Comments on: The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith” – Objection #3, part 2 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/ Atheism, Evolution, Skepticism Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:46:53 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: dan http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-3230 dan Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:44:02 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-3230 We also don't try to fit God into our "social theory of benevolence". Rather, and disturbingly, you seem to square the circle by forcing benevolence to comply with your "religious theory of God". But obviously, no one can argue with a being who's every action is pre-defined as good even when he ordains rape, genocide, misogyny, and a myriad of crimes against humanity. Were i an omnicidal maniac, i'd wish *i had God's marketing team on my side. Never mind those pesky mortal institutions like the UN ICJ. We also don’t try to fit God into our “social theory of benevolence”. Rather, and disturbingly, you seem to square the circle by forcing benevolence to comply with your “religious theory of God”. But obviously, no one can argue with a being who’s every action is pre-defined as good even when he ordains rape, genocide, misogyny, and a myriad of crimes against humanity.

Were i an omnicidal maniac, i’d wish *i had God’s marketing team on my side. Never mind those pesky mortal institutions like the UN ICJ.

]]> By: dan http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-3229 dan Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:41:12 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-3229 You misunderstand the meaning of "theory". It is (right now) quite impossible to reproduce the origin of life in our labs. That means evolution isn't a law *yet, but it's still a theory in the sense that it's the best fit for what data we *do have. It's also not been possible to "prove" the theories of gravity and electricity. However, i (don't) wonder what would happen to those who refuse to acknowledge these theories and step off cliffs or play with live wires. You misunderstand the meaning of “theory”. It is (right now) quite impossible to reproduce the origin of life in our labs. That means evolution isn’t a law *yet, but it’s still a theory in the sense that it’s the best fit for what data we *do have.

It’s also not been possible to “prove” the theories of gravity and electricity. However, i (don’t) wonder what would happen to those who refuse to acknowledge these theories and step off cliffs or play with live wires.

]]> By: Sivana http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-2645 Sivana Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:36:52 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-2645 Another great instalment. I just want to add on the whole analogy with language thing that languages do evolve. Oops for Strobel, I guess. There's the obvious problem with arguments from analogy that sometimes two things can appear to be the same, but actually aren't. Then there's the less-often discussed issue that the analogy you're making has to actually be factually correct! ;) Another great instalment. I just want to add on the whole analogy with language thing that languages do evolve. Oops for Strobel, I guess. There’s the obvious problem with arguments from analogy that sometimes two things can appear to be the same, but actually aren’t. Then there’s the less-often discussed issue that the analogy you’re making has to actually be factually correct! ;)

]]> By: Dread http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-2267 Dread Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:33:09 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-2267 Your first contention blows away the rest of your rant. It's not that it's impossible to win the lottery, it's that you have not only have to win the lottery in your life time but several times in your lifetime to validate these theories as they are proposed. That the sequence of events that are the theory of creation may be in question. However the validity of the experiments is NEVER REFUTED, it's their relevance to the actual events in question. Most important, it's simply that the time line to have all the circumstance fall in place is IMPOSSIBLE by the basic theory of thermodynamics that all us PhD Physicist's agree as how physical reality works. That Strobel doesn't understand science is a given. That Strobel is not perfect, because he's Christian is a given. To spin his statements into defied judgments is a typical hostile atheist narcissism that he sees himself as deity like you see yourself as deity. The more serious issue is that you do not understand the nature of God as he is present in the world and want him to fit into your social theory of benevolence ... which is no way ever stated as being the way of the God in the Torah, the Bible or the Koran. Psalm 69 for instance ... Your first contention blows away the rest of your rant. It’s not that it’s impossible to win the lottery, it’s that you have not only have to win the lottery in your life time but several times in your lifetime to validate these theories as they are proposed. That the sequence of events that are the theory of creation may be in question. However the validity of the experiments is NEVER REFUTED, it’s their relevance to the actual events in question. Most important, it’s simply that the time line to have all the circumstance fall in place is IMPOSSIBLE by the basic theory of thermodynamics that all us PhD Physicist’s agree as how physical reality works.

That Strobel doesn’t understand science is a given. That Strobel is not perfect, because he’s Christian is a given. To spin his statements into defied judgments is a typical hostile atheist narcissism that he sees himself as deity like you see yourself as deity.

The more serious issue is that you do not understand the nature of God as he is present in the world and want him to fit into your social theory of benevolence … which is no way ever stated as being the way of the God in the Torah, the Bible or the Koran. Psalm 69 for instance …

]]> By: Brights unter Beschuss | DER MISANTHROP http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-1805 Brights unter Beschuss | DER MISANTHROP Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:03:17 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-1805 [...] bedeutet wie: Wirres Gebrabbel. [Die üblichen kreationistischen Argumente werden übrigens hier auseinander [...] [...] bedeutet wie: Wirres Gebrabbel. [Die üblichen kreationistischen Argumente werden übrigens hier auseinander [...]

]]> By: tinyfrog http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-1552 tinyfrog Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:25:15 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-1552 <i>Did Strobel imply that Darwin had mentioned a “warm little pond” in Origin? From the context of your quote that sort of seems like what he’s implying, which is, of course, false.</i> No, not in Origin of the Species. Here's what Strobel wrote on that: <blockquote>Bradley: "In 1871 [Darwin] wrote a letter in which he did some speculation -- it wasn't even a hypothesis, just some brainstorming." With that, Bradley read Darwin's words: <blockquote>"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." (Quoted from "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", p.202)</blockquote> Closing the book, Bradley said, "So Darwin was the first one to theorize that life emerged from chemicals reacting in some 'warm little pond.'" (p.132)</blockquote> Did Strobel imply that Darwin had mentioned a “warm little pond” in Origin? From the context of your quote that sort of seems like what he’s implying, which is, of course, false.

No, not in Origin of the Species. Here’s what Strobel wrote on that:

Bradley: “In 1871 [Darwin] wrote a letter in which he did some speculation — it wasn’t even a hypothesis, just some brainstorming.” With that, Bradley read Darwin’s words:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” (Quoted from “The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin”, p.202)

Closing the book, Bradley said, “So Darwin was the first one to theorize that life emerged from chemicals reacting in some ‘warm little pond.’” (p.132)

]]> By: Bad http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-1551 Bad Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:34:53 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-1551 The RNA-world hypothesis gained a little bit of steam recently with work into a sort of genealogy of a transition from RNA performing chemical functions to proteins taking over that task. I wrote about this <a href="http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/science-trudges-on-towards-origins-of-early-life-heedless-of-creationists/" rel="nofollow">a little ways back</a> complete with my outlines of the creationist and ID theorist alternatives. :) Did Strobel imply that Darwin had mentioned a "warm little pond" in Origin? From the context of your quote that sort of seems like what he's implying, which is, of course, false. I'm eagerly waiting your next piece: justifying genocide is always a real measure of a truly committed apologist. The RNA-world hypothesis gained a little bit of steam recently with work into a sort of genealogy of a transition from RNA performing chemical functions to proteins taking over that task. I wrote about this a little ways back complete with my outlines of the creationist and ID theorist alternatives. :)

Did Strobel imply that Darwin had mentioned a “warm little pond” in Origin? From the context of your quote that sort of seems like what he’s implying, which is, of course, false.

I’m eagerly waiting your next piece: justifying genocide is always a real measure of a truly committed apologist.

]]> By: Techskeptic http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-1550 Techskeptic Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:01:06 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/#comment-1550 What an excellent summary and exposition. Once again, good work Tiny. When someone does shows each of the steps in abiogenesis, and does create a full single celled organism there will be two complaints: 1) they did it in a lab and therefore its not applicable 2) Who caused the lightning strike (or other event) to bring those polymers (or which step) together? #1 is seen all the time and was the initial reaction to the miller experiments. No matter how close the lab resembles what we think is a natural condition the complaint will always be that it is not a natural condition and therefore it is not applicable. #2 is a result of the Gap God getting smaller and smaller gaps. If God can't be found in a micro scope, they will look in an electron microscope. If it cant be found there, then he is found in quantum mechanics and the Higgs Boson. I think we have to face up to the fact that a majority of human beings can't help it. Most of us have genetic dispositions to believe in a higher power. THats my assertion, one day i'll bakc that up on my blog. I think education can help, but I doubt God will ever be made irrelevant as it should be, at least not in our lifetimes. What an excellent summary and exposition. Once again, good work Tiny.

When someone does shows each of the steps in abiogenesis, and does create a full single celled organism there will be two complaints:

1) they did it in a lab and therefore its not applicable
2) Who caused the lightning strike (or other event) to bring those polymers (or which step) together?

#1 is seen all the time and was the initial reaction to the miller experiments. No matter how close the lab resembles what we think is a natural condition the complaint will always be that it is not a natural condition and therefore it is not applicable.

#2 is a result of the Gap God getting smaller and smaller gaps. If God can’t be found in a micro scope, they will look in an electron microscope. If it cant be found there, then he is found in quantum mechanics and the Higgs Boson.

I think we have to face up to the fact that a majority of human beings can’t help it. Most of us have genetic dispositions to believe in a higher power. THats my assertion, one day i’ll bakc that up on my blog. I think education can help, but I doubt God will ever be made irrelevant as it should be, at least not in our lifetimes.

]]>