Comparing Atheism and Christianity (atheist, quotes, God, evolution)

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Ok. You can avoid talking about evolution. we can avoid talking about it, too. Thus we can simply say that evolution (accepted science, which is why discussion of it is not allowed to go on, here) gives an explanation that explains 'design' without there having to be an 'Intelligence' behind it. You can post anything you like on it (within Tos - if not, don't act the martyr if you get deleted) and we can post any refutations we like.

Huh? how can evolution explain design when the christian is told over and over again there is no design in creation?

It hardly matters, as he was either bamboozled by Behe or by some other theist apologetic, none of which are valid.

P.s I had a look at reasons why Anthony Flew converted. I found on 'bethinking:
"..A number of well-placed sources said that Flew had recently come to believe in the existence of some kind of God, and that this shift in thinking was due in no small part to the kinds of arguments advanced by the Intelligent Design movement. Flew has since confirmed to The Associated Press that: 'his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, ..."

Which is , just as I said, Behe's arguments. Now the burden of proof is on you to say why you think that wasn't why Flew was fooled into becoming a Theist

You did not prove anything by that quote, now if you had these so called "well placed sources" you might have something to go on.

And of course he would have similarities to ID as he became a theist.

What you would have to prove is flew became a theist because of ID instead of the reasons he actually gave in his book you refuse to read.

So instead of getting first hand knowledge you will continue to make things up and take pot shots at Flew age or some other disparaging comments toward him.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

No, you are putting your world view before the evidence that natural forces create things, from snowflakes to stars. Natural forces, each and every time.


.

and where did these natural forces come from?

One based on what we know. Intelligent beings exist and do natural things. So it is more plausible than a god who must be even more complex, and therefore (according to creationist argumentss) even more improbable.

If we are made in the image and likeness of God how is it God must be more complex and improbable then we are?

Design avoids redundancy. The universe is 99.99999999999999% redundant, as most of it can not support life.

the sun, moon and stars where made for times and seasons so they are not redundant, they have a purpose.

It has large rocks that pass by earth at least 3 time per week, rocks that could destroy civilization
That is not design, that is what we expect to see from NO design

and you know it was not designed this way, how?

You have no designed universe

yes we do, however the design of the universe has not yet been completed as it is still expanding.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

No, I do NOT see design. You really must stop inventing.

I design software, I know good design, and how it avoids redundancy. The universe is over 99.999999999999% redundant, and has nasty, 5km wide viruses that could wipe out most life forms on this planet if they hit. That is BAD design (just as planting a forbidden tree where innocents can eat from it is).

Then you should have recognized that the echo sound of a bat was a good design and did not just resemble a good design.

And just by that answer I know you do not understand the tree nor it purpose.

Snowflakes. We are talking about snowflakes. And planets. And clouds. You know, complex things created by natural forces.

are you saying animals are not complex things? we have diversity in all things created.

So all the biologists are wrong and Flew was correct? Avoid the evidence much? Cha, cha, cha.

Hmmm you told me that I could not say Josephus was all over the map because I did not look up every date he ever recorded in his books. So as you say all the biologist are telling me and flew we are wrong are you telling me that you have read everything all the biologist have written on the subject? If not then you are exaggerating your claim and have been found out. We both know not all biologist disagree with me and flew. So just what evidence am I avoiding?

After all it is biology that has made the biggest gains in showing Gods design via the big bang (creation) in the Cambrian explosion and the specified information to build that life.

And the biologists you pretend do not exist.

I think that hat belongs to you as you said ALL the biologist disagreed with me and flew.

Flew wrote at least 30 books, so all atheists must have heard of him? Yet the atheists I know or have read all say they had never heard of him until creationists made him the most famous atheist EVER.

So what?do you know all atheists?

So (allegedly) writing something when old and forgetful refutes ALL his earlier work AND ALL the work of biologists? Please.

You bought Flew into the argument while ignoring all the many biologists. You cherry picked one old and confused man

there you go again when you guys cant deal with the information given you turn to attack mode, saying things just like you did here, old and confused

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Then you should have recognized that the echo sound of a bat was a good design and did not just resemble a good design.

One can only wonder why, if the bat is so well designed, the 'designer' made such a lousy job of humans.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You are missing the point.

The origin of life is nothing to do with intelligent design. You only Think it is because you say 'Goddunnit' as the answer to both.

I am sure I've told you this before, but here it is - no, nobody knows how life started, but there are some hypothetical mechanisms and indirect evidence (it started in a sea, not on land) that rules out genesis if not a god. (1)

Design relates to complex formation of species. Evolution explains that well enough that an intelligence is not a needed hypothesis or even a plausible one, even if nobody knows 100%.

You should think in terms of the probabilities according to the evidence, not of what cannot be 100% ruled out, never mind what isn't known one way or the other.



It's good enough that you don't appear to have a worthwhile response to it.

(1) I checked your Dawkins quote and he is taking of one of the several possible explanations of how life started - not how it developed once it got here, but how it got here - put by a god (name your own), by alien scientists, by a comet or meteor or just came out of chemical reaction from the biochemicals and water already here. That quote is nothing to do with intelligent design in the way it is actually used- a 'design' that cannot be explained other than by a intelligence designing it. But, just as Creationists regard evolution, 'abiogenesis' is taken as meaning 'denial that God did it all'.

and just how do you know that if you do not know how life started? all you are doing is going beyond what sciences actually says. and we all know you have a fundy mindset when it comes to genesis, their wrong and so are you.


well you better take that one up with harry as harry says there is no such thing a design in creation




So let’s look once more at one of Dawkins quotes.


Quote:
“Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer. . . .”

So the question is which is the most logical conclusion? That random mutation can produce something (Echo-sounding by bats) that would resemble what a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer could design or a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer designed the Echo-sounding by bats.


So which is more probable? That random mutation can produce something (Echo-sounding by bats) that would resemble what a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer could design or a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer designed the Echo-sounding by bats.


the question asked was one of ID and dawkins response was it could be, only he through if it could be it would be by some alien intelligence, not God.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Of course there might be things that science cannot know and the things that we do know, scientifically, are not 100% since that is not what science does. We don't know 100% that design is not possible but what we do know is that the evidence suggests otherwise. This is not hard to grasp! There are no design elements and certainly none that point to any specific God.

I really wish you guys would stick with one theory. You and harry say there is no design in creation, trans says there is design in creation. seem you guys are divided on the question.


and if you do not know 100 percent then you cannot rule out design or the designer. yet you do

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I did answer it! And you are not understanding Dawkins' point at all! It has been explained to you in it's proper context.

and in that proper context Dawkins still said


now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

I think if you guys claimed "god created us" to mean "god created us like we create blood cells in us" you would have a better argument.

and keep pounding that god is as natural as anything we see around us. That would be good too.

God is as natural as anything around us, something we see and the things we don't see we see the effects of that which is unseen. the movement of the wind through the trees would be an example of such.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Huh? how can evolution explain design when the christian is told over and over again there is no design in creation?

I cancelled what I originally typed because perhaps you are suggesting ...hang on...

I originally typed 'There Is design in 'creation' (that is nature) but not Intelligent design. Since there is an explanation (in fact evidence) for how it can happen naturally.

But maybe you mean that according to atheism, a created nature would have no design. Which doesn't make sense, because in either Creationism or evolution, 'design' is what comes to be in order to do the job of surviving in an environment. In neither case are you told that there can 'be no design'.

You did not prove anything by that quote, now if you had these so called "well placed sources" you might have something to go on.

And of course he would have similarities to ID as he became a theist.

What you would have to prove is flew became a theist because of ID instead of the reasons he actually gave in his book you refuse to read.

So instead of getting first hand knowledge you will continue to make things up and take pot shots at Flew age or some other disparaging comments toward him.

I thought you might say that. It is one quote and of what credibility I know not. But it is at least a first hit indication that ID is seen as the reason that Flew became a theist.

I can find some more quotes on the matter. You can try to find some saying what other reasons there were.

Here one comment on Wiki

"In a 2004 interview (published 9 December), Flew, then 81 years old, said that he had become a deist.[44] In the article Flew states that he has renounced his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated ("While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings"). Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it".

BBC (Will and testament)
" Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that has guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments . . . I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. "

Now here, Intelligent design is only hinted at. He is also talking about Cosmic and life origins. But I would suggest that those in itself would not have persuaded him if I/C had not convinced him that there was "Scientific" evidence of I/D which he evidently sees (unlike Creationists) as an intelligence helping evolution to work rather than creation and not evolving.

I'll do one more and then I may give my view on Flew, since it is relevant to topic and there seems a lot of misunderstanding about it.

"I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are
supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam
cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think
the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." (Deism Com)


https://www.deism.com/antony_flew_Deism_interview.pdf

(links given as it is a 'click here' in the web-page article.
As a philosopher, Flew would know that the First cause arguments are not good enough. He says here that Kalam doesn't impress him.

He saw the I/D argument as 'scientific' and indeed it would have been if it was valid, but it wasn't. That it originates (as was determined at the Dover trial) in Genesis literalism would be irrelevant IF I/C had been sound science, but it wasn't.

That is where Flew went wrong and while his following the evidence where it leads is what any atheist should do, he allowed himself to be led before the evidence had been validated. I don't know whether he realised that he had been bamboozled by Behe's I/C before he died, or not, but he was bamboozled by Creationism. Anthony Flew is a credit to atheism as being willing to be convinced by compelling evidence, even if it helps the Theist cause. But he is a salutary reminder that we are justified in not being rushed into accepting the 'evidence' of the believers too quickly. It is something that we should bear in mind right now, when the NDE-enthusiasts are demanding that they be taken as proof of an afterlife, heaven, soul and God, when the research is still going on.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

and just how do you know that if you do not know how life started? all you are doing is going beyond what sciences actually says. and we all know you have a fundy mindset when it comes to genesis, their wrong and so are you.

I have already told you that. Nobody knows for sure. BUT there are plausible mechanisms to explain how by natural processes, there are other hypotheses for how the DNA or basics of Life arrived or appeared, and indirect evidence (suggesting an origin in the sea) points to an evolution of Life rather than a creation. There is no reason to favour creation as a theory, and reasons to favour a natural origin.

well you better take that one up with harry as harry says there is no such thing a design in creation

It depends what is meant. I believe he would agree that there is order, or nothing would work. That is the 'design' (or appearance of design) in biology. But it does not need to be intelligent design, that's where you are misunderstanding. It can happen naturally, and it can be explained how and moreover Harry's point that the universe is generally not suitable for life is a valid one, as is Raff's that much of evolved design often isn't very good. Notably with human upright posture with a skeleton better designed to go on four legs - which is why humans have back problems so often.

So let’s look once more at one of Dawkins quotes.


Quote:
“Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer. . . .”

So the question is which is the most logical conclusion? That random mutation can produce something (Echo-sounding by bats) that would resemble what a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer could design or a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer designed the Echo-sounding by bats.


So which is more probable? That random mutation can produce something (Echo-sounding by bats) that would resemble what a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer could design or a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer designed the Echo-sounding by bats.


the question asked was one of ID and dawkins response was it could be, only he through if it could be it would be by some alien intelligence, not God.

I believe you are misrepresenting all of this. The quote shows that Dawkins is talking of evolved design which is so well adapted and intricate that it has the appearance of Intelligent design, and yet on evidence, it isn't. Which is the point you evaded and instead moved to the unrelated origins (not evolution) of life, where nobody knows for sure and there are several possibilities, though - as I said, indirect evidence favours origins here naturally, in the sea from the biochemicals which are abundant in the Universe.

Now, you can see that you are getting nowhere and doing your case no good. Also you know that debating evolution is not encouraged here, so I again suggest- drop this.