If God created...

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

If God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age", then what is the "apparent age" of the earth and the universe?

Age is in the eye of the beholder, to me it looks 5988 years old, approximately.

https://guidetothebible.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/guidechronologylatest1.pdf

 

[gcthomas]

My automatically derived estimate for Easter being fiction is not 100% certain, so I'm left with essentially Pascal's wager, and in the face of not being 100% certain that Easter is fictional, the only reasonable choice, according to game theory, is to choose to believe Easter is nonfiction.

Pascal's Wager really implies that to be on the safe side you should attend as many different churches as possible on Sundays, as well as Temples on Saturdays, and the Mosques on Friday (at least one Sunni and one Shia), just in case you have picked the wrong God model. You might also find that God doesn't reward those worshipping for utilitarian purposes, so Pascal's Wager folks might be denied the rewards that could be given to a clean living atheist by a forgiving God. Which action is 'on the safe side'?

You see, Pascal's Wager doesn't actually help you make the decision as there are too many unknowns. Certainly, attending church guarantees an opportunity cost - time that could be spent doing other valuable things. It is not obvious that I should pay that cost for such an uncertain and unknown benefit.

 

[Nihilo]

Pascal's Wager really implies that to be on the safe side you should attend as many different churches as possible on Sundays, as well as Temples on Saturdays, and the Mosques on Friday (at least one Sunni and one Shia), just in case you have picked the wrong God model. You might also find that God doesn't reward those worshipping for utilitarian purposes, so Pascal's Wager folks might be denied the rewards that could be given to a clean living atheist by a forgiving God. Which action is 'on the safe side'?

First, that's why I said "essentially" Pascal's wager. To be clearer, what I'm faced with, is knowing that believing Easter is the sin qua non of the Christian faith. None of that other stuff is essential to the faith. So the wager I'm making is quite a bit less risky that the version of the wager that you're thinking about.

You see, Pascal's Wager doesn't actually help you make the decision as there are too many unknowns.

There's only one unknown in the version of the wager I'm talking about, which is whether or not Easter is nonfiction or fiction.

Certainly, attending church guarantees an opportunity cost - time that could be spent doing other valuable things. It is not obvious that I should pay that cost for such an uncertain and unknown benefit.

And in my version of the wager, there's none of that concern. The only concern is, if I choose wrongly, eternity is an awfully long time. This rules out being able to confidently choose against Easter being nonfiction, based on odds that are typically sufficient to make a choice. Trillions of trillions-to-1 against, is just not long enough. In most choices, 10-to-1 is good enough, 100-to-1 is unnecessary. In others, like whether to fly on a commercial airliner, I personally would need closer to 10000-100000 or even a million-to-1 chance that the plane will crash on landing. I wouldn't board a plane unless I had to, if there was a 10-to-1 shot that it'd crash on landing. And I wouldn't dismiss Easter as fictional unless the odds it's nonfiction is literally zero, and from what I can tell, it's not.

Because eternity is an awful long time.

 

[gcthomas]

Because eternity is an awful long time.

But you don't know which religous practises are necessary and which could upset a god. Does Easter get you saved, or committed to the fires of hell because you ignored the Muslim worship?

How can you tell which will work and which actions will cause punishment?

 

[Nihilo]

But you don't know which religous practises are necessary and which could upset a god.

I do suppose that if the supernatural is nonfiction, then there'd be preponderance of evidence. This limits the choices to those claims and claimants who are in great number, and with a lengthy history of success, so between Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, to take the first ones off the top. Between these three, 4-to-5 of every seven of us are one of them. Now, which between these three? Which one has the best news?

Does Easter get you saved, or committed to the fires of hell because you ignored the Muslim worship?

How can you tell which will work and which actions will cause punishment?

Within the Christian tradition, I've concluded that the Catholic Church is the church that Christ Himself built. I think history bears it out. And this church teaches that the good news of Easter is the "crowning" and "central" fact of the Christian faith. And in the Christian Bible, it is said that Easter and Easter alone, if it be fictional, renders the entire faith vain. So I'm confident that Easter is the focus of Christianity, and that believing Easter is nonfiction, is saving Christian faith.

 

[Lon]

Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for 24 years. In Sweden, that Holy Wikipedia page says 'One reason for the high membership might be the fact that until 1996 all newborns with at least one parent being member of the Church of Sweden were also registered as members of the church.
Although, 'Irreligion' can, bizarrely, include 'christians', according to Pew.

YOU brought up Czech :dizzy:

I see no evidence of that. Can you provide it? Rates of declared atheism are usually relatively low. But that's often because the word 'atheist' is subject to prejudice in some countries, or is just not how non-believers like to refer to themselves. I wish there were no 'atheists' as such, because then no human would be identifying in terms of the religious delusions of others.

However, agnosticism is more popular, and I

I still don't think you are going to side with those with a vague feeling of something bigger than themselves, as they often put it.

Incorrect, they are partially correct. You? All wrong.

Hilarious. Have you ever seen this sky friend? No.

Irrational. John 1:18 THEREFORE I MUST know some other way.
:think: Or don't.

We all have Truth. For some people that may even involve believing things that are true.

Nope. Irrational again (means not true).

It isn't true that any human has ever walked again after being executed.

He wasn't just human. You are weird about what you 'think' can and cannot happen. You imagine a lightening bolt striking a pool several billion years ago can make you 'love' your children. Which is ACTUALLY more plausible than the other??? :think: (If I can't get you to think, this conversation is fruitless. Your wall-building with feigned incredulity is proceeding. You are building this wall, not me.

Stuu: Have you asked Jupiter into your life yet?

I realize others ask you the same but I haven't. YET you admitted Jesus walked the earth is 'reasonable' (more than reasonable).

So, no, you haven't talked with Jupiter yet. Don't worry, I think he is quite patient. Although, the classical gods can get a bit angry as I understand it. Still, you will be used to that with your one too.

So, if I pray to him, incredible answers to prayer will occur multiple times? He has a book that tells me what life is all about? What the problem is with we humans? :think: Do YOU ever think about your equivocations or just enjoy living with half-truths and mistruths? :think:

Stuu: because it is you who has the outrageous claims of magic that goes so far beyond our common observation

Right, like 'love' from a lightening bolt....

It may be your Truth, but it is not true that humans walk again after being executed. Did that worry you in the past, that you were believing something ridiculous? How have you managed to suppress that nagging feeling that it's all just made up? It looks to me like you actually work very hard on that quite a lot, but not publicly.

Because he wasn't just human. How do lightening bolts work for you? We are into something incredible and like your more honest agnostic friends, something bigger than the both of us.

Stuu: and therefore you have the burden of proof for them.

That's not satisfying the burden of proof of hilariously absurd claims.

Avoidance. Paul planted, Apollos watered, God gave the increase. There is not way around meeting a God than meeting Him. It is the only way. John 14:6

And neither are you convincing.

Um, 'point the way.' If your own God-given brains don't work, grace will have to suffice. I do pray He will make Himself known to you.

Right, so it actually doesn't matter much whether it's true or not. It could be malicious code. I think actually it is exactly that, a meme that has evolved to exploit quite well-known weaknesses of the human brain, with quite ingenious methods of reproduction, but which is dependent on some degree of gullibility, as with flat earth memes, moon landing conspiracies, homeopathy, creationism and Nigerian email scams.

I'm part native American. We were into homeopath before MD's. There is some kinship between homeopathology and lab medicine. Point? Your analogous memery is false equivocation.

There is only one atheist position: there are no gods. There is no unambiguous evidence of any kind that contradicts that position. There is a great deal of wishful thinking for gods, but that shouldn't convince anyone.

Stuart

As I said, it is more emoting than rationality behind such thought. "No god" is irrational. Things matter, therefore something had to matter, on purpose, in our creation.

 

[Lon]

Based on this post and your history here, ""IF" something matters, you are no longer an atheist." leads to your particular deity? Really? Even you have to see that is total nonsense--unless of course you "NEED" that outside source to give your life meaning. I don't. I am perfectly happy loving my family the way things are.

And it is clear that atheism is not "untenable for life". Last I looked neither of my dogs had any particular religion, and it did not seem to interfere with their life.

Simply enjoying the benefits without contemplating the giver. It isn't really atheism at that point, then.

 

[Jonahdog]

Simply enjoying the benefits without contemplating the giver. It isn't really atheism at that point, then.

The giver?

 

[6days]

Yes, that was indeed the point I was making. It takes an intelligent, skilful creator to make a wristwatch, but the appearance of the diversity of life on earth didn't take any intelligence or foresight.

That is illogical. A wristwatch not only contains the raw ingredients, but it contains information. A code was devized (24 hour time); info is transmitted and recieved. IE you can look at your watch and know what the time is. Codes, where information is sent and received, ALWAYS have a code maker. (traffic signs, braille, language, etc) According to Bill Gates our DNA is the most sophisticated software in existence. Not only can we look at your watch to see that there is design, purpose, function but the fact that it transmits information to us confirms intelligence. The only reason you make an exception, denying intelligence in the world around us, is because you seemed forced to do so by your belief system.

As Douglas Adams said: Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!"

That is a pretty stupid analogy to refute Fred Hoyle's argument, isn't it? ( in spite of Richard Dawkins thinking it's brilliant). It fails on a number of levels, such as assuming a puddle can develop conciousness. Who, but an athiest could imagine a warm little thinking puddle.

So you do think that pseudogenes that are recently inserted damaged copies of genes can be called junk then?

Science proved Francis Collins was wrong using that argument, so I'm not sure why you still think it's good. My answer to your question (3rd time now) "science continues to find functionality in things evolutionists of the past dismissed as junk". Evolutionist should not be so eager to dismiss things as biological remnants. That hinder science

They don't, they speak in churches.

Yes... some creationists speak in churches; some teach in high schools, some are university professors, some hold conferences at universities, some work in labs, some drive trucks etc.

Well, anyway, exactly what 'creation' stories does this James Huggins (teach)

As a biology professor, he teaches biology. I'm not sure if he discusses his beliefs about the past in a classroom. (Same as the other example I gave, a friend of mine teaches biology / veterinary medicine at a state university. She does so without teaching either of the 2 opposing belief systems).

 

[6days]

It is a fact of both history and science that birds are the only descendants of dinosaurs.

That belief has lead to many shoddy conclusions about fossils. It even causes evolutionists to see feathers sometimes, where none exist. It is a belief that is rejected by all creationist scientists, and some evolutionist scientists who are experts on bird anatomy.
《And... science indicates a flying T-rex would make a great bomber... but not a bird.》

You are calling an eye that is just a rudimentary light spot 'optimal', even though there are other eyes out there that have focusing lens systems that can form images?

There are many eye types, and each seems optimally designed for that creature. A light sensitive spot is not an eye, but certainly is an optimal 'stucture'.

Re your comment about a rudimentary light spot. It is actually VERY sophisticated and something scientists were not able to understand until recently. They were puzzled how light-absorbing chromophore called 11-cis-retinal could "EVOLVE" in visual pigments. In our eyes there is something called rhodopsin made of two molecules, one is vitamin A and a protein called opsin. (Rhodopsin is one of the reasons researchers say the eye vis optimally designed. It is able to capture a single photon of light) Anyways...when light is sensed by the vitamin, it amazingly changes shape becoming 11-cis-retinal molecule, which is like a light sensitive switch. But what was 'SURPRISING" to the researchers is that vitamin A would"select" the 11th carbon bond... and not another isomer. The answer is that the vitamin can't receive light using any other isomer, and would not react with the protein opsin. The chemist Sekharan mentioned in the PhysOrg article says, "This indeed is very surprising given the fact that, outside the protein environment, 11-cis-retinal is one of the least stable isomers..."
Surprising to the evolutionists......... It's an amazing design, and evidence of our designer.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-mystery-eye.html

If you were allowed to shut the whole thing down (the space station)and rewire everything, no doubt a much more logical redesign would be possible.

I'm sure NASA engineers will be eager to hear your suggestions.

They could go behind the eye, along with the nerve supply, like they do in cephalopods. .

So, you will toss the superior design eagle eyes have, and replace it with the simple verted eye design. For one thing, the retina in verted eyes does not have the fovea centralis, I mentioned earlier. (Our main point of focus). Or, will add this, along with necessary wiring? And, why are you tossing the mueller cells? (I mentioned a fibre optic type design before). Without the inverted design, how will you protect the retina from burn-out? Octopus who have verted eyes usually are in lower light conditions and they live about 4 years. Will you keep the ganglion cells, the rods and cones? You are going to lose the positive feedback synapse without the inverted design. And... much more.

There still are some dinosaurs (who are now birds, of course) who believe our retina is backwards. Researchers have now realized the inverted retina design is "optimal" and "superior". The most advanced verted eye system pales in sophistication to our inverted retina design..Unable to refute that the inverted design is superior, they now seem to have a blind spot to the evidence.

That's probably your best point so far.

Well... thank you!! But Stuu.... ALL of my points are really, really good!

I think the answer is probably in quantum theory...

I enjoyed your answer. It reminded me of atheists who say a quantum fluctation may be the initial cause of everything. (Side point but a fluctuation can't exist in absolute nothingness).
Todays news re 'In the beginning...'... http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...ientists-attempt-to-find-out-why-it-does.html Evidence ... we are here in a created universe, the evidence piles up.

It might actually be some processing trick that the brain doesn't respond to triggers until there is enough signal to be bothered with, or more likely that dealing with the volume of information from all those photons would be too much to cope with.

Sure... we don't know the answer. It is also possible our brains have less processing capabilities now than in the past, right?

Yes, it's the well-known creationist lying bastard fallacy.

LOL... You are fun. I really was laughing out loud.

But did you not see how they refuted their own claim? They showed what could be done better by a perfect engineer!

Well, I'm not going to go back and read the article right now...BUT, as in all evolutionist articles, they discuss the data (They recognize purpose and function); then they try interpret the data with their beliefs. Same with the genetics we discussed earlier; they discuss the hard data, then try fit that into their belief system. You need to read these articles being able to sort the science, from the beliefs. (Now you know!).

But, the body is stuck with that 'design' because it is stuck with certain embryonic sequences of development.

Very good. As one embryologist, Professor Erich Blechschmidt, explained that the design was due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics". So... its a neccesity of design...it has purpose and function.
(Quote from book 'The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth')

Can you justify all this as the optimum design?

Yes. Science has continually disproven evolutionary claims of poor design...useless...junk...inferior...backwards... sloppy etc. Science continually confirms we live in a world "optimally" designed, but where entropy has caused some corruption of the original design.

So it (Bible) tells you nothing interesting then. It's all just magic.

It is exciting times for Christians, as science reveals the truth of God's Word... and, as science continues to make a mockery of atheist beliefs. (poor eye design, dimwitted Neandertals, life from non life, etc)

 

[Lon]

The giver?

Meaning you simply prefer not to think about things, just enjoy them. That isn't atheism. It is lazy, selfish, crass, not caring, or something else. It isn't 'atheism. More like indifference.

 

[Stuu]

Christians who don't regularly gather in His name, probably? But who still identify as Christian?
I'll match your bald assertion: Easter is nonfiction.
Easter is nonfiction.
Of course.
Because Easter is either fiction, or Easter is nonfiction. No other option. My automatically derived estimate for Easter being fiction is not 100% certain, so I'm left with essentially Pascal's wager, and in the face of not being 100% certain that Easter is fictional, the only reasonable choice, according to game theory, is to choose to believe Easter is nonfiction.
If Easter is a meme, then it is easily the most powerful meme we've ever been infected with. Good luck on your crusade. Vegas has your odds on the order of a trillion-to-1 against being successful, but good luck nonetheless.

That's all admirably honest of you to acknowledge it in that way, and of course I couldn't be honest myself if I gave easter a 0% chance of being true. But no doubt you will appreciate I give it a vanishingly low probability.

There's no unambiguous evidence of any kind that supports it either. You've made your choice, and the Church has made hers.

The problem is that for some of us 'goddidit' is not an explanation of anything. It is a placeholder for finding out what is really going on. I can't prove that doesn't involve a god of the kind you believe, but 'goddidit' is a god of the gaps that shrinks every time we find out how something works.

You must admit, from a christian point of view it would be really interesting to discover how this god makes things, right? So why does no christian ever ask, let alone answer that kind of question?

Apart from the question of why you should have any respect for a god that would be impressed by Pascal's Wager, the overall effect of that folly seems to be to kill the curiosity of those who wage as Pascal did. Mustn't upset the god by questioning it, in case it turns out to be true.

I can't see any god in there that deserves the respect of humans. Pascal's god, the gaps god, the immensely unlikely easter man-god. We are worth more than that. But, of course we are not better than our tendency to invent all that.

Stuart

 

[Jonahdog]

Meaning you simply prefer not to think about things, just enjoy them. That isn't atheism. It is lazy, selfish, crass, not caring, or something else. It isn't 'atheism. More like indifference.

You made a specific reference to "the giver". I wanted to know who that was, what that meant. Now you are suggesting that I prefer not to think about things? Based on my comments on TOL?
So what is "atheism" and what am I missing?

 

[Stuu]

YOU brought up Czech

And you posted a link to a Wikipedia article about Czechoslovakia, which hasn't existed since 1993.

Irrational. John 1:18 THEREFORE I MUST know some other way.

Genesis 12:7, Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:1, Exodus 6:3, Exodus 6:3, Genesis 26:24, Exodus 6:3, Genesis 32:30, Genesis 35:9, Genesis 48:3, Exodus 6:3, Exodus 3:16, Exodus 4:5, Exodus 33:11, Numbers 12:7-1, Deuteronomy 34:10, Exodus 33:23, Exodus 24:9-11, Numbers 14:14, Deuteronomy 5:4, Ezekiel 20:35, Judges 13:22-24, 1 Kings 22:19, Job 42:5, Psalm 63:2, Isaiah 6:1-2, Ezekiel 1:27-28, Amos 9:1, Habakkuk 3:3-5, are all described instances when people didn't need 'some other way'.

He wasn't just human. You are weird about what you 'think' can and cannot happen.

You are specially pleading for a man with superpowers, and you say I'm weird.

You imagine a lightening bolt striking a pool several billion years ago can make you 'love' your children.

Please cite the post in which I wrote anything of the sort, or perhaps withdraw your absurd attempt at a strawman argument.

(If I can't get you to think, this conversation is fruitless. Your wall-building with feigned incredulity is proceeding. You are building this wall, not me.

Political spin.

I realize others ask you the same but I haven't. YET you admitted Jesus walked the earth is 'reasonable' (more than reasonable).

There were probably many ancient Palestinian preachers called Jesus. It is a reasonable proposition that the anonymous writers of the gospel accounts did have one real person in mind, because they had to rewrite history to make this man's life story fit ancient prophecy. If they had just invented Jesus they would not have had to do that.

So, if I pray to him, incredible answers to prayer will occur multiple times? He has a book that tells me what life is all about? What the problem is with we humans? :think: Do YOU ever think about your equivocations or just enjoy living with half-truths and mistruths? :think:

If you really want to understand human nature then read Shakespeare.

We are into something incredible and like your more honest agnostic friends, something bigger than the both of us.

You can't even see it, although the Jewish bible says you should be able to. I wonder what you are doing wrong.

I'm part native American.

Cool.

We were into homeopath before MD's. There is some kinship between homeopathology and lab medicine.

Yes, I suppose they have a kind of complementary relationship. One often works and the other never does.

"No god" is irrational.

Possibly, but No god's main claim is that it's empirical.

Things matter, therefore something had to matter, on purpose, in our creation.

That's irrational.

Stuart

 

[Jonahdog]

That belief has lead to many shoddy conclusions about fossils. It even causes evolutionists to see feathers sometimes, where none exist. It is a belief that is rejected by all creationist scientists, and some evolutionist scientists who are experts on bird anatomy.
《And... science indicates a flying T-rex would make a great bomber... but not a bird.》

There are many eye types, and each seems optimally designed for that creature. A light sensitive spot is not an eye, but certainly is an optimal 'stucture'.

Re your comment about a rudimentary light spot. It is actually VERY sophisticated and something scientists were not able to understand until recently. They were puzzled how light-absorbing chromophore called 11-cis-retinal could "EVOLVE" in visual pigments. In our eyes there is something called rhodopsin made of two molecules, one is vitamin A and a protein called opsin. (Rhodopsin is one of the reasons researchers say the eye vis optimally designed. It is able to capture a single photon of light) Anyways...when light is sensed by the vitamin, it amazingly changes shape becoming 11-cis-retinal molecule, which is like a light sensitive switch. But what was 'SURPRISING" to the researchers is that vitamin A would"select" the 11th carbon bond... and not another isomer. The answer is that the vitamin can't receive light using any other isomer, and would not react with the protein opsin. The chemist Sekharan mentioned in the PhysOrg article says, "This indeed is very surprising given the fact that, outside the protein environment, 11-cis-retinal is one of the least stable isomers..."
Surprising to the evolutionists......... It's an amazing design, and evidence of our designer.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-mystery-eye.html

I'm sure NASA engineers will be eager to hear your suggestions.


So, you will toss the superior design eagle eyes have, and replace it with the simple verted eye design. For one thing, the retina in verted eyes does not have the fovea centralis, I mentioned earlier. (Our main point of focus). Or, will add this, along with necessary wiring? And, why are you tossing the mueller cells? (I mentioned a fibre optic type design before). Without the inverted design, how will you protect the retina from burn-out? Octopus who have verted eyes usually are in lower light conditions and they live about 4 years. Will you keep the ganglion cells, the rods and cones? You are going to lose the positive feedback synapse without the inverted design. And... much more.

There still are some dinosaurs (who are now birds, of course) who believe our retina is backwards. Researchers have now realized the inverted retina design is "optimal" and "superior". The most advanced verted eye system pales in sophistication to our inverted retina design..Unable to refute that the inverted design is superior, they now seem to have a blind spot to the evidence.


Well... thank you!! But Stuu.... ALL of my points are really, really good!

I enjoyed your answer. It reminded me of atheists who say a quantum fluctation may be the initial cause of everything. (Side point but a fluctuation can't exist in absolute nothingness).
Todays news re 'In the beginning...'... http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...ientists-attempt-to-find-out-why-it-does.html Evidence ... we are here in a created universe, the evidence piles up.

Sure... we don't know the answer. It is also possible our brains have less processing capabilities now than in the past, right?

LOL... You are fun. I really was laughing out loud.

Well, I'm not going to go back and read the article right now...BUT, as in all evolutionist articles, they discuss the data (They recognize purpose and function); then they try interpret the data with their beliefs. Same with the genetics we discussed earlier; they discuss the hard data, then try fit that into their belief system. You need to read these articles being able to sort the science, from the beliefs. (Now you know!).

Very good. As one embryologist, Professor Erich Blechschmidt, explained that the design was due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics". So... its a neccesity of design...it has purpose and function.
(Quote from book 'The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth')

Yes. Science has continually disproven evolutionary claims of poor design...useless...junk...inferior...backwards... sloppy etc. Science continually confirms we live in a world "optimally" designed, but where entropy has caused some corruption of the original design.

It is exciting times for Christians, as science reveals the truth of God's Word... and, as science continues to make a mockery of atheist beliefs. (poor eye design, dimwitted Neandertals, life from non life, etc)

Still waiting for science to "prove" the universe is less than 10,000 years old and created in a week. When you get that from science, and not from your Holy Book, let us know.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Still waiting for science to "prove" the universe is less than 10,000 years old and created in a week. When you get that from science, and not from your Holy Book, let us know.

Congrats.

In a matter of days, since it was pointed out to you that scientist's disregarding eyewitness accounts has made them now have to proclaim their ignorance of physics, you have come full circle.

Rogue waves.

Bwaahahahahaaaa!

 

[Lon]

@Lon, of course love makes sense in a universe without any gods. You have disappointed me here, I thought that such a shallow standard of reasoning was beneath you.

Awe, another cheapshot instead of intelligence and reason lain:

From my point of view, the feeling of love is the conscious self-awareness of the pair bonding attachments that many large vertebrates experience.

Wow! Love on par with cows! How extravagant! lain:

You would expect evolution to provide a mechanism to provide for the raising of children via long lived partnerships, and emotional attachments would be the easy way to go about it, and humans have the ability to observe their own emotions. It is obvious really of you'd taken a moment to think about it.

Do you even listen to yourself? You are giving 'Evolution' God-like sentience AND purpose! :doh: You just traded gods is all you did!!!

But knowledge of the ultimate cause does not diminish the value or meaning of the proximate causes of the emotion one bit.

Which is enjoying without contemplation. Romans 1:21 It is an indictment that 1) there are no such thing as atheists who haven't committed intellectual and reasoned seppuku, and failing to be thankful for what you have.

Giddidit is so unsatisfying, ignoring the physical mechanisms as it does.

Incorrect. Such, at the very least, tells you there is purpose and someone cared/s. It may be insufficient for 'how' such was done, but not for 'why' such was done.

 

[Nihilo]

That's all admirably honest of you to acknowledge it in that way, and of course I couldn't be honest myself if I gave easter a 0% chance of being true. But no doubt you will appreciate I give it a vanishingly low probability.

Even if it's a trillion trillions-to-1 underdog, those aren't safe enough odds in my book, especially given that the only stake you're putting up, is in your mind, converting Easter from fictional, to nonfiction. There's literally nothing else to it. It's worth a rethink.

The problem is that for some of us 'goddidit' is not an explanation of anything. It is a placeholder for finding out what is really going on. I can't prove that doesn't involve a god of the kind you believe, but 'goddidit' is a god of the gaps that shrinks every time we find out how something works.

I know, and I avoid that god of the gaps like the plague. I value science.

You must admit, from a christian point of view it would be really interesting to discover how this god makes things, right? So why does no christian ever ask, let alone answer that kind of question?

It is interesting, I do ask it, and I can't answer it.

Apart from the question of why you should have any respect for a god that would be impressed by Pascal's Wager, the overall effect of that folly seems to be to kill the curiosity of those who wage as Pascal did. Mustn't upset the god by questioning it, in case it turns out to be true.

Believing Easter alone, limits nothing else. Fire away with everything you've got. It's not "a god that would be impressed by Pascal's Wager," it's just the Good News of Easter. Then, there's Paul, who's authorized to tell us the dirty little secret, right in the Christian Bible, that Easter is the sine qua non of Christianity. If Easter is fictional, then the Christian faith's a joke, and if it's nonfiction, then all you have to do is choose to believe Easter, and you'll be saved.

I can't see any god in there that deserves the respect of humans. Pascal's god, the gaps god, the immensely unlikely easter man-god. We are worth more than that. But, of course we are not better than our tendency to invent all that.

Stuart

If Easter is fiction, then that's an interesting story all by itself, and lends credence to your notion of it being a meme, and to my commentary that Easter would then be the fiercest meme the world's every seen. To provoke so many people today, and throughout history, to psychotically believe that a man was dead from Friday night to Sunday morning---Easter morning---and then wasn't anymore, if that's fictional, then it's psychotic to believe it's nonfiction.

 

[Stuu]

A wristwatch not only contains the raw ingredients, but it contains information. A code was devized (24 hour time); info is transmitted and recieved. IE you can look at your watch and know what the time is. Codes, where information is sent and received, ALWAYS have a code maker. (traffic signs, braille, language, etc) According to Bill Gates our DNA is the most sophisticated software in existence. Not only can we look at your watch to see that there is design, purpose, function but the fact that it transmits information to us confirms intelligence. The only reason you make an exception, denying intelligence in the world around us, is because you seemed forced to do so by your belief system.

Sorry, I missed your reasoning for why, since watches need to be coded by engineers, therefore humans need to be coded by engineers. Who says that all codes need artificial coding?

That is a pretty stupid analogy to refute Fred Hoyle's argument, isn't it? ( in spite of Richard Dawkins thinking it's brilliant). It fails on a number of levels, such as assuming a puddle can develop conciousness. Who, but an athiest could imagine a warm little thinking puddle.

It's pretty stupid if you don't understand it, I suppose.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

That belief has lead to many shoddy conclusions about fossils.

Why do I get the feeling you are about to assert some more of those?

It even causes evolutionists to see feathers sometimes, where none exist. It is a belief that is rejected by all creationist scientists, and some evolutionist scientists who are experts on bird anatomy. 《And... science indicates a flying T-rex would make a great bomber... but not a bird.》

...yep, there you go.

Re your comment about a rudimentary light spot. It is actually VERY sophisticated and something scientists were not able to understand until recently. They were puzzled how light-absorbing chromophore called 11-cis-retinal could "EVOLVE" in visual pigments. In our eyes there is something called rhodopsin made of two molecules, one is vitamin A and a protein called opsin. (Rhodopsin is one of the reasons researchers say the eye vis optimally designed. It is able to capture a single photon of light) Anyways...when light is sensed by the vitamin, it amazingly changes shape becoming 11-cis-retinal molecule, which is like a light sensitive switch. But what was 'SURPRISING" to the researchers is that vitamin A would"select" the 11th carbon bond... and not another isomer. The answer is that the vitamin can't receive light using any other isomer, and would not react with the protein opsin. The chemist Sekharan mentioned in the PhysOrg article says, "This indeed is very surprising given the fact that, outside the protein environment, 11-cis-retinal is one of the least stable isomers..."

It becomes 11-trans-retinal.

And 11-cis-retinal has to be unstable with respect to absorption of a photon, otherwise the system wouldn't work. And the alkene group on the 11th carbon was indeed selected, by natural selection.

Surprising to the evolutionists.........

There you go again. Were they astounded, or just mildly perplexed? Or shocked, perhaps?

It's an amazing design, and evidence of our designer.

...an invisible one that does things by magic.

I'm sure NASA engineers will be eager to hear your suggestions.

I think the astronauts know already.

So, you will toss the superior design eagle eyes have, and replace it with the simple verted eye design. For one thing, the retina in verted eyes does not have the fovea centralis, I mentioned earlier. (Our main point of focus). Or, will add this, along with necessary wiring? And, why are you tossing the mueller cells? (I mentioned a fibre optic type design before). Without the inverted design, how will you protect the retina from burn-out? Octopus who have verted eyes usually are in lower light conditions and they live about 4 years. Will you keep the ganglion cells, the rods and cones? You are going to lose the positive feedback synapse without the inverted design. And... much more.

My, you have done a lot of Googling. Have you looked up 'verted' yet?

I enjoyed your answer. It reminded me of atheists who say a quantum fluctation may be the initial cause of everything. (Side point but a fluctuation can't exist in absolute nothingness).

It depends what you mean by absolute nothingness. What do you mean? It is not a trivial question.

Sure... we don't know the answer. It is also possible our brains have less processing capabilities now than in the past, right?

What don't we know the answer to?

Well, I'm not going to go back and read the article right now

Ok then, I'll snip your answer and await an update from you when you have.

Very good. As one embryologist, Professor Erich Blechschmidt, explained that the design was due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics". So... its a neccesity of design...it has purpose and function. (Quote from book 'The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth')

A Nazi crackpot creationist. Very convincing.

It is exciting times for Christians

Do you think Jesus won't be long now? Saul of Tarsus thought that, and you can see in his writing that his enthusiasm is tested by the lack of a quick return from Jesus, and then he was still waiting and still waiting, and eventually decided that all this magic will have to happen after he was dead.

Are we still waiting, do you think?

Stuart