Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 269
  1.    #81  
    And now we return to our regularly schedule discussion about the Blind Watchmaker...

    I'd like to pick up here:

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So, then my conclusion was correct, namely the advantage of the mutant must be such to not only improve its own survival, but also diminish the survival of its siblings/cousins.

    But, if we agree on that, now I ask you to help me understand the plausibility (Dawkins' standard) that a sufficiently small enough mutation 'x' as to be likely to survive (Dawkins' criteria) is at the same time sufficiently large enough as to be able to eliminate or greatly reduce the possibility of the other members of the species reproducing.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    And now we return to our regularly schedule discussion about the Blind Watchmaker...

    I'd like to pick up here:
    So, then my conclusion was correct, namely the advantage of the mutant must be such to not only improve its own survival, but also diminish the survival of its siblings/cousins.

    But, if we agree on that, now I ask you to help me understand the plausibility (Dawkins' standard) that a sufficiently small enough mutation 'x' as to be likely to survive (Dawkins' criteria) is at the same time sufficiently large enough as to be able to eliminate or greatly reduce the possibility of the other members of the species reproducing.
    Now that we have officially established that the bible is not literally true, it is only fair to go on.

    It is not the mutatation "x" of one individual that causes a reduced reproduction in other individuals. You have to take into consideration that any population in nature is almost constantly under pressure from predators, diseases, not enough food, space, etc.

    Without any pressure, no evolution takes place: there would not be an additional advantage conferred by a mutation, so new, beneficial mutations would not be selected for. The population would grow exponentially (because no individual starves or gets killed), but as you immediately see, this can only work for a short time, becaue sooner or later, food will be in short supply for the increased population, so the whole thing starts again. Due to the natural variation (there are always differences also e.g between brothers) some individuals will have an advantage over others. Possibly, the neck of one individual is longer than the other, and therefore it can reach leaves higher up, eat more, gain more weight, be stronger, feed more offspring, pass on the mutation to its offspring, which will also have longer necks than the rest of the population, and so it goes on.

    There is almost constant selection pressure in nature, that is what drives evolution. There is intra-species selection pressure (one individual of a species competing with the other individuals), and inter-species selection pressure (e.g. between prey and predator): cheetahs develop the ability to run faster - the slower or less agile of the gazelles are eaten, those which can jump faster or further away survive, continue to live and therefore have more offspring.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3.    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Now that we have officially established that the bible is not literally true, it is only fair to go on.
    You are priceless

    For the record, While we agree that the Bible is not to be taken literally, we reach that conclusion from quite different vantage points. That is why I did not state such agreement in the context you provided.

    The reason that the Bible is not to be taken word-for-word literally is because that is not the intent of the writers. That position is decidely not a function of supposed contradiction. Rather, the Bible is a collection of literary works compiled long after the time in which the original authors lived. The literary works include biographical content, autobiogrphical content, poertry, history, legislation, and allegorical content, if not other formats. There are numerous contributors, though there is no indication any of the contributors had any prior intent of contributing to the collection. Those multiple authors lived in various geographic locations. Their collective lives spanned centuries. Their individual intended audiences are as varied as TC's membership.

    There is no indication that the authros intended to provide precise descriptions. Rather, they seemed to be communicating civil/legal context, historical context, dreams, advice, etc. It is only later that some "believers" recognized that a compilation of much of this documentation would be beneficial to furthering the "faith" of like-believers. Thus the Bible exists.

    Incidentally, I spent some time reviewing Lukes account of the crucifixion. I noticed that he decribes a period of beginning with the 6th hour and ending with the 9th hour. There is no description of what happened during those three hours. Does that mean nothing happened?
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    It is not the mutatation "x" of one individual that causes a reduced reproduction in other individuals. You have to take into consideration that any population in nature is almost constantly under pressure from predators, diseases, not enough food, space, etc.

    Without any pressure, no evolution takes place: there would not be an additional advantage conferred by a mutation, so new, beneficial mutations would not be selected for. The population would grow exponentially (because no individual starves or gets killed), but as you immediately see, this can only work for a short time, becaue sooner or later, food will be in short supply for the increased population, so the whole thing starts again. Due to the natural variation (there are always differences also e.g between brothers) some individuals will have an advantage over others. Possibly, the neck of one individual is longer than the other, and therefore it can reach leaves higher up, eat more, gain more weight, be stronger, feed more offspring, pass on the mutation to its offspring, which will also have longer necks than the rest of the population, and so it goes on.

    There is almost constant selection pressure in nature, that is what drives evolution. There is intra-species selection pressure (one individual of a species competing with the other individuals), and inter-species selection pressure (e.g. between prey and predator): cheetahs develop the ability to run faster - the slower or less agile of the gazelles are eaten, those which can jump faster or further away survive, continue to live and therefore have more offspring.
    So far, I get it. Where I need help is understanding how the cheetah becomes an ostrich (I know no one has suggeseted that Cheethas are ancestors of Ostriches. But the question is how mutation and natural selection account for not only specialization and variation within a species but speci-al leaps)
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So far, I get it. Where I need help is understanding how the cheetah becomes an ostrich (I know no one has suggeseted that Cheethas are ancestors of Ostriches. But the question is how mutation and natural selection account for not only specialization and variation within a species but speci-al leaps)
    Not only did cheetahs never become ostriches, there are also never "speci-al" leaps. Also speciation occurs gradually and over a long period of time. Some basic mechanisms are described here. A descripiton with some examples can be found here.

    Since speciation occurs over long periods of time in nature, it is difficult to show in an experimental setting, though the underlying mechanism can be demonstrated quite easily. There is still quite a strong debate about which factors contribute how much, but don't get confused by that: there is absolutely no doubt that speciation did and does take place in nature.
    Last edited by clulup; 03/06/2005 at 05:26 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #85  
    I got the book last weekend (haven't started it yet).
    When I was in the bookstore I noticed a book called 'Dawkins's God' by alister McGrath (ISBN 1-4051-2538-1) that (tries to) debunk the blindwatchmaker.. has anybody read that one?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I got the book last weekend (haven't started it yet).
    When I was in the bookstore I noticed a book called 'Dawkins's God' by alister McGrath (ISBN 1-4051-2538-1) that (tries to) debunk the blindwatchmaker.. has anybody read that one?
    I haven't read that book, but from the reviews I have seen, it is more about Dawkins philosophy and his way of occasionally using science as a means to support atheism (which the writer does not find useful). I don't recall Dawkins doing that in "The Blind Watchmaker".

    McGrath's book does not at all attack Darwinism/Evolution, nor does it support creationism, it just stresses that science does not prove that there is no god. I agree with that.

    However, science DOES prove there is/was evolution.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7.    #87  
    Haven't spent much time on the site lately (funny thing, productivity seems to be up in other areas )

    Meanwhile, I did read the wiki entry of species and noticed that the definition assumes evolution (i.e. species differentiation being determined, in part, by a mutation resulting in the lost ability to reproduce with its [previous?] kind).

    As such, I realized, I might be better served by stating my hangup with Dawkins' treatment of Evolution:

    I had some difficulty with his rationale for some conclusions, but be that as it may, it seems that ultimately the theory assumes that there was some spontaneous generation of a pre-RNA type entity that started the whole process. He conceded that such an event has not been reproduced in the laboratory. However, he states that the difficulty in doing so is evidence that it is of sufficient rarity as to be believable as the originating point.

    What concerns me is that evolution is taught as fact, though the origniating event on which it relies is as yet (at least when he was writing) unproven. That would make the theory viable, plausible, and reasonable, but not fact. Becuase, IF, the originating event is mistaken, then the whole line of reasoniong must be reevaluated.

    NOTE: That does NOT mean that the whole line of reasoning is therefore entirely false. Rather, it means that the story that strings the individual evidences together has to be re-constructed.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Haven't spent much time on the site lately (funny thing, productivity seems to be up in other areas )

    Meanwhile, I did read the wiki entry of species and noticed that the definition assumes evolution (i.e. species differentiation being determined, in part, by a mutation resulting in the lost ability to reproduce with its [previous?] kind).

    As such, I realized, I might be better served by stating my hangup with Dawkins' treatment of Evolution:

    I had some difficulty with his rationale for some conclusions, but be that as it may, it seems that ultimately the theory assumes that there was some spontaneous generation of a pre-RNA type entity that started the whole process. He conceded that such an event has not been reproduced in the laboratory. However, he states that the difficulty in doing so is evidence that it is of sufficient rarity as to be believable as the originating point.

    What concerns me is that evolution is taught as fact, though the origniating event on which it relies is as yet (at least when he was writing) unproven. That would make the theory viable, plausible, and reasonable, but not fact. Becuase, IF, the originating event is mistaken, then the whole line of reasoniong must be reevaluated.

    NOTE: That does NOT mean that the whole line of reasoning is therefore entirely false. Rather, it means that the story that strings the individual evidences together has to be re-constructed.
    You have to separate evolution and the abiotic origin of life. Evolution is a scientific fact - in other words, a fact by any definition of fact you would accept in everyday life.

    The abiotic origin of life is not proven to the same extent (because it is a very rare event that took place billions of years ago and therefore cannot be fully reproduced in the lab), but it is extremely plausible nevertheless.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The abiotic origin of life is not proven to the same extent (because it is a very rare event that took place billions of years ago and therefore cannot be fully reproduced in the lab), but it is extremely plausible nevertheless.
    At least it hasn't been reproduced yet
  10.    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You have to separate evolution and the abiotic origin of life. Evolution is a scientific fact - in other words, a fact by any definition of fact you would accept in everyday life.

    The abiotic origin of life is not proven to the same extent (because it is a very rare event that took place billions of years ago and therefore cannot be fully reproduced in the lab), but it is extremely plausible nevertheless.
    Is not abiotic origin the link that demonstrates evolution has generated the vast number of distinct species (evoution-assuming definition not withstanding)? If not, what is the evidence that proves mutation and selection alone account for the existence of vast numbers of species all originating from (likely) 3 starting points? And, how has that evidence been isolated from dependence on abiotic origin?

    Dawikns presents abiotic origin is a necessary assumption the theory of evolution.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Is not abiotic origin the link that demonstrates evolution has generated the vast number of distinct species (evoution-assuming definition not withstanding)? If not, what is the evidence that proves mutation and selection alone account for the existence of vast numbers of species all originating from (likely) 3 starting points? And, how has that evidence been isolated from dependence on abiotic origin?
    Abiotic origin means that life has originated from abiotic molecules (e.g. RNA), and not e.g. from mud into which a god blew life.

    Evolutions shows that all forms of life have developed from the same ancestral life forms. There is no need to assume an additional "force" directing things, the whole thing convincingly works on its own.

    BTW, most likely there are not 3 starting points of life, there is only one, but there are three major groups of life, the bacteria, the archaea, and the eukaryotes (We are eukaryotes). The eukaryotes, however, are the result of a very close cooperation of pre-eukaryotic cell with a bacterium. This bacterium later became a part of the eukaryotic cell, now known as mitochondria, the cellular organelles which supply the energy we use to move, think, etc.. This is an example of how cooperation (not only competition) can result in an evolutionary advantage. The endosymbiotic theory was developed by the female scientist Lynn Margulis, very cool stuff: In every of our billions of cells, there is a former bacterium providing the energy we need.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12.    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Abiotic origin means that life has originated from abiotic molecules (e.g. RNA), and not e.g. from mud into which a god blew life.

    Evolutions shows that all forms of life have developed from the same ancestral life forms. There is no need to assume an additional "force" directing things, the whole thing convincingly works on its own.

    BTW, most likely there are not 3 starting points of life, there is only one, but there are three major groups of life, the bacteria, the archaea, and the eukaryotes (We are eukaryotes). The eukaryotes, however, are the result of a very close cooperation of pre-eukaryotic cell with a bacterium. This bacterium later became a part of the eukaryotic cell, now known as mitochondria, the cellular organelles which supply the energy we use to move, think, etc.. This is an example of how cooperation (not only competition) can result in an evolutionary advantage. The endosymbiotic theory was developed by the female scientist Lynn Margulis, very cool stuff: In every of our billions of cells, there is a former bacterium providing the energy we need.
    I'm intrigued. You write of things these assertively, yet the source you recommended only addresses them in terms of plausibility. I think Dawkins weaves a very good story. I think Dawkins weaves a plausible story. However, that it is plausible does mean that it is so.

    I think the judicial realm refers to such as circumstantial evidence. Now, there are times when a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is used to convict. However, when all you have is circumstantial evidence, you can not be "certain" of the story.

    Which fossil records to show the cooperation of pre-eukaryotic cell with a bacterium? Or, is it that there is/are laboratory experiment(s) to demonstrate the plausibility of such?
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'm intrigued. You write of things these assertively, yet the source you recommended only addresses them in terms of plausibility. I think Dawkins weaves a very good story. I think Dawkins weaves a plausible story. However, that it is plausible does mean that it is so.
    You ask for very high levels of proof, rightly so. In the case of the bible, you are very happy with the story without any proof, even with a story that totally lacks plausibility, such as Genesis 1 and 2, or the story of Noah, allegedly a man 600 years of age who managed to collect two (different numbers varying on the chapter of the bible) of each species, obviously including (to name only a few) penguins, polar bears, elefants, bengal tigers, barn-owls, mites, fire ants, moose, wolves, desert foxes, etc., and had them on a wooden boat for several months.
    I think the judicial realm refers to such as circumstantial evidence. Now, there are times when a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is used to convict. However, when all you have is circumstantial evidence, you can not be "certain" of the story.
    True, but of some stories we can be quite sure they are bogus.
    Which fossil records to show the cooperation of pre-eukaryotic cell with a bacterium? Or, is it that there is/are laboratory experiment(s) to demonstrate the plausibility of such?
    Bacteria and early prokaryotic (single cell) species are microscopic and don't form fossiles (or hardly). There are tons of lab experiments which show how extremely plausible the endosymbiont theory is, based on how mitochondria and chloroplasts (in plants) work. Some of the results of those experiments are listed under the title "evidence" in the link above.
    Last edited by clulup; 03/14/2005 at 10:29 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14.    #94  
    The plausibility of the Genesis account varies depending on ones existing worldview.

    For example, one who holds that no god (if one even exists) has active involvement in the universe would find Genesis 1-2 implausible.

    One who holds that similarities in function of differing entities invariably denotes shared origin, or that similarities in genetic make-up of various "biomorphs" invariably denotes common ancestry would find Genesis 1-2 implausible.

    One who holds that Genesis 1-2 defies physical laws may not have accounted for the logical line of reasoning that if there were an active, creative God at the origin of life, that same God would be the one that established/initiated/instituted the laws. Or put another way, the laws would also have their starting point (conceptual and operational) at that God. It is similar to Mr. Dawkins' assertions that the human mind's frame of reference is woefully limited in terms of assessing probability of evolution given the enormous amounts of time involved. Would not those same mental deficiencies hinder one from understanding a realm of existence that is not bound by but rather directs physical "laws"?
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The plausibility of the Genesis account varies depending on ones existing worldview.

    For example, one who holds that no god (if one even exists) has active involvement in the universe would find Genesis 1-2 implausible.

    One who holds that similarities in function of differing entities invariably denotes shared origin, or that similarities in genetic make-up of various "biomorphs" invariably denotes common ancestry would find Genesis 1-2 implausible.

    One who holds that Genesis 1-2 defies physical laws may not have accounted for the logical line of reasoning that if there were an active, creative God at the origin of life, that same God would be the one that established/initiated/instituted the laws. Or put another way, the laws would also have their starting point (conceptual and operational) at that God. It is similar to Mr. Dawkins' assertions that the human mind's frame of reference is woefully limited in terms of assessing probability of evolution given the enormous amounts of time involved. Would not those same mental deficiencies hinder one from understanding a realm of existence that is not bound by but rather directs physical "laws"?
    Everything we observe in nature tells us evolution is what took and takes place. Nothing we observe tells us Genesis 1 or 2 happened, let alone that a man of 600 years had each and every animal species with him on a boat for several months.

    God can still be the force who set evolution in motion, that is not ruled out by science, even if there in no need to postulate a force that started it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #96  
    An interesting article on evolution, "One Longsome Argument"

    Charles Darwin liked to describe the origin of species as "one long argument," but his extensive treatise in support of biological evolution now seems painfully brief compared to the argument that has followed in its wake.

    Indeed, never in the history of science has a more prolonged and passionate debate dogged the heels of a theory so thoroughly researched and repeatedly validated. And the end is nowhere in sight. Despite all evidence to the contrary, a large portion of the world's population continues to cling to the belief that human beings are fundamentally different from all other life forms and that our origins are unique. It's a lovely sentiment to be sure, but how is it that so many people continue to be drawn to this thoroughly discredited notion?
    More...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17.    #97  
    From the article:

    In truth, the origin of life is an issue entirely separate from the origin of species
    I think this is where a great deal of misunderstanding lies. When the common man speaks of "evolution" it is often a general reference to both the origin of life and the origin of species.

    In a sense, it is the origin of life that is at question. And, I note that the author goes on to say that the
    evidence that all life on Earth descended from simple primordial beings remains just as compelling, and the myth of independent creation just as untenable
    I just though it worthwhile to point out that distinction.
  18. #98  
    It would be a great step if also most Christians in the US would not have a problem with the evolution of species any more and focus on stressing that it was God who set the universe in motion (which later lead to the formation of self-replicating molecules, which then lead to the first forms of life on this planet ).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #99  
    Despite all evidence to the contrary, a large portion of the world's population continues to cling to the belief that human beings are fundamentally different from all other life forms and that our origins are unique. It's a lovely sentiment to be sure, but how is it that so many people continue to be drawn to this thoroughly discredited notion?[/I] More...
    The article seems pretty arrogant in its language. What "evidence to the contrary" is there that human beings are the same as the animals? It seems clear that there has never been a more intelligent species on earth, ever. That alone is pretty strong evidence that humans are "fundamentally different." My ever evolving belief is that God created the conditions necessary for the Big Bang and the creation of the Universe. This belief is scientifically unprovable either way, since laws of general relativity and quantum physics break down the closer you go back to the moment of the Big Bang. So it becomes a matter of faith.

    At the same time, I also believe that God made Adam fundamentally different by giving him a "spirit", "soul", or whatever you want to call it. That made Adam and Eve forever different from all other forms of life, and makes their origin unique. How is that notion of uniqueness "thoroughly discredited"? It's not at all.

    It would be a great step if also most Christians in the US would not have a problem with the evolution of species any more and focus on stressing that it was God who set the universe in motion (which later lead to the formation of self-replicating molecules, which then lead to the first forms of life on this planet ).
    Why would that be a "great step" if most Christians believed the way you do? You seek the truth, so do they, and so do I. My beliefs have slowely changed the older and more experienced I become. I assume they will further change in the years to come. Are you so entrenched in your belief that you don't even consider alternate viewpoints or theories? If you are, wouldn't that make you at least as closed-minded than the Creationists you describe?

    (Clulup, although it sounds like it, I really don't mean it to be rude or confrontational - it's just a question)
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Can you show me a single publication of evidence for creationism which was published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, and not in creationist publications or in news-papers or creationist books?
    This lists several....though I have not read a single one of....this is just in answer to your question if any have been published:

    Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

    Just by glancing through I would think that some of the published papers listed here would be of interest to many in this thread. It also has interesting points about the scientific field's reaction to member of their society once it is revealed they believe in creationism.....even when their work exceeds all standards and are not even remotely related in any way with creation.

    God Vs Darwin
    In this debate, I had a biology teacher in college say something pretty interesting. He had a strong faith in God and in creation, and a very strong and solid grounding in science. He once said something like this:
    "By law I have to teach the theories of Darwin. By faith I believe without a doubt there was a creation by God. I have no doubt that aspects of Darwins theory are true, i.e. adapting to one's environment for survival. But there are several huge wholes in the theory and many still unanswered questions with it. All I can say is that when I die I cannot wait to see how it all fits together!"

    I was also at a lecture on a totally different topic than creation or evolution, but the speaker went on a short tangent that always stuck with me. He said that he has the privilege to see Albert Einstein give a lecture, I believe at a University, shortly before he passed away. He said that Einstein said (and since I don't have the speech right in front of me, this is not verbatim...but very close):

    "I didn't always feel this way, but the more I studied the mysteries of the universe the more I have come to suspect the hand of some supreme being. Given the chances of life forming by accident as purposed by evolutionary theory, I would have far better odds for me to take a plastic model plane, break off the pieces, but them back in the box, shake it up, then throw them all in the air and have all the pieces land on the ground as a perfect model of the plane, in spite of all the pieces being there for that to happen."
    Speaking of Eienstein here are some other famous quotes of his (and he has a lot of them):

    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
    --Albert Einstein
    I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
    --Albert Einstein
    Here are some interesting poll results in the USA when asked about evolution vs creationism (I don't subscribe to National Geo so I cannot read the rest of the article):

    Was Darwin Wrong?
    http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
    Other people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.

    Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin—that is, divine initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.

    The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.
    When I did a Google search I also found this quote. It is from a creationist's point of view and it made me chuckle:

    Naturalism, logic and reality
    Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

    1) A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

    The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

    2) On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

    This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...1/creation.asp
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/22/2005 at 01:36 PM.
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions