Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Rather poor science.

we don't share 98 or 99 % of our DNA with chimps. And certainly no where close to 93% with monkeys.

" show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes"

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 894
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Scientific reasons that made Anthony Flew to change his belief:

(Excerpt)

"As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (1)

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (2)

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (3)

The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation. The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopaedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. (4)

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. (5) Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:

"What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." (6)

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7)

Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew's acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings.

http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-869.html

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA is super-complex, so it must be intelligently designed? Come on.

God is super-complex, so (S)He/It must be intelligently designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA is super-complex, so it must be intelligently designed? Come on.

God is super-complex, so (S)He/It must be intelligently designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

Exactly so. While this sounds like little more than a bit of mocking fun at their expense, it is actually germane to their own argument.

They use science to try to logically explain how anything so complex and well-adapted to environment must be "intelligently designed"; and then they stop right there. Logic must only go so far back in time, evidently...to what is "created," but not the (infinitely complex) "Creator" itself.

It would appear that Anthony Flew is beset by the same flaws that often attend those whose world-view shifts suddenly 180 degrees: they remain beset by the same errors in thinking that they always had. They're fundamentally the same, adhering to the same errors in logic that they denounce of their "old" selves.

A political analogy would be David Horowitz; once a radical Left, hardcore Marxist, he alienated many of his lefty comrades with his extremism and his terrible attitude; he even (by his own admission) committed treason agaisnt the United States. (He has oddly refused to turn himself in on this score and demand punishment.) Now, he's the same person...exactly the same flaws and extremism and alienating behaviour...but from the far Right.

So it is with Mr. Flew. "Man, was I ever wrong!", he decides, condemning his old, atheist self...and yet remains ensconced in the very errors in logic that he claims he once had.

Look at his own words [bolding added]:

"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved."

If he were thinking scientifically, he would never say such a thing. There is no "must" here, and he damn well knows it, or should.

What would be reasonable would be to say, I don't feel there is yet a satisfying explanation in which we can navigate how such complexity came about."

Instead, he determiens that it "must be" intelligently designed...with exactly zero scientific evidence to back up this outright opinion. (Not hypothesis; personal opinion.)

Always beware those who claim to have suddenly "seen the light." Especially when that light signifies a god.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA is super-complex, so it must be intelligently designed? Come on.

God is super-complex, so (S)He/It must be intelligently designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

And it's designer must, therefore, be designed....

Exactly so. While this sounds like little more than a bit of mocking fun at their expense, it is actually germane to their own argument.

They use science to try to logically explain how anything so complex and well-adapted to environment must be "intelligently designed";

Of course I assume the explanation in the article is not as detailed as when they'd convinced Flew. Anyway, it's not as simple as Cybercoma made it like with his "and it's designer must, therefoe, be designed...." These parts must've been overlooked:

The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopaedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws.

code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.

Bloodyminded:

and then they stop right there. Logic must only go so far back in time, evidently...to what is "created," but not the (infinitely complex) "Creator" itself.

Well give it time! You guys had a century and still counting.... yet still couldn't explain about evolution and the universe. We all waited patiently with you...and still waiting.... (although I couldn't say about the patiently part).

Bloodyminded:

It would appear that Anthony Flew is beset by the same flaws that often attend those whose world-view shifts suddenly 180 degrees: they remain beset by the same errors in thinking that they always had. They're fundamentally the same, adhering to the same errors in logic that they denounce of their "old" selves.

Why do you assume he made an error in shifting his belief? I don't think Flew would be satisfied by sheer logic alone when he was dealing with these scientists.

I don't think Flew expected anything less than scientific proof or reasonable reasons to convince him when he knew the credentials and qualifications of these men.

If he were thinking scientifically, he would never say such a thing. There is no "must" here, and he damn well knows it, or should.

He obviously decided the evidence presented to him were reasonable enough compared to random chance.

What would be reasonable would be to say, I don't feel there is yet a satisfying explanation in which we can navigate how such complexity came about."

But obviously he felt the explanation satisfying enough compared to random chance!

Instead, he determiens that it "must be" intelligently designed...with exactly zero scientific evidence to back up this outright opinion. (Not hypothesis; personal opinion.)

It's been explained in that article why it must be Intelligent Design.

Always beware those who claim to have suddenly "seen the light." Especially when that light signifies a god.

Now now now....look at your statement (boldened).

This is what I meant when I spoke about the box. Remember?

The question is: Do you really want to know?

If yes, then be prepared to knock down walls or break a window to look out or take a step outside...even if this leads you to what you dread of finding.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well give it time! You guys had a century and still counting.... yet still couldn't explain about evolution and the universe. We all waited patiently with you...and still waiting.... (although I couldn't say about the patiently part).

Actually, scientists have provided the answers that scientific knowledge can provide at this point in time. And has scientific knoweldge expend, there will be more responses. Only those who have decided in advance that sicence is invalid unless it provides the answers that they want see otherwise.

You keep expecting that scientific knowledge will lead to a scientific proof of the existence of God. That's why you believe that creationism and intelligent design are science, when they are most certainly not.

YOUR problem is that knowledge of the existence of God comes faith. Those who know that God is known through faith do not need to wait for science to confirm the existence of God... they knw that's not its role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, scientists have provided the answers that scientific knowledge can provide at this point in time. And has scientific knoweldge expend, there will be more responses. Only those who have decided in advance that sicence is invalid unless it provides the answers that they want see otherwise.

You keep expecting that scientific knowledge will lead to a scientific proof of the existence of God. That's why you believe that creationism and intelligent design are science, when they are most certainly not.

YOUR problem is that knowledge of the existence of God comes faith. Those who know that God is known through faith do not need to wait for science to confirm the existence of God... they knw that's not its role.

I've said it numerous times. Speaking for myself, I don't need any proof! Because of my faith, I'm not surprised about Intelligent Design. They call it by any name. Intelligent Design. Prime Mover. Creator. Designer. Scientists just couldn't bring themselves to say "God."

We are discussing Intelligent Design. Since I'm a Creationist and therefore a supporter of Intelligent Design....I have to present my arguments/defense of ID with supporting sources to my claim. After all that's part of a good debate....substantiating one's statement. Personal opinion are hardly worth anything.

I'm just stating a fact with Bloodyminded. If one truly wants to know, you've got to be prepared to think and step outside the box if you have to....to get to the answer!

Of course, given Anthony Flew's reputation and credentials....I'd take his word for it that he's found reasonable evidence that convinced him that ID is more credible than random chance!

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloodyminded:

and then they stop right there. Logic must only go so far back in time, evidently...to what is "created," but not the (infinitely complex) "Creator" itself.

Well give it time! You guys had a century and still counting.... yet still couldn't explain about evolution and the universe. We all waited patiently with you...and still waiting.... (although I couldn't say about the patiently part).

So you concede the possibility that god, if it exists, itself has a creator? How about multiple gods?

Of course, given Anthony Flew's reputation and credentials....I'd take his word for it that he's found reasonable evidence that convinced him that ID is more credible than random chance!

So you're basically just making a plea to authority here. Makes me wonder how much of this stuff you actually understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you concede the possibility that god, if it exists, itself has a creator? How about multiple gods?

I am not conceding to that. Speaking for myself (based on my own belief), I know that my God is our Creator. No one else. He was not created by anyone or anything. Of course, I'm speaking for myself.

Bloodyminded was asking about who might have created the creator. I think he wouldn't just take my word for it that my God is the Creator and He'd always existed, and was not created by anything or anyone. I assume Bloodyminded will want science to give him the answer. I'm pointing out the patience through the century, and still counting, waiting for science to explain about origin....so why not have the same patience for the ID scientists to come up with the explanation regarding the Designer.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet you claim that proof is to be found in science. Or more exactly pseudo-science, aka as the Intelligent Design movement. Go figure.

The only proof that atheists will accept will be that comes from science. I cannot just simply invoke my faith. I am debating with atheists or agnostics on this board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're basically just making a plea to authority here. Makes me wonder how much of this stuff you actually understand.

Common sense. Logic.

Compared to posters on this board, I think it's safe to assume that yes, he's got authority....unless one or two of you have the same qualifications/credentials/reputation that he has in the same field.

I don't think he'd just throw away his atheistic belief which he'd promoted for 60+ years to replace it with something that's not been given any proof or evidence solid enough for him to make a sudden change. This man's been debating practically most of his years as an atheist.

He has a reputation!

To recant is one thing. But he made a statement that he wants to atone for the people who may've been misled by him in the past....that's why he's been promoting ID.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most of the atheists listed in the thread REJOICE ON THIS DAY, some of them in the field of science or well-known atheist activists....most, if not all of them have one thing in common. They've got credentials. They're achievers in their field. They've got reputations to uphold.

And amazing that when they did finally recant....they did not stop there. They went on to be active promoters of their new-found faith! They wrote books, or articles or become apologeticists!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not conceding to that. Speaking for myself (based on my own belief), I know that my God is our Creator. No one else. He was not created by anyone or anything. Of course, I'm speaking for myself.

That would be just lovely if you were speaking for yourself. You're not. You want to speak for everyone by forcing creationist dogma down people's throat and based on what emprical evidence? Nothing. You want everyone to have your faith and you want science to recognize something that is not empirically testable and almost certainly false.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just stating a fact with Bloodyminded. If one truly wants to know, you've got to be prepared to think and step outside the box if you have to....to get to the answer!

You ARENT stepping "outside the box" though Bestsy. You just believe what you were told, and what 99% of humans in history have believed. Stop acting like youre some kind of maverick, youre just another follower. It dont GET more "inside the box" than you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not conceding to that. Speaking for myself (based on my own belief), I know that my God is our Creator. No one else. He was not created by anyone or anything.

You dont even understand the argument that you're replying to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You ARENT stepping "outside the box" though Bestsy. You just believe what you were told, and what 99% of humans in history have believed. Stop acting like youre some kind of maverick, youre just another follower. It dont GET more "inside the box" than you.

Quite true!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not conceding to that. Speaking for myself (based on my own belief), I know that my God is our Creator. No one else. He was not created by anyone or anything. Of course, I'm speaking for myself.

Bloodyminded was asking about who might have created the creator. I think he wouldn't just take my word for it that my God is the Creator and He'd always existed, and was not created by anything or anyone. I assume Bloodyminded will want science to give him the answer. I'm pointing out the patience through the century, and still counting, waiting for science to explain about origin....so why not have the same patience for the ID scientists to come up with the explanation regarding the Designer.

Which raises the question of why you'd expect bloodyminded to wait for evidence of the creator's creator if you don't believe in such a thing, which brings us back to the fundamental logical flaw in the argument from complexity.

Common sense. Logic.

Compared to posters on this board, I think it's safe to assume that yes, he's got authority....unless one or two of you have the same qualifications/credentials/reputation that he has in the same field.

I don't think he'd just throw away his atheistic belief which he'd promoted for 60+ years to replace it with something that's not been given any proof or evidence solid enough for him to make a sudden change. This man's been debating practically most of his years as an atheist.

He has a reputation!

To recant is one thing. But he made a statement that he wants to atone for the people who may've been misled by him in the past....that's why he's been promoting ID.

First off: Flew is dead so he's not promoting jack.

Second: it's interesting that you, an avowed Christian, would promote someone who expressly denied the existence of the god you worship (Flew was an avowed deist, which is no small distinction). Furthermore, Flew position (and he was a philosopher) was merely that the complexity of nature and the origin of life can only be explained by the presence of a super-intelligence. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF A CREATOR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which raises the question of why you'd expect bloodyminded to wait for evidence of the creator's creator if you don't believe in such a thing, which brings us back to the fundamental logical flaw in the argument from complexity.

And I've said that I don't think Flew would've been convinced by sheer logic alone considering that he knew he was talking with scientists! Of course the whole details of evidence presented to Flew wouldn't be crammed into a few paragraphs in that short article.

The explanations were concise.

And in that context, I'd given my reply to Bloodyminded on this part of his argument:

Bloodyminded:

They use science to try to logically explain how anything so complex and well-adapted to environment must be "intelligently designed"; and then they stop right there. Logic must only go so far back in time, evidently...to what is "created," but not the (infinitely complex) "Creator" itself.

First off: Flew is dead so he's not promoting jack.
:rolleyes:

Now, that's being silly. Darwin has been long dead, and evolution is still being promoted!

What's being dead got to do with it? They're immortalized in books, in the statements that they've made! That's the difference between well-known people, those with fame and considerable reputation!

If he didn't promote his new belief....why are we here right now discussing this article?

Second: it's interesting that you, an avowed Christian, would promote someone who expressly denied the existence of the god you worship (Flew was an avowed deist, which is no small distinction).

Because I'm debating with atheists and agnostics. I have to set my faith aside when I am engaged in discussions....it's futile to have a discussion with an atheist who don't believe that God/gods exists, with me saying "It's my God! He created everything!"

I'm not promoting Flew. I'm giving Flew as one of the many examples of atheists in various fields who eventually ended up recanting. At least give me credits for not just giving names of only those who converted to Christianity. I also included a deist.

Besides, why shouldn't I give him as an example?

Not only did he accept ID as more credible than random chance (which says so much for evolution/origin).....he also underlined that acceptance by changing his belief - dropping atheism!

Furthermore, Flew position (and he was a philosopher) was merely that the complexity of nature and the origin of life can only be explained by the presence of a super-intelligence. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF A CREATOR.

For non-believers, that's a start. It's like skinny-dipping. You wade in gradually. :)

Some may not accept it...some will eventually find their way to God...and some may just settle half-way.

To non-believers, it may not be the evidence of God, but of course it's the evidence of Inteligent Design aka Prime Mover aka Creator.....road-sign pointing towards God.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I'm debating with atheists and agnostics. I have to set my faith aside when I am engaged in discussions....it's futile to have a discussion with an atheist who don't believe that God/gods exists, with me saying "It's my God! He created everything!"

I'm not promoting Flew. I'm giving Flew as one of the many examples of atheists in various fields who eventually ended up recanting. At least give me credits for not just giving names of only those who converted to Christianity. I also included a deist.

Besides, why shouldn't I give him as an example?

Not only did he accept ID as more credible than random chance (which says so much for evolution/origin).....he also underlined that acceptance by changing his belief - dropping atheism!

All you are doing is hiding behind these people instead of engaging the actual arguments. "Gee if this smart guy believes it, then they must be on to something!" It's a classic appeal to authority and it does nothing to undermine the scientific and logical evidence against ID and creationism.

For non-believers, that's a start. It's like skinny-dipping. You wade in gradually.

Some may not accept it...some will eventually find their way to God...and some may just settle half-way.

To non-believers, it may not be the evidence of God, but of course it's the evidence of Inteligent Design aka Prime Mover aka Creator.....road-sign pointing towards God.

Again: it's not evidence of God or a Prime Mover or aliens or anything else. That's the inference you draw from it, but it's not, in and of itself, evidence, anymore than a bolt of lightning is evidence of Thor's wrath (can you prove otherwise?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All you are doing is hiding behind these people instead of engaging the actual arguments.

But this is my argument! You guys don't want me to use these people as evidence because their sudden recanting of atheism after comparison of ID and Random Chance speaks for itself.

Action speaks louder than words.

All you are doing is hiding behind these people instead of engaging the actual arguments.

What "actual" arguments? TalkOrigin rebuttals? Adhominem?

Hypocritical accusations of "quote-mining?"

Personal opinions? Ramblings and rantings?

Circular arguments?

Setting parameters?

"Gee if this smart guy believes it, then they must be on to something!" It's a classic appeal to authority and it does nothing to undermine the scientific and logical evidence against ID and creationism.

Ha-ha-ha These smart people are not the type to just be content on reading popular science or consulting with TalkOrigin, nor are they the type to be gullible to accept what is presented to them without much scrutiny and understanding. They have their own individual reputations to uphold! They don't hide behind anonymous identities like posters in online forums! They've placed their credentials/qualifications/reputations on the line when they did swallow their own words and recanted!

Action speaks louder than words.

You cannot possibly ignore that glaring fact! Unless of course, just like you putting a parameter as to how far you should go in your search for the so-called truth.... you also want to put a limit as to how far we can reason in our discussion.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I meant when I spoke about the box. Remember?

Sure do.

The question is: Do you really want to know?

Of course!

If yes, then be prepared to knock down walls or break a window to look out or take a step outside...even if this leads you to what you dread of finding.

I don't "dread" discovering that god exists. I used to believe that God exists, and it was not a difficult proposition for me.

It would appear you're claiming religious discovery as some radical occurence that happens to those who bravely "look outside the box."

Except that most people already do believe in God. It's not radical, and it's not brave. It's usual, and it's easy as hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...