evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
Non-evidence Reason #1.
Social and sexual liberalism.
While one may find many socially conservative people who believe in evolution, one will virtually never find a socially liberal activist person who believes in Biblical creationism (i.e. that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are real straightforward history). This is because a socially liberal belief system is incompatible with a historical genesis. Therefore Liberals will (and do) universally reject an historical Genesis.
evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
Evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in Evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence". They frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to Genesis creation and flood history !).
Their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing God). They always claim that these beliefs (no matter what they are) are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, repeat, evidence; etc, repeat, evidence; etc..
However I think that their principal reasons for embracing evolution often have more to do with other factors than mere "evidence". This thead is about a discussion of some of these other reasons.
*Note: By "Evolution" (capital "E") I mean the complete evolutionary naturalist version of history (molecules to man), not merely "evolution" in the limited sense of mere biological "change" (which of course everyone including Biblical creationists accept).
the wts and dubs like to brag that, unlike all other religions, they are the only people preaching the truth about "this good news of the kingdom" on earth.
they claim that their most important purpose in life and as dubs is to preach that good news.. .
they use their favorite verses in matthew 24:14 and revelation 21:3,4 to describe what that "good news of the kingdom" means.
reference
"the point is that christians have implicit trust in their heavenly father; they do not question what he tells them through his written word and organization.
" watchtower 1974 july 15 p.441,courtesy of yesidid.
when you analyze the above statement, what is your reaction?
reference
an intresting article comparing the two.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/evolution-presupposes-des_b_537507.html.
the odds are just too long to have life by chance..
bohm has sufficiently destroyed your second point. No need for me to re-hash.
My second point was that: "It needs to be kept in mind that as the improbability increases the time required also increases- and it will rapidly increase to exceed even vast hypothetical time periods available." bohm did't even challenge this,- let alone "destroy" it.
However, perhaps I should reword it slightly to read: "It needs to be kept in mind that as the improbability increases the [average] time required also increases- and it will rapidly increase to exceed even vast hypothetical time periods available."
However I'll reiterate, you can't cite probabilities as support for your case when we have no way of determining what those probabilities are. Anyone who throws out "woowoo" big numbers in regards to the odds of life developing on it's own is just talking out of their ass.
If we have "no way of determining what those probabilites are" at all then why have even secular journals published such calculations???
For example:"The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 10 9 years as evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino acid residues long. 5 H.P. Yockey, ‘A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory’, J. Theor. Biol., 67:377-398, 1977. Return to Text.http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be
Regarding my statement that: "ReMine shows that given even assuming the alleged evolutionary age of the earth, and generous assumptions on the number of trials available for such attempts, that such a non-random [coin flip] sequences will simply not occurr within even the lengthy hypothetical time frame." you said:
No. That's complete bullsh!t. He can't show that at all. Remember, just because the odds of something occuring are, say, 1 in a million, that does not at all mean that it will take that many tries to see the event happen. There's nothing preventing that that occurence being the first in the series, or the tenth, or the 1,854th.
While it "could" hypotheticaly occur on the "first" (or whatever early) attempt, as I pointed out earlier as the improbability increases the [average] time required also increases. ReMines arguement, as I recall, is that on average it would take so long (magnitudes longer than even the secular age estimates ) that such a coin flip of 100 heads in a row it is almost certain to not occurr.
You also disregard the innumerable number of trial runs that can all be running at the same time.
Actually, I think that he figured in simultanous trials.
an intresting article comparing the two.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/evolution-presupposes-des_b_537507.html.
the odds are just too long to have life by chance..
Look at it this way... what are the odds that after thoroughly shuffling a deck of cards you deal out 4 aces from the top? Without getting in to the specific numbers, they're exactly the same as dealing out any other set of four cards. We think such an occurence is amazing because we imbue meaning into 4 aces. Yet, nature has no "prefrence" between a set of 4 aces, or a set of 8 of spades, 2 of clubs, king of clubs, and a 6 of diamonds. Both are equally "rare" so, given enough trial runs, we will end up with 4 aces off the top. Eventually.
However, most deals will still simply be random patterns of cards, and non-random patterns like 4 Aces, or a sequence like Jack, Queen, King, and Ace are vastly fewer in number compared to all the possible random combinations. And if a dealer dealt enough of them in a row, or even one that is lengthy enough by itself, then we would interpret this a sign of intelligent design, (similar to how SETI looks for such non-random patterns in radio-signals, to discern design).
I forget where I heard the saying but, "The only thing necessary to turn an improbability into an inevitability is time."
It needs to be kept in mind that as the improbability increases the time required also increases- and it will rapidly increase to exceed even vast hypothetical time periods available. Walter ReMine in his book The Biotic Message talks about how leading evolutionists (in response to probability arguments) often uuse the example of "flipping a hundred heads in a row", as something that given time will eventally happen. ReMine shows that given even assuming the alleged evolutionary age of the earth, and generous assumptions on the number of trials available for such attempts, that such a non-random sequence will simply not occurr within even the lengthy hypothetical time frame.
how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.
step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.
all effects require a cause.
darkyl, I will try to reply, though not all in one post. I will stick to actual printed design argument examples from prominent theorists. I also will refrain from responing to any other posters who's points only distract from this discussion.
Some basic starting points:
When a theorist makes an argument such as:"An intelligent designer is necesssary for the origin of [biological] life from non-life." They are not in the argument statement istelf asserting anything about the nature of the designer, (e.g. that he is or is not biological, that he is or is not spirit, etc.). They are only asserting the claim that "An intelligent designer is necesssary for the origin of [biological] life from non-life.", and attempting to support it with evidence from chemistry, mathematics, etc. demonstrating that non-intelligent natural only processes are unable (even given generous assumptions) to generate life from non-life.
Likewise even a much more general argument such as that by William Lane Craig that "eveything that has a beginning has a cause" is not in the argument itself asserting anything about the nature of the cause. Its simply asserting that "eveything that has a begining has a cause", and then using evidence from observation, and logic to attempt to support it.
Now of course theists do make assertions about God. For example traditional Biblical theists belive that God has certain attributes (He is spirit) and does not have other attributes (he is not biological, nor does he have a beginning), because of what the Bible says, and for other theological and philosophical reasons. Mormon theiets have a "god" that has different attributes (he is biological, and was not always God), because of what their "latter day prophets" have said. However it should be kept in mind that such assertions are not in the above specific arguments.
OK so far?
how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.
step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.
all effects require a cause.
darkyl, I think that one of the problems with your position is that the Creationists/ theistic arguments are generally not as vague as you present them. At least not the ones in the writings by the prominent theorists.
For example I have never read a printed creationist argument with a premise so broad as encompasing "All things..." - Literally everything in existence. (Which would of course indeed include God.)
Nor have I read one with a premise so broad as "All life..." as in any type of life in existence. (Which as you point out, assuming God is life, would have to include God.)
Now if someone was so braod in their premises as the above then they would indeed likely be guility of special pleading if the did not also include God in the argument, since God is belived by even theists to exist, and to be alive.
However, the actual arguments used by prominent theorists are more like the following, taken from the Book the Biotic Message by Walter ReMine.
"An intelligent designer is necesssary for the origin of [biological] life from non-life."
You will note that the argument is not so broad as referring to any type of "life" in existence, but instead specifically to biological life. Furthermore, it is referrring to biological life that comes from non-life,- that is biological life that has an origin (i.e. not eternal). His argument is that such life is best explained as the result of intelligent direction rather than being the result of purley natural processes. (Remine then goes on to provide evidence from chemisrty and probability analysis to support his assertion).
how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.
step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.
all effects require a cause.
So Darkyl, I guess then if creationists make the argument that: "electronic DVD equipment requires a designer", then they can be legitimately charged with "special pleading" by atheists for not also including God in the same argument (even thought the theists don't even believe that God is "electronic DVD equipment" to begin with).
And the atheists have no burden of proof whatsoever to back up their charge of special pleading, -such as to try to substantiate that God for rational reasons should also himself be included in the category of "electronic DVD equipment".
how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.
step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.
all effects require a cause.
hooberus: With all respect, i feel there is a tendency to shift the burden of evidence to us poor atheists :-) . Quite frankly i dont have an honest clue about what such things as 'eternal', 'infinite', 'God', 'cause', 'effect' (my two dear chestnuts!) mean in this discussion, and therefore it is hard to make statements about what is special pleading and what is not.
It is the atheists here who charge that it is "special pleading" for theists to not also include God in specific written arguments about things like "effects" , etc. Hense they need to demonstrate that God should also logically be included under such categories [i.e., "an effect"] in order to substantiate their charge of special pleading.
If I make an argument specifically about Toyota Camrys and runaway acceleration caused by their throttle design, it is not necessarily special pleading to not include Hondas in the same argument, since Hondas do not share all of the characteristics of Toyotas. If you charge that it "special pleading" for me to not include Hondas in the same argument, then you need to demonstrate that Hondas necessarily have these same chracteristics (e.g. same throttle design), and should also be included. If you can't then you shouldn't charge special pleading.
