yeee haaa!
i'm an outlaw now!
the elders warned me that if any i talk about anything said in the judicial committee or post any pictures i've taken, i'm in big trouble and i don't want these people as enimies!
Gosh, this is just painful to listen to. I love how they spend like half an hour pursuing how you know someone from school. Seriously.
I can barely begin to imagine how embarassed these guys are going to be when they find out their inane kangaroo court proceedings have been posted all over the internet. They're going to be ashen. Do post the video when you get it!
SNG
from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
Hoob,
"The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949 George Gaylord Simpson
Evolution doesn't work without life. Without reproducing systems, there can be no such thing as evolution.
I agree that many books give a cursory overview of abiogenesis before getting into the meat of evolution, but I think that's only because we are accustomed to dealing with history from the beginning, and so it makes sense to give our best guess as to how life got started in the first place.
Humans are always going to be interested in origins, so it's natural that we take a stab at what happened before evolution could get started. At the end of his original tome, Darwin made a 1-paragraph conjecture about life getting started. But that really doesn't affect the process of evolution, because evolution is perfectly capable of functioning whether or not life got a kickstart from God or magical unicorns or a hyperintelligent shade of the color blue.
They're just two entirely different problems. Biological evolution is change in living systems.
SNG
from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
Abiogenesis is not equal to evolution
SNG
Kenneson,
That's a nice quote, but the statement
To ask proof of God's existence is like asking proof of your mind's existence.
is totally absurd. Your mind obviously exists. God's existence is not obvious. This statement is like me saying, "To ask proof of my invisible dog's existence is like asking proof of the sun." Trying to get around the lack of evidence by pretending the evidence is superabundant is just silly.
SNG
Dozy,
It sounds like you're conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Remember, evolutionary theory does not treat the arisal of life in the first place. It treats change over time. Everyone admits that there is very little evidence of how reproducing life got here. Evolution is about what has happened ever since.
SNG
startingover,
Glad you liked the posts!
Mary,
OK, here's a quote from the critique: "...Clearly, even if Strobel's experts are biased, they are not necessarily wrong. But given their obvious bias, considering other sources with different points of view is necessary for objectivity...."
And athiests aren't biased?? I think that's why his book is called The Case for a Creator. Clearly he's getting the opinions of those that believe the evidence points to a Creator, just as athiests will always get the opinions of those that believe in evolution. To me, there very fact that there are any scientists who believe the evidence points to Creation and not evolution, is a milestone.......
First of all, there is no direct relationship between atheism and evolution. There are plenty of theists (Christians aplenty included) that accept evolution. But there is also no relationship at all between evolution and the question of whether there is a God - logically speaking, both could be true, or one, or neither. So be careful not to make the two a dichotomy in your mind.
But on the evolution vs. creation issue, with regard to there being scientists who believe in creation, I wouldn't say that's a milestone of any particular significance. In the Judeo-Christian world where science developed, most scientists traditionally accepted the Christian account of creation as the default position, and it was only via the success of evolution that scientsts eventually came to reject it. So in a way, you can see these few creationist scientists as "hangers on" rather than pioneers.
And when religious interests come into play, there will always be people who believe the way they want to believe in spite of logic or evidence. I'm reminded of the few JWs I know who work in technology fields, exercising a highly analytical mind at work, but somehow still swallowing the religious rhetoric at home and on weekends and evenings. So finding a few credentialed scientists who agree with you doesn't really prove much.
Be that as it may, though, as the critique points out, sometimes the minority opinion is correct. The simple fact that they are bucking the majority doesn't make them wrong by any means. However, any book that presents the minority opinion without any mention of how it stacks up against the majority opinion is clearly not interested in making a solid case, but is playing on reader ignorance.
I mean, think about it. Let's say I want to go head-to-head with the Theory of Relativity. I have a brand spanking new Theory of Seattle that I think kicks Relativity's butt. I can't just go and find a few other people who agree with me and hope to win people over. If I want to make a truly compelling case, I have to show all of the strengths of Relativity (along with its perceived weaknesses), and then go on to show how my theory is even stronger.
It may seem strange to have to discuss the strengths of the opposing opinion, but this is science - we're not selling a used car here. People are going to keep thinking about the issue for years and years to come. You can't just fool them once and be done with it. The strongest case, therefore, is one that honestly treats all the strengths of the current theory. And this is what Christian apologetic works never do.
Anyway, that's my 10 cents or so. :-)
SNG
Mary,
Here's a critique of the book. I've only read the forward, but he mentions most of the problems I had with the book, and then he gives a detailed analysis of Strobel's arguments.
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm
SNG
I'd say there's more proof of a Creator..........I'm reading a book called The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel which was on the New York Times Bestseller list.......he was an athiest years ago but has since changed beliefs. The book so far is quite fascinating. He interviews biologists, biochemists, scientists, chemists, philosophers, organic chemist geologists, astrophysicists
M ary,
You might want to take that book with a couple handfuls of salt. A relative sent it to me, and it follows the same, tired, worn-out arguments as every other Christian "proof" of a Creator. None of it stands up to real scrutiny, and much of it is eerily similar to the Watchtower's God's Word or Man's? book.
And keep in mind, Strobel isn't exactly interested in presenting serious science. This is the same guy that brings you The Case for Faith and (I saw it in a store the other day) The Case for Easter. So you can expect a Christian slant on everything.
Anyway, just a word to the wise.
SNG <-- of the "none too impressed by worn-out Christian arguments" class
It is not possible to prove that something does not exist. If you doubt this, prove to me that my invisible dog doesn't exist. You can't do it. No matter what you say, I can just tell you that you're not looking hard enough, or that you don't have the right sensing equipment, or that you're part of a conspiracy to pretend he doesn't exist when he does, and so on. It is a basic principle of logic that you cannot prove that something does not exist.
However, there is also no direct evidence for God. Sunsets and hummingbirds do not prove the existence of a guy in the sky, because anyone with any other story could also incorporate those things into a different story to account for them. For example, I could say, "My invisible dog dreamed a beautiful dream one afternoon, conjuring up the world around us. And that's why we have sunsets and hummingbirds." Clearly, merely tying things that exist around us into a story that attempts to explain them does not make the story true.
So then, with no direct evidence for God, and the impossibility of proving against, is it a 50/50 scenario? Not really. Think about my imaginary dog. You can't prove he doesn't exist. And I can cite hummingbirds and sunsets as proof of his existence. But do you believe in him? Probably not. Why? Because normal, healthy people require actual direct evidence to believe something is real. The default position is not to believe extravagant claims.
Therefore, I think logic weighs for a position of non-belief.
SNG
just curious.
seems to be a lot of mid-west, east coast and "across the pond" folks.
Hi there.
I'm in Seattle now, but I grew up in Longview and attended the Japanese group in Beaverton from time to time.
SNG
