The God Delusion & The Virus of Faith

Post by **Skullkracker** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:21 pm

personality dynamically changes until the mid thirties and nothing beyond is carved into stone

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:42 pm

Wayne State University Debate - Hovind vs Moore
[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... bate+video[/GVideo]

Dr Kent Hovind debates Dr Michael Shermer
[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... bate+video[/GVideo]

Heres some videos in which a very famous creationist debates very famous evolutionists. Kent Hovind is undeafeted in his debates versus many renowed evolutionists. Please explain why.

Post by **Artezul** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:50 pm

Thanks for the two videos, they were interesting.

I'd have to agree that Dawkins is a bit too aggressive with his interviews. Then again, he's getting straight to the point at least.

With most of the interviews, the interviewees often change the subject of any question asked of them, and at the same time blame some evil of humanity on Dawkins. As if by simply 'being' Atheist, he is as much fault as any murderer, rapist, etc.

Dawkins, "I'm an Atheist and I'm rather gentle. I don't hate people, but it seems to me that I'm hearing hate on all sides, and it seems to me all to do with religion."
Khattab, "I hate Atheists--"

There you go.

Post by **psi29a** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:09 pm

Debates are well and good ZoddsNo1Fan, but are you going to have one here and actually address the dressing down that you received from killfile? As far as we are concerned, he is correct and you failed so you are now leaning on debates from other more knowledgeable people. That is fine with me, here ya go.

Richard Dawkins does Q&A session in Lynchburg Virginia (right around the corner from me) with a good portion of questions coming from students and professors of Liberty University.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M[/youtube]

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:46 pm

Let's leave Stalin out of this. I know he's an easy target to pick on but you're outclassed on this one. Did he experiment with Eugenics? A little. But then so did everyone from Oliver Wendel Holmes on up. Technically the Virginia Eugenics Laws - the basis for the Nazi Eugenics Programs - have never been overturned.

I will leave Stallin out of this. No this isnt over dont try and get out of the topic you started.

I am merely using what i have to offer to defend my views, just as you did with the previous videos.

Debates are well and good ZoddsNo1Fan

Yes debates are well and good and the above videos prove that there is no recolection for the disease which is evolution.

Post by **Albator** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:02 pm

Evolution is a disease now? What kind? I don't understand.

We are not asking you to post debate since you can not conceive a post of your own in order to counter the overwhelming arguments in favor of evolution. We are asking for facts. Give us a proof that God exists. From there, give us a proof that the past and actual natural world is a result of God's work. We could discuss the validity of your claims from there. So far, you have been only good at avoiding posts directed against your logic.

If you can not do that, stop posting.

Post by **Brainpiercing** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:18 am

Learning goes in many steps, and every step adds a little bit to what is already there. To a little child, initially everything must seem like a fairytale, be it science or religion. However, science offers more and more layers to add to the initial fairytale, to eventually make it a diverse picture, while religion does not.

When I was a child I heard all the pretty stories from the bible (and at that time I also read most of it, because, well, it was pretty exciting reading for a kid), but I just took them as that. Pretty stories. There were some morals in them, and I guess we didn't get taught all the hardcore christian stuff, but I didn't object to the morals. I did, however, object to seeing all those things as things that actually happened. And it came as quite a shock to me when I was about ten or so to hear from other people that they actually believed what they read in the book.

So, well, I actually got all the options, as a child, and I took my pick. There were satisfying explanations, and there were unsatisfying explanations. As a slightly scary (to me) sidenote, even as a child I thought I should know about what those religions say, because it always helps to know your enemy.

What may have played a part in it is that my parents never pressured me, either way. They weren't church goers, but they had us baptized and took us to communion school, and we went through it like good children. But we didn't accept any of it as fact. My parents did encourage me to question everything I saw, and never to follow the flock just because it was, well, the flock.

There is, however, one problem: As intelligent people, we have difficulty understanding what it means to be stupid. And unfortunately there are many people who lack the understanding to look for answers. They cannot make an educated choice between a scientific or a religious explanation, because to them, they sound EXACTLY THE SAME. So what do they do, they choose the one that doesn't boggle their mind, that offers a simple answer to a hugely complicated problem. The believe that they are entitled an opinion about fact.

So that is the difference between science and religion. Science opens your eyes, religion closes them to make you feel all warm and cozy inside.

To me, I can look at the world, and at many questions I don't have answers to, and I can say, hey, I don't know the answers. I don't need a higher meaning to my life. But to some, this is unbearable. They need a meaning, and they cannot comprehend the complicated answers. So they accept the simple (wrong) ones.

I don't blame parents for wanting to teach their children the answers that worked for them. I do blame them for not searching harder for themselves, and I do blame them for not seeing their own stupidity. If they cannot comprehend a problem they should admit to it, and encourage their child to seek answers they could not find.

Post by **Libaax** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:38 am

I think you should make your post look like you mean people who have blind faith, who think science is something bad.

I dont believe in everything i read in the holy book or think religion is the answer to every qeustion but i believe in god and that doesnt make me stupid.

Or do you mean everyone who have any faith is stupid?

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:10 am

Evolution is a disease. I consider many topics and judge them acordingly. Its not my fault im "preaching" to an atheist crowd and i can go on for years and you would not view my opinion as i did evolution for my 2 years of Advanced Placement Biology. I was very open to evolution during this time, even did a number of presentations i.e. the evolution of the shark. I have many questions i dont have answers to and thats why i use google and wikipedia :}

Calling me a "child" isnt helping your cause either. Im a young man if you want to know, i dont have my mommy or daddy around to tell me what to do or how to think. As a matter of fact i was the rebel of my household and in such would be the one who wouldnt have listened to everything mommy or daddy had to say. From previous news ive listened/read about, MORE than 50% of christians lose their faith once in college.

I am my own person and to look down on me as though a child is only making you look like your inconsiderate of my intelligence. I respect my elders but please dont treat me like im 12.

Watch the videos in their entirety(as i watched yours) and tell me evolution is science. EVOLUTION IS NOT A PART OF SCIENCE! Evolution mixes known/proven science with fanatical assumptions to try and make it look legit. The fact is is that your going to hear what you WANT to hear based on your own morals/personality and thats why these arguments are more times than not pointless.

Post by **Albator** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:30 am

You didn't answer my question, you just made an affirmation. If you don't want to be treated like a child, don't act like a spoiled one.

I repeat: what kind of disease is evolution?

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:41 am

Its a disease in my view. In every topic of science(mass media in particular) you will be watching a very interesting topic such as astronomy or biology and then, out of the blue, they will portray the entire documentation in an evolutionary perspective. As i recall from hubblesite.org, they were going on about these thousands of complex/baffleing structures of galaxies/globular clusters and their extravagant beauty then start talking about their evolution or their questioning of how they formed 20 billion years ago.

While talking about the hubble deep field, the scientist went on about wanting to view what he calls "the edge" or where the universe ends (the ending galaxies from the big bang) even though they were expecting to see the "edge galaxies" after the hubbles 10 day stare into space(10.5 billion light years away). What they found were hundreds of more galaxies just as complex as the ones relatively close to us(instead of thinking, "hey maybe their is no "edge" of the universe we can observe because the big bang never happend", they just add, "Years from now when we have the technology capable of reaching 5 times that into space we will observe the "edge"!).

Ive grown to shrug/ignore evolution and the mass media as a misconception that i cant do anything about.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/video/hst ... 20x240_swf

Post by **psi29a** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:49 am

The only person to publically say "Evolution is not part of science" other than yourself is Kent Hovind. The man you posted above in your vidoes.

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American evangelist and prominent "Young Earth" creationist. The self-styled "Dr. Dino" (whose Ph.D, from an unaccredited university, is in Christian education) established the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry in 1989. Hovind previously spoke frequently in schools, churches, university debates and on radio and television broadcasts arguing for young earth creationism. He is a subject of controversy and public scrutiny.

On November 2, 2006, Hovind and his wife, Jo, were found guilty by a jury in a Pensacola, Florida federal court of fifty-eight federal tax and tax-related offenses. Hovind is currently being held by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office awaiting sentencing on January 9, 2007. He has been ordered to forfeit $430,400 and faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.

Now according to Creationists:

Hovind has come into conflict with other young earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their cause. One in particular, Answers in Genesis, has publicly criticised him [59] after he had criticised AiG's article, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".[60] In the letter Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and Jonathan Sarfati noted that some claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."[59] He is also criticised by Creation Ministries International (formerly AiG Australia). Their article "Maintaining Creationist Integrity"[61] responds to Hovind's criticism of the original Answers in Genesis article.

From mainstream critics:

Hovind is known for his debates with evolutionary biology scientists. The best-known contemporary evolutionary biologists, Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, have in the past refused to debate Hovind by claiming that debate is not how science works and gives charlatans more of an advantage than systematic inquiry [62] (see: scientific method). Hovind interprets this refusal as self-serving: the biologists would be unable to convince the audience that evolution is a correct theory because the evidence would be against them.

In Hovind's debates, he traditionally focuses on points that he claims serve to discredit evolutionary theory, physical cosmology, and geology. He also presents what he claims is evidence for a Biblical flood, a young earth, and the canopy theory. However, conventional scientists working in the appropriate fields[9], as well as some young Earth creationists[10], do not agree with Hovind's assertions.

If you would like further reading, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
It is fully cited an contains media reports, excerpts from articles and citations that would make an professional researcher blush. The man is crazy, a fraud, and more importantly a felon. Take what he has to say with a grain of salt.

PS: Here is his indictment papers. pdf

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:02 am

Just because the man isnt perfect doesnt make his statements about evolution invalid. Stop trying to beat around the bush acting like theres illigitimacy in the information i post. There are a great many people who have the same views about evolution. I can post links to many other doctors who you wont be able to find flaws in their criminal record in an attemp to misguide what this argument comes down to.

Here are 2 other scientist who you wont find information on.
Creation Astronomy

The Heariing Ear

The Seeing Eye

Post by **Albator** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:07 am

I think you just hit the nail on the head: scientist questioned it. That is, by essence, what scientist do. With an open mind. I must attract your attention to the fact that scientists don't care about religion, race, ethnia, you name it. Their job is to explain events with the datas they get. And if it's true that there is still unexplained datas, people are still searching.

Now what do you do? You stopped searching, without producing anything. You point at this datas and say "It's a disease", the whole thing doesn't work. That's final, end of discussion. No question, it can only be God's doing. Stop searching.

You have to realize one thing: you can not apprehend science with your view clouded by the belief of God. Why? Because anything that you see through the other end of the microscope that you can't explain, you will say: it's God's doing, it's just too complex. Don't you think it's a little reductive as a reasoning scheme? Do you think mankind's knowledge would have advanced so far, in any field, with this belief?

Ultimately, if you produce or explain scientific experiments with the belief of God as a starting hypothesis, you disqualify yourself, because your mind is closed to all possibility but one.

To conclude, I will say that as soon as you step into the lab, your belief must stay outside. At least beliefs that are not based on solid evidences. It doesn't mean that you can't practice religion or believe in God like Lib said, it must just stay out of the lab. You must not be influenced by it while looking at results. It's sad that a lot of religious people try to cross that line without realizing what an error it is. They shouldn't feel threatened by it.

PS: I want to ask people that might be more knowledgable about that than me: is this whole controversy the result of the Christian community only, or are others religions (muslims, jews, buddhist...) very criticals and controversials about evolution also?

Edit: I just saw these 2 news posts. Don't be angry at Psi for doing what you don't do, countering your arguments. I wanted that piece of information: the guy is not a specialist of evolution, he has no credentials. Anybody with a PhD is a doctor and can be a professor. If a guy with a PhD in brodery comes out and bash evolution, it's a joke. And good job at posting scientist "we can't find any info about", for all we know they are frauds without any knowledge of what they are talking about. You must be blind to not realize this. Stop complaining about being treated like a kid, you act like one, you're all getting kranky now.

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:14 am

When they can explain and show in lab how the big bang occured(or even how one species can become another): something from nothing(" a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions"). Where did this "matter" come from? What gave it energy to spin?). (Its all theoretical faith that will never be proven is what they are all getting at), order via disorder, extreme complexity/variety from the simple(all of which go against PROVEN KNOWN TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT) i will believe in evolution. Im not a one minded person i just want the proof.

Post by **psi29a** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:21 am

Zodd#1F, you brought him into this forum, he is a public figure and now his motives are suspect. That is the way of the world, and yes it effect's arguments even more so for lying, cheating, and stealing. What else did he lie about?

If you want to talk about his 'talking points' or his 'arguments' that is fine but also realize he frames his own debates in a way that actually loads the questions. He is a sophist. He may be able to win his debate, but it doesn't mean he is right. He has to prove that he is right, let him produce the evidence otherwise he is pissing in the wind.

As for your videos, they are flawed.

One of the first methods of determining distance was measuring the luminosity of Cepheid variable stars. These stars have a close relation between their brightness and their period of variability. The correlation between their period and luminosity one can determine distance. This was used to prove the universe was expanding among other things. Don't use bad science to try to justify the bible. You don't need to look into outer space to prove the earth is more than 5000 years old.

Another point. This guy shows is a star remnant that he admits Adam and Eve could have seen because of the time its light took to reach Earth. This object is within our galaxy. He then proceeds to show us neighboring galaxies and the most distant ones the Hubble can resolve. The universe is a really big place. So the light from ALL these objects took less than 6000 years to reach us?

As for the last two, just because we don't know what it is yet doesn't mean we won't find out tomorrow. Why are you trying to prevent us from finding out why the eye is the way it is or why we hear the things we do and how it developed that way? Are you afraid to question that 'god made it that way'?

i will believe in evolution.

You are missing the point entirely, you do not 'believe' anything in science. It is a method for describing our world with the best tools we have, and improving upon it one thing at a time. A 'slow and gradual' change if you will. Shit doesn't just become E=MC^2, it takes years of work, peer review, evidence building, and yes eventual testing. Einstein didn't test E=MC^2, but it was dynamite on paper. It wasn't till some number of years later that we where able to test it.

Again, it was 2000 years before we where able to prove the 'theory' that the world was round. Many people thought it was round in 1 AD, but no one could provie aside from what could be deduced by geometry. By your own words, you say that if you lived in 1AD that because no one was able to test that the world was round, then it obviously isn't true and as such isn't part of science.

Get off your high-horse and get with the program john-boy.

Post by **Albator** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:23 am

Yes you are a close minded person.

Why? Because your argument has already be countered before, but you chose not to process the information that was kindly given to you. You don't realize that saying what you just said disqualify your belief in God. Did Psi called that hypocrysy?

But what is the difference then? The difference is that there is a pile of datas pointing to the Big Bang. From many fields. Same thing can not be said from God. Oh yeah, unless you have faith. Wait, didn't you just said you want proof in order to believe?

Post by **psi29a** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:28 am

Albator wrote:Yes you are a close minded person.

...

But what is the difference then? The difference is that there is a pile of datas pointing to the Big Bang. From many fields. Same thing can not be said from God. Oh yeah, unless you have faith. Wait, didn't you just said you want proof in order to believe?

Zing!

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:34 am

Its something called irredusable complexity. How do you get extremly complex beings from a single celled organism(which is also extremly complex)? Evolution i know is an attempt to look at the origin of life through scientific reasoning only(naturalism). The only truth found in evolution thus far is micro evolution. They make claims about things they dont know but assume to try and view the order of the universe as a natural accurance.

Like i said earlier we could go on about this topic for weeks but it comes right down to what I WANT to hear given my morals and personality. I guess that there is no point of going any furthur.

Post by **psi29a** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:40 am

ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:Its something called irredusable complexity. How do you get extremly complex beings from a single celled organism(which is also extremly complex)? Evolution i know is an attempt to look at the origin of life through scientific reasoning only(naturalism). The only truth found in evolution thus far is micro evolution. They make claims about things they dont know but assume to try and view the order of the universe as a natural accurance.

Like i said earlier we could go on about this topic for weeks but it comes right down to what I WANT to hear given my morals and personality. I guess that there is no point of going any furthur.

*yawn*

Irreducible complexity (spelled correctly) is the discredited argument that certain biological systems are absolutely too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. The idea is used as an argument for the intelligent design of life, against the theory of evolution. The defining distinction between irreducible complexity as used in the context of intelligent design and irreducible complexity as used in systems theory is how each answers the question of whether irreducibly complex systems can evolve from simple systems. Intelligent design proponents argue that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve from simple systems, while systems researchers have identified systems which have done exactly this.

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

source

The real bottom line is that anything that can't be tested in your eyes is bunk, and there for you use god to fill in the gaps. 'God of the Gaps' is the terminology and I've already given you examples of this through history, so how Macroevolution any different?

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:43 am

while systems researchers have identified systems which have done exactly this.

Show me one. Show me a single instance in which this is proven fact and i will accept the theory of evolution.

a better source for your previous post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Post by **psi29a** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:47 am

ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:
while systems researchers have identified systems which have done exactly this.
Show me one. Show me a single instance in which this is proven fact and i will accept the theory of evolution.

a better source for your previous post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, both of East Tennessee State University, have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes. They also assert that what evolved biochemical and molecular systems actually exhibit is "redundant complexity"—a kind of complexity that is the product of an evolved biochemical process. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because of his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions, resulting in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded. They also criticized his over-reliance of overly simplistic metaphors, such as his mousetrap. In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally.

The source, explanation of proof, and testable and verifiable results.

While there is much that we do not know about the biochemistry of living systems, it would appear to be premature to claim that there is a principled objection to the claim that the biochemical level of the biological hierarchy is itself a product of evolutionary processes. Behe claims that biochemical systems and processes manifest a species of complexity -- irreducible complexity -- that could not have evolved and must have been intelligently designed. We have shown, first, that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes. Second, we have argued further that evolved biochemical and molecular systems exhibit redundant complexity -- this kind of complexity simultaneously accounts for the stability of evolved biochemical systems and processes in the face of even quite radical perturbations, for biochemical and metabolic plasticity, and, mainly as a result of gene duplication, for extant structures and processes to get co-opted in the course of evolutionary time, to serve novel functional ends.

In the end, Behe overestimates the significance of irreducible complexity because his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions results in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded. Real biological systems are quite unlike economically designed engineering artifacts such as mousetraps. His case against evolution is a good example, in fact, of the perils of being "trapped" by a metaphor.

Of course, for some types of engineering problems, human engineers are not afraid to build in redundancy and back-up systems. Perhaps, Behe might want to argue, these sophisticated artifacts, with their redundant back-up systems, constitute a more sophisticated design metaphor by means of which to conceptualize nature. The trouble here is that naturalistic, evolutionary processes, notoriously, give rise to similar redundancies. And evolutionary processes do so without appeals to engineers of unknown identity and methods, be they cosmic, or merely alien, thereby commanding our attention on the basis of the scientific virtue of simplicity.

I can give you more rope to hang yourself it you want.

Post by **Albator** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:51 am

Why don't we use the bacteria flagellae? It was actually an argument used by creatinists (Edit: shit, it's a typo, but I might coin that) to deter evolution, saying that the compilation of proteins was too complex to have evolved, and that single proteins composing the complex were inactive by themselves.

So what did stupid scientists do? They tested it. And oh surprise, they actually found functions associated to single proteins. More interesting, one of the protein in question was actually part of simplier bacteria, specialized in phagocytose. Sequence of the protein was quasi-identical, showing a clear instance of compexity that arised from simple systems.

For more information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

Post by **ZoddsNo1Fan** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:46 am

To understand these other BZ-type behaviors, it is instructive to consider what happens when the BZ experiment is run with just a thin film of reactant in a petri dish. Waves of color change propagate through the medium. The color changes are waves of oxidation propagating through a reduced medium.

In essence, the wave of oxidation rotates around the inhomogeneity (known as a pacemaker), and since spirals have a geometry that is just a bit more efficient at inducing the next wave of oxidation in the medium than concentric rings, in due course the spirals displace the concentric rings in the medium. This is a good example of an evolutionary chemical selection of an autocatalytically more efficient pattern.

First they take a known law, proven chemical reaction(Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction)and add a "thin film of reactant" with it. This causes "an evolutionary chemical selection of an autocatalytically more efficient pattern". Chemical selection/natural selection doesnt explain the creation of a new system. Its an example of the same system getting stronger, not a new system.

Once again all of this is theory on how chemical evolution(creating a new chemical system) COULD/MIGHT occur given the right circumstances(all of which are extremly unlikly, and in which would most definatly render the system not functional). They take known science and try to deduce how it might be able to occur.

The BV reaction is known as fact, but they alter it in an attempt to find how this could be one of their factors "self-organization -- the spontaneous formation of ordered" in the fight against irreducible complexity and then try to deduce from that. "This reaction(the BV reaction), like the Krebs cycle it models, exhibits irreducible chemical complexity". It is all theory about how irreducible complexity MIGHT be debunked.

The BV reaction
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/mathjournal/ ... n1-1pd.pdf

Post by **arke** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 am

A stronger system is a new system though. You're redefining things you don't like to prove a point. Stop. You are not someone who deals with this stuff so stop trying to rework it into something agreeable. I refer you to Feynman's description of science. Deal with it.