions?

Here are some bright cheerful thoughts for you on how human
history ends , , ,

"I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty
and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or
the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and
the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the
kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day
will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.
The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it.
Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does
what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names
are written in the Lamb’s book of life." ___Revelation chapter 21

JAG


``

 

I have him on Ignore.
I do not see his posts ever. No exceptions.
"I concur with him"___Cosmo
Yeah I bet you do -- Birds of a feather flock together.

Your "answers" are biased and prejudiced to the extent
that they are not reliable responses. So why would I want
to "go back and read them"? I would not want to.

JAG