Bad Apologetics

[PixyMisa]

Yes.

P.S. Juluis?

 

[Kimpatsu]

We can look at the idea of a hosue assembling itself out of sheer luck, and we can easily say "Well, that's ridiculous. it's not the way things are." And yet, we look at evolution, and of course it's how things are.

Absolute rubbish. This is not how things are. This is a strawman of evolution. Luck (or, more accurately, randomness), does have a part to play in evolution: genetic mutation, but it's only a small part. The overwhelming drive behind evolution is natural selection, and there's nothing random about that at all. For example, gazelles have long, powerful legs for fast running. This is not chance; in previous generations, gazelles with short legs all ended up in lions' stomachs, and hence did not procreate. Their short-leg genes dies with them, whereas gazelles with long-legged genes lived to procreate another day.
BTW, what you "prefer to believe" is irrelevant. As Bertrand Russell said, "What we need is not the wish to believe, but the will to find out."
All clear now?

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Yes.

P.S. Juluis?

Oh I get it now, you're in agrement with sensibility (no sarcasm). I get it

No, not Juluis, nor am I Julius, which I assume is the more common spelling, If that's what your wondering (PM to specify?).

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh I get it now, you're in agrement with sensibility (no sarcasm). I get it

Yup. All sense, all the time, that's what you get from me But that particular abuse of the Second Law has irked me since high school.

No, not Juluis, nor am I Julius, which I assume is the more common spelling, If that's what your wondering (PM to specify?).

Uh, no. Check your sig.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

But that particular abuse of the Second Law has irked me since high school.Uh, no. Check your sig.

Doh! Hey, we haven't much evidence for his existance either then do we? But I doubt Gould ever said that.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Though I'm certainly not Christian, the Book of Jonah happens to be one of my favorite books of the Bible. The way the Gentiles are described, and the way God deals with Jonah and Nineveh are so completely opposite of what the rest of the Old Testament says, it should be clear to even the casual reader that the Book of Jonah simply doesn't belong in the Bible - and may even be satire.

You're right, the outcome of the book certainly makes it the anti-Sodom and Gomorrah.

My quibbles with it do extend beyond the 3 days in the fishy blue part. I also have some problem with the fact that there's no Assyrian records about Ashurbanipal converting to Judaism (strawman, but you know what I mean) and it's odd that an omniscient God, knowing that Assyria would later destroy Israel and diaspora the 10 tribes would be so magnanimous to the Ninevites over a little contrition.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Doh! Hey, we haven't much evidence for his existance either then do we? But I doubt Gould ever said that.

That reminds me to do the "There's more evidence Jesus lived than Julius Caesar (or George Washington or Napoleon or other famous historical person)" bad apologetic later. Thanks!

If Gould did say that, he's probably making a play on the Caesar claim while still being correct in his assertion.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

That reminds me to do the "There's more evidence Jesus lived than Julius Caesar (or George Washington or Napoleon or other famous historical person)" bad apologetic later. Thanks!

If Gould did say that, he's probably making a play on the Caesar claim while still being correct in his assertion.

I never thought of that. It's from his "Darwin and the Munchkins of Kansas" essay if you want to look for yourself.

 

[Akots]

Well, no. Not if you know anything at all about evolution or thermodynamics. (Hint: the second law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, not a metaphor you can apply wherever and however you choose.)Why on Earth would it be?Well, consider yourself blasted.

Didn't realize the error of my ways, PixyMisa. I was using the house as a very crude metaphor for how things generally procede from a state of activity or order towards a state of neutral evenness, or lack of discernable order. I didn't realize i was crossing thermodynamic territory... in fact, i never brought the subject up at all. My example was only supposed to convey progression of order towards chaos.

I certainly understand that lifeforms interact and encourage or discourage properties amongst each other, and I apologize for underestimating the importance of that factor. However, it cannot be denied that life is extremely.... extremely sophisticated, in a world where order is the exception to the rule.

Evolution does not account for how life first came into being, out of completely inorganic material. We can look at the idea of an organism assembling itself out of inorganic material, and we can easily say "Well, that's ridiculous. It's not the way things are." And yet, we look at life, which is nessecarily made up of living cells, made of [physical matter, just like any other inorganic material.

And of course it's how things are.

EDIT:

On the subject of mountains rising up to replace hills, well, after a million years, if there are hills, they are likely not the same geological formations; new hills form, looking just the same, and for the same reasons the other hills formed. If Mountains rise up, that is not really the introduction of chaos; simply a natural change in the underlying tectonic plates. Mountains are no more structured or unnatural than hills; they simply exist under different conditions. And even the way those underlying conditions change is not completely random; tectonic plates and molten rock obey their own laws of entropy.

And as for my opinion that evolution is evidence of god, well... we know things procede from order to chaos. And yet, we do not. We are made of physical matter, and yet building a complete homunculous out of identical matter would not render a new organism.

 

[Ipecac]

Evolution does not account for how life first came into being, out of completely inorganic material. We can look at the idea of an organism assembling itself out of inorganic material, and we can easily say "Well, that's ridiculous. It's not the way things are." And yet, we look at life, which is nessecarily made up of living cells, made of [physical matter, just like any other inorganic material.

This completely underestimates the effect of randomness over billions of years, with thousands (millions?) of different chemicals interacting on earth in various natural processes. If you don't give all that time and all the interactions any consideration, sure life seems unlikely.

 

[PixyMisa]

Didn't realize the error of my ways, PixyMisa. I was using the house as a very crude metaphor for how things generally procede from a state of activity or order towards a state of neutral evenness, or lack of discernable order. I didn't realize i was crossing thermodynamic territory... in fact, i never brought the subject up at all. My example was only supposed to convey progression of order towards chaos.

Well, that's what the second law is - albeit rather more strictly defined. If you were not leading there, I apologise for my "blast" (not that it was much of a blast); I've seen many a creationist wander down the same road, and my trigger-finger got itchy

I certainly understand that lifeforms interact and encourage or discourage properties amongst each other, and I apologize for underestimating the importance of that factor. However, it cannot be denied that life is extremely.... extremely sophisticated, in a world where order is the exception to the rule.

Well, yes, life is complicated. But order is hardly the exception. The Universe is a very very orderly place compared to how it will be in a googol years or so. It's not just life - look at a crystal some time, even a snowflake. There's beautiful, lovely, crunchy order all around you.

Evolution does not account for how life first came into being, out of completely inorganic material.

The Theory of Evolution does not, no. This particular event is referred to as abiogenesis, and is a separate area of research.

We can look at the idea of an organism assembling itself out of inorganic material, and we can easily say "Well, that's ridiculous. It's not the way things are." And yet, we look at life, which is nessecarily made up of living cells, made of [physical matter, just like any other inorganic material.

And of course it's how things are.

Indeed it is.

EDIT:

On the subject of mountains rising up to replace hills, well, after a million years, if there are hills, they are likely not the same geological formations; new hills form, looking just the same, and for the same reasons the other hills formed. If Mountains rise up, that is not really the introduction of chaos; simply a natural change in the underlying tectonic plates. Mountains are no more structured or unnatural than hills; they simply exist under different conditions. And even the way those underlying conditions change is not completely random; tectonic plates and molten rock obey their own laws of entropy.

And as for my opinion that evolution is evidence of god, well... we know things procede from order to chaos. And yet, we do not.

Well, yes, we do. We die, and we get buried in the ground, and we rot.

We are made of physical matter, and yet building a complete homunculous out of identical matter would not render a new organism.

Uh, why not?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Evolution does not account for how life first came into being, out of completely inorganic material. We can look at the idea of an organism assembling itself out of inorganic material, and we can easily say "Well, that's ridiculous. It's not the way things are." And yet, we look at life, which is nessecarily made up of living cells, made of [physical matter, just like any other inorganic material.

Agreed completely. Abiogenesis is a completely different area of study from evolution. I'll post a very interesting link for you regarding abiogenesis later tonight.

As to the mountain/house analogy... I stand by my assertion. Entropy means that the mountains would.. without the addition of heat (remember this is the 2LOThermodynamics we're talking about) over time erode down to a flat plain.

Does the fact that the open system of the Cascade Mountains mean they rose in a few million years recently invalidate 2LOT? No, of course not. Similarly the fact that life has evolved over time since either abiogenesis or special creation invalidate the 2LOT? Same answer...

The 2LOT does not belong in any debate regarding the validity or invalidity of evolution. Period.

 

[Akots]

This completely underestimates the effect of randomness over billions of years, with thousands (millions?) of different chemicals interacting on earth in various natural processes. If you don't give all that time and all the interactions any consideration, sure life seems unlikely.

First, randomness is irellevant... now I can't ignore it?

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Well, yes, we do. We die, and we get buried in the ground, and we rot.[/B]

Can we define "decomposition" as a passing from order and structure into a state fo chaos and neutral evenness? I did say this was the natural way of things... and that the existance of life in the first place is the exception to the rule.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Uh, why not?

Well, ok... in your professional opinion, could a corpse in an absolute, perfect state health spring back to life?

An obviously loaded question, yes; there is more evidence for this test failing then there is for it suceedingit, but it assumes completely perfect conditions. The real question would be, "Are we the sum of our parts and systems?"

EDIT:
Sinner, i just read your statement about 2LOT, and i do agree. I never mentioned them, except for mysomewhat imappropriate house example.

I wsa certainly hard pressed to come up with anothre example of an ordered physical system that generaly does not occur naturally, but obviously exists.

 

[Agammamon]

The 'man can't come from a bannana' one is interesting..

I think the strongest argument they have is (even though the burden of proof seems to be one them) that no one can pove that god(s) doesn't exist.

It is true that there are some logical problems with demanding that, but still, that is their strongest argument.
(considering some negatives can be proved. There are no rats in my shoe, etc)

This argument is at the core of why I am an atheist. Not being able to disprove God's existance (for a given value of God) is not de facto proof of his existence.
I can never prove that there is not a man standing behind me with a gun to my head. If I turn around he mey be able to move quicker than me and evade detection. If I ask someone else to look they could be lying. But I don't waste a whole lot of time worrying about it either (also consider, of all the things that could be behind me, how much more likely is it that a man with a gun is behind me than say Selma Hayek getting ready to give me a massage?).

 

[Akots]

This argument is at the core of why I am an atheist. Not being able to disprove God's existance (for a given value of God) is not de facto proof of his existence.
I can never prove that there is not a man standing behind me with a gun to my head. If I turn around he mey be able to move quicker than me and evade detection. If I ask someone else to look they could be lying. But I don't waste a whole lot of time worrying about it either (also consider, of all the things that could be behind me, how much more likely is it that a man with a gun is behind me than say Selma Hayek getting ready to give me a massage?).

This seems very much like the common sense approach to faith and religion; There is, essentialy, precisely as much scientific evidence for God as there is against it.

God, as an entity, however, purportes to need no scientific proof; it requires a decision based on personal judgment, with an analasys of what a specific fait hor religion has done, and how it behaves towards it's followers. Examine a faith or religion, and if you judge it to be beneficial, you commit your time and energy towards supporting it.

What disturbs me is the anger and frustration many athiests seem to express.. at a God they do not believe in. Arguments that start with "Why would God do this if..." baffle me.

 

[PixyMisa]

Can we define "decomposition" as a passing from order and structure into a state fo chaos and neutral evenness? I did say this was the natural way of things... and that the existance of life in the first place is the exception to the rule.

But life has the unfortunate habit of dying. It struts and frets its hour upon the stage, then croaks.

Well, ok... in your professional opinion, could a corpse in an absolute, perfect state health spring back to life?

A corpse is by definition not in "absolute, perfect" state. It's dead. There's an important distinction there.

Life is a process. (Not being mystical here. Breathing, blood circulation, cell division, all that sfutff.) Stop the process and you have a corpse. Get the process running again, and you have life. Leave it too long, and you have brain damage and other bad things.

An obviously loaded question, yes; there is more evidence for this test failing then there is for it suceedingit

What evidence is there of perfect replicas of living things being created but not being alive?

but it assumes completely perfect conditions. The real question would be, "Are we the sum of our parts and systems?"

What else can we be?

EDIT:
Sinner, i just read your statement about 2LOT, and i do agree. I never mentioned them, except for mysomewhat imappropriate house example.

I wsa certainly hard pressed to come up with anothre example of an ordered physical system that generaly does not occur naturally, but obviously exists.

Well, crystals are a favourite of mine. I think I mentioned them before

 

[PixyMisa]

God, as an entity, however, purportes to need no scientific proof; it requires a decision based on personal judgment, with an analasys of what a specific fait hor religion has done, and how it behaves towards it's followers. Examine a faith or religion, and if you judge it to be beneficial, you commit your time and energy towards supporting it.

Why does this require an unsupported belief in a paranormal entity? If there is an organisation that you think is worthy of your support, why not simply give it your support?

What disturbs me is the anger and frustration many athiests seem to express.. at a God they do not believe in. Arguments that start with "Why would God do this if..." baffle me.

Ah, no. Atheists do not direct anger at God. That would be just a touch pointless.

Atheists do sometimes get angry when believers claim that their beliefs are founded in something other than personal faith. Or when someone suggests that [sacred book] has a special standing above all other sacred books.

 

[Akots]

But life has the unfortunate habit of dying. It struts and frets its hour upon the stage, then croaks.

How can we keep arguing when we keep agreeing? you're ruining it.
If your going to disagree, please clarify what you mean.

A corpse is by definition not in "absolute, perfect" state. It's dead. There's an important distinction there.

Yes. Naturaly, if a corpse is ressurected, it would no longer be a corpse. Also, i do recall that people can be kept suspended in a brain dead state, and still survive if reanimated. I think my point should have been "Re-building and re-animating is not the same as building and animating."

Life is a process. (Not being mystical here. Breathing, blood circulation, cell division, all that sfutff.) Stop the process and you have a corpse. Get the process running again, and you have life. Leave it too long, and you have brain damage and other bad things.What evidence is there of perfect replicas of living things being created but not being alive?

None. I asked if, in your professional opinion, such a construct could be made to live. Not merely be indistinguishable to life, but be life. THAT implies that there are things about life we cannot know... that if we use all our current knowledge to produce abiogenesis, we'd fail; because our knowledge is flawed or incomplete.

What else can we be?Well, crystals are a favourite of mine. I think I mentioned them before

Fascinating things, really...

However, crystals are just like mountains, hills, and rivers; they exist because the conditions exist to cause them. They are created continually from a similar environment; not through reproduction.

Their physical structure is ordered, yes... but their systems are not a indicitive of life as human systems are.

 

[Ipecac]

First, randomness is irellevant... now I can't ignore it?

I didn't say anything about randomness being irrelevant. I imagine you're referring to someone else's remark.

I'm strictly a laymen on these issues and others here can argue ambiogenesis and evolution with much more knowledge than I. My point was simply that when people say things like "How could life arrive from inorganic materials?" they aren't giving any thought at all to the sheer magnitude of time that passed and activity that occurred before life developed. When you consider all of this, then the development of life doesn't seem quite so miraculous.

 

[Akots]

Why does this require an unsupported belief in a paranormal entity? If there is an organisation that you think is worthy of your support, why not simply give it your support?

Of course, nobody can truly force belief on you; I look at my religion's writings, and see that as evicence not only that gofd can exist, but it is not unreasonable for him to exist in the face of all scientific knowledge. The idea that I could argue this factually or convince someone else is utterly ludicrous; it's a personal judgment of mine. I follow these tennants not for fear of god, but because i agree with them; and until I learn something of my religion that disagrees with my personal convictions, I will continue to do so.

Supporting a cause needs no belief in God; I simply see the people around me, and the wonders ofnature and science, and have decided to believe based on my sampling of "evidence."

Ah, no. Atheists do not direct anger at God. That would be just a touch pointless.

Atheists do sometimes get angry when believers claim that their beliefs are founded in something other than personal faith. Or when someone suggests that [sacred book] has a special standing above all other sacred books.

Well, i did get a bit carried away there... what I mean is, they try to invalidate a believer's god; threy adress the possability that god exists by pointing out flaws, when you should be educating about the realities of how a religion can abuse and exploit it's people.

And of course my religion is personal faith... what else would it be?