Ha! Same thought here. If a post is too long, I have trouble following it to the end unless the writer is very clear in their posting. I wish people who have several points would present one or at most two per post so as to make it easier to follow their logic.
This statement reminds me of a 1973 paper titled “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” written by an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Was this reference intended?
why its make any different? its actually worse because if its difficult to an intelligent designer to make a small genome- it just make the case of intelligent design stronger.
but the flagellum and a lot of other molecular machines are indeed look like a man made machines:
“More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998))"
You do realize that we get plenty of similar but opposite testimonies here, where people are atheists (or disillusioned Christians in danger of deconverting) and they show up at our website wondering if it is possible to reconcile mainstream science (something they aren’t inclined to give up on) with faith. The fact that this is possible pushes them to further pursue God and find Christ. We’d be a pretty crummy ministry if we weren’t actually helping people get into the Bible and strengthen their walk with God. To listen to you, you’d assume all these Christians are showing up here and deconverting because of the scientific information we present. That’s not really what is happening, whether or not you can reconcile the reality with your personal experience.
Unfortunately the computer yells at you if you post too many things in a row and tells you to consolidate your responses. I think the solution (in addition to trying to be more disciplined and concise) is to include lots of quotes so everyone can see what you are responding to. (For any uninitiated users reading this, to quote someone else, select the text in their post and click on the “quote reply” option that appears.)
We aren’t going to go over the flagellum arguments AGAIN. This is what I’m talking about, and why you are going to end up getting blocked if you don’t start taking it seriously. How many times have you brought up the flagellum on this site and how many times have people explained why this is not a compelling argument? Stop bringing it up. It is a waste of everyone’s time.
Here is me talking to you in September 2015:
To refresh your memory (on just the first ten I found) of your past flagella conversations, here you go:
Good eye. It is the intended reference. Quoting @Keith_Furman’s website:
- I could not agree more with Keith here. Except to point out that the Gospel is the good news of “Jesus.”
- The second clause, about the centrality of the Gospel and Jesus, is usually lost in the origin’s debate.
Thank you for two honest responses to my questions. This really encourages me that we might be able to have productive dialogue with the goal of “understanding and being understood.” I do not know if you will agree with me in the end, but his goal might be achievable.
I once again want to thank you for, at least with me, refraining from calling me an atheist or adopting atheistic evolution. That would honestly antagonize me. Your restraint here is noted. I also agree with your discomfort with more “deistic” explanations of evolution. I tell the story differently, with a more “theistic” angle that I imagine you appreciate.
In particular, I would like to hear your response to my comment on the true scientific definition of evolution. You will see that (even though I disagree with ID’s attempt at science) evolution itself is entirely compatible with ID, a point that even the Discovery Institute takes pains to emphasize in their most lucid moments. Notably, Michael Behe himself identifies as a theistic evolutionist. The reason why is this definition:
To be clear, I do 100% acknowledge that the popular definition of evolution is nearly synonymous with evolution. However, this is not the scientific definition. I think this distinction matters. If I am right, this is a way of countering atheistic evolution with the full support of science behind your back.
Now from here, I would like to continue the conversation with you, if you are interested, but not a part of this thread. This thread has become a beast I do not want to feed.
If you are interested in conversing further on all this, consider starting a new thread with an appropriate title. Perhaps, “common ground between ID and TE” or “must ID come before Jesus?”. What do you think? Are you up for a change of “venue”?
As for me, I really prefer to leave this thread.
Because of you, Joe, I can NEVER EVER state that I support the “Theory of Evolution” - - because you have made it tediously clear (but I guess I can’t fault you for being correct) that the scientific position on the Theory of Evolution is a process WITHOUT GOD. It’s an unavoidable conclusion. But it does make it a little inconvenient when trying to quickly summarize some facts when BOTH SIDES know that I mean “with God too”.
But … okay… I need to be PRECISE. And so I cannot simply nod my head in agreement to your statement: “Obviously you believe that the evidence supports the TOE.”
BUZZZZZZZ!!! <<< There… now I have a buzzer to warn all people involved that a word is being used poorly.
THIS IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE:
The EVIDENCE shows that the Earth is MILLIONS of years old… not 5000 years old.
It is CONCEIVABLE that Evolution over these millions of years has happened without God, but this is not what I believe is the case.
My belief is not based on observable natural phenomenon. It is based on my assessment of a Universe Without God vs. With God.
I am truly doubtful that we will ever find a scientific way to prove God shapes/causes one or more episodes of Evolution.
So… how does this suit you, @deliberateresult?
hi christy. i actually never meant to discuss about the flagellum. i just gave this as an example of something that is very similar to a human made object. something that glipsnort claimed that will be evidence for design. i can give a lots of other examples like a camera-like eye, or an airplane-like wings and so on…
And Christy’s point is that many people demonstrated to you that the flagellum was not evidence for design.
Cameras are not designed like the human eye. They are constructed differently; almost in reverse in fact. They are constructed so they don’t suffer from the blind spot which the human eye has, and they’re more efficiently organized. Airplane wings do not work like bird wings; they do not flap, they do not have interlocking feathers which separate on an upstroke and close up to generate lift on the downstroke. The use a completely different airfoil, and a completely different and more efficient method of thrust.
Agreed. Psalm 138:8
The Lord will vindicate me;
your love, Lord, endures forever—
do not abandon the works of your hands.
Incorrect. You are not reporting, you are redefining. You are defining “natural processes” as being atheistic processes, or processes that by definition (your definition, not anyone else’s) must occur without God’s control. You are in fact equating TE with TOE because you think to do otherwise is to put people’s souls at risk.
You are defining the TOE as being by definition incompatible with God, and then using this as a club to tear down EC. Your motive for this can be deduced by traveling back in time to when the world was new, 599 posts ago, and you said:
[quote=“deliberateresult, post:1, topic:4944”]
God was not necessary, and therefore, must not exist.
Then you said:
Then you said:
Dude, your crisis is ongoing. Your challenge is to prove the existence of God to an unwilling audience, which means that your challenge is an impossible waste of time. The Bible tells me so. If someone seeks God, they will find him:
Matthew 7:7 [ Ask, Seek, Knock ] “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Luke 11:10 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
On the other hand, if someone has decided to reject God, then they cannot be brought to God against their will, no matter how compelling the argument.
Proverbs 21:24 The proud and arrogant person—“Mocker” is his name— behaves with insolent fury.
Proverbs 15:12 Mockers resent correction, so they avoid the wise.
Proverbs 14:6 The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.
Proverbs 9:12 If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.
Proverbs 9:7 Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults; whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse.
Matthew 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
So, what you have done, is to set up an impossible task, to convince “young Joe” that there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. This is impossible because “young Joe” wants to believe that there is conflict between the Bible and evolution. “young Joe” will redefine terms at his whimsy to ensure that his definition of evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Why “young Joe”, why? Why do you insist on defining terms such as “natural processes” in such a way as to exclude God’s control of them? Why do you define the TOE in such a way that by definition it excludes God’s control of evolution, and then stubbornly refuse to allow for a definition of TE that allows for God’s control of evolution? Why would you be so arbitrary and unfair “young Joe”? Why would you insist that without scientific proof of the necessity of God, no one can believe in God, when that argument is itself not biblical and contrary to Jesus’ teaching that he is knocking on the other side of the door, waiting to be let in? Could it be, “young Joe” that you really really want to go to a kegger this Friday, but you cannot reconcile standing outside someone’s open garage door for 6 hours in the dark, holding a red plastic cup full of Milwaukee’s Best, you just can’t reconcile it with your strict YEC upbringing, so you’ve decided to just CHUCK IT, CHUCK IT ALL for the next 30 years and then come back later to Christianity? Oh, “young Joe”. . . you terrible terrible sinner you. . . do you realize that you are officially just as bad as EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN WHO WENT TO COLLEGE AND HAD THEIR FAITH SHAKEN 'cause of beer and then come back to Christianity later. Incidentally, that includes about 98% of Christians who go to college. Also, I’m pretty sure that somewhere in the Bible it teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but don’t quote me on that.
So anyway, my advice to “old Joe” would be to stop looking for an irrefutable argument for God’s existence. God himself does not want such an argument to exist. Instead, look right around the corner, maybe on this very website, for 4 or 5 biblically consistent arguments that prove that God is logically able to exist. Someone who is seeking and knocking only needs permission to believe in God, they don’t have to be forced by an irrefutable argument to believe in God. Someone who rejects God, if faced with an irrefutable argument, they would just deny evidence or change definitions or put their fingers in their ears and go on doing what they have decided to with their God given free will.
- My heart and mind tells me there is God, with a crucial role for humanity.
- God gives us faith in our eyes and ears.
- Our eyes and ears tell us the earth is millions of years old; it certainly isn’t less than 6,000 years old.
- DEDUCTION: God must have drafted Natural Selection and Genetic modifications to create humanity as we know it today.
Its very good to hear from you again! I can sympathize with the fact that busy spells sometimes keep you from checking in. I run my own business and encounter the same reality. Indeed, I am currently enjoying a very brief break in a very busy season myself.
" If the issue interests you as much as you say it does, I urge you to read broadly in the field."
Chris, all I can say here is not only do I indeed read broadly, I embraced, lived, and defended biological evolution for more than three decades.
I really need to call you out on this one, Chris. This claim is wrong on more than one level:
- I am not young earth.
- Concerning your citations, unless I am missing something, you referred me to an article concerning the nylonase mutation and the frame shift proposal. My response to you should have indicated my familiarity with both even though I did not read your specific citation. The only other citation I can recall was to Lenski’s bacteria experiment. Here I responded to you referencing a paper by Lenski’s own team.
I will quote and cite others when necessary, but for the most part, I try to make my own case. Lenski, et al cannot be remotely considered either YE or ID. Perhaps this slipped your mind. To refresh your memory, here is a copy-and-paste of what I said:
"It is often true that the more we understand the effects of mutations that appear at first blush to convey some sort of de novo feature, the more we learn, in fact, that an existing regulatory mechanism is involved. As we have learned more about the nylonase feature, we have come to understand that the bacteria already possessed the ability to digest a very similar chemical. There is an increasing interest in exploring the possibility that, although random mutation is a reality, many, if not most, mutations that appear to confer a benefit to the organism may actually be pre-programmed into the organism (See the work of Lee Spetner and his theory of Non Random Evolution, for example). As for Lenski’s bacteria, his own team identified a “genetic switch” upstream which had been turned off. A series of mutations merely turned this switch on. Indeed, in the wild, these bacteria already possessed the ability to metabolize citrate. Lenski’s bacteria crossed the 50,000 generation plateau a couple of years ago. They remain bacteria. Slightly modified bacteria, but bacteria nonetheless. Lenski’s experiment constitutes real data and it is consistent with other data from other lab experiments: there are very real and very strict limits to what genetic mutation can accomplish. Here is my own ID prediction: No matter how long this experiment continues; whether it eclipses 100,000 generations or a million or more generations, Lenski’s bacteria will always be bacteria; nothing more.
Care to bet against this prediction?"
So you see Chris, there is no truth to the charge that I have only cited YE and ID sources. By the way, my rebuttal ended with my own ID prediction and an offer to bet against it. Do you have any confidence at all that these bacteria will ever become anything other than bacteria?
I know of many people who entered their respective scientific fields believing in the TOE and then became convinced by the evidence that ID offered a much stronger case. I know of no one embracing and then rejecting ID. But I will take you at your word. I find this fascinating. Perhaps this is the real conversation you and I should be having.
What about Denis Lamoureux?
I embraced and then rejected ID too. This is almost the rule among evangelical scientists. I know probably a dozen at my university alone.
@deliberateresult Here’s Dennis Venema (@DennisVenema)'s story: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/series/from-id-to-biologos. He embraced and then rejected ID. It’s well worth reading.
Challenging someone over whether a Bacteria population will ever be something else is really an argument for atheists.
Supporters of BioLogos support the idea that GOD has guided evolution. So how you can you prove anything by asking a Christian if something will evolve into something else if God doesn’t want it to?
Again, Joe, I charge you with being intentionally provocative - - not someone doing detective work.
Christians who support the use of natural selection and mutations to create a new life form are not choosing an ILLOGICAL stance. It is perfectly logical. You can’t challenge God’s ability to accomplish this end, right?
So why do you keep beating the drum and beating your head against the wall?
The challenge is not an argument for atheists or theists - it is a normative outlook in all of the sciences, when a hypothesis is proposed. Thus, IF a hypothesis makes a statement, such as (purely to clarify) that if A occurs in a given manner, then a prediction is that B would result, science would require B to be formed.
With experiments such as bacteria, the prediction is that a change would be detected given sufficient number of iterations (generations, I assume, of bacteria). If the predicted change is nebulous, then debate is inevitable. In this case, one person says given enough changes in “generations of bacteria”, they will evolve some given trait. The other says, your theory states a change in species, so perform sufficient changes until we observe a new species.
Within the context (and semantics) of evolution, both statements are scientifically valid, but the second has not been demonstrated.
This is not provocation; however I find your incessant “GOD has done this or that…” irritating.
Now THAT is ironic, don’t you think? You are IRRITATED by claims that God had something to do with the creation of humanity!!!
Let the record show that I have offered no money or other inducements to @GJDS to self-incrimination of the motivations of those who oppose Biologos.
For Christians who RELY on this idea, it should not be surprising if some crucial step in speciation cannot be replicated by science… since the position of such Christians (and BioLogos) .is that God’s participation could easily overcome any particular barrier to natural speciation.