Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Evolution: LL has the Answer!
Evolutionists, as you continue searching for the answers to all of the questions your theory creates, keep this in mind. Liberal Loather has the answer!
The holes in your theory that you can't quite put a finger on? Fill them with God-the common designer of ALL things! You'll find that your theory falls apart and all the evidence points to creation!
You won't do that, though...I'm sure of that! No, you'll continue trying to find the answers which you will never find...because you look at the problem wrongly!
God (that's a capital "G") is the answer you seek!
The holes in your theory that you can't quite put a finger on? Fill them with God-the common designer of ALL things! You'll find that your theory falls apart and all the evidence points to creation!
You won't do that, though...I'm sure of that! No, you'll continue trying to find the answers which you will never find...because you look at the problem wrongly!
God (that's a capital "G") is the answer you seek!
Comments:
<< Home
Just because I didn't feel like typing out my own, a simple google search:
"This argument has the form
* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.
This is not based in logic. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.
Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. For example, after the work of Galileo and Newton, it was no longer thought that angels pushed the planets across the heavens.
A more recent example is the argument by some Creationists that complex molecules (such as amino acids) could not have arisen by natural processes on the early earth. Hence, life could not have arisen by natural means, and God must have miraculously created these chemicals while creating life. The chemicals were part of a Purpose.
The basis of this argument was a gap in scientific knowledge. This basis fell apart when molecules (including organic molecules) were detected in interstellar space by astronomers. The argument came further apart when amino acids were found inside the Murchison meteorite."
There's nothing in there but pure history. No possible accusations of bias. Ouch.
"This argument has the form
* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.
This is not based in logic. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.
Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. For example, after the work of Galileo and Newton, it was no longer thought that angels pushed the planets across the heavens.
A more recent example is the argument by some Creationists that complex molecules (such as amino acids) could not have arisen by natural processes on the early earth. Hence, life could not have arisen by natural means, and God must have miraculously created these chemicals while creating life. The chemicals were part of a Purpose.
The basis of this argument was a gap in scientific knowledge. This basis fell apart when molecules (including organic molecules) were detected in interstellar space by astronomers. The argument came further apart when amino acids were found inside the Murchison meteorite."
There's nothing in there but pure history. No possible accusations of bias. Ouch.
Better yet, from here:
Early in history Gods could be found everywhere. There were gods of the sea, gods of storms, gods of forests, gods of rivers, gods of cities, and probably gods of that place under the stairs where you can't quite reach, even though there's a really useful Hoover attachment back there somewhere. When monotheistic religions appeared, they attempted to congeal these diverse gods into a single, all-powerful God Of The Universe, like so many plastic soldiers melting into one lump under a magnifying glass on a sunny day. In the case of Judeo-Christianity, this God is Jehovah. [1]
Unfortunately, Jehovah seems to be shrinking. Melting, like the Wicked Witch after being brutally attacked with a bucketful of water. God, who once shook the planet, created stars, filled oceans and populated continents and coral reefs with everything from starfish to starfruit, seems to be suffering from a case of erosion that would put the ice-worn mountains of the North to shame.
Cosmology, geology and biology are the sciences that cover pretty much everything there is. (Okay, so physicists and chemists may pull rank, but the first three divide things up into handy packages.) God was once held responsible for creating the stars in their crystal sphere, for moving the sun around the Earth, for opening and closing the windows in the sky to let the rain and snow in. For placing comets, planets and supernovae as signs, portents and landing-lights for Wise Men on camels. For the perfect order and majesty of the clean and neatly-arranged Heavens.
Sadly, God had to relinquish his control when the telescope was invented. To hide his tracks He was careful to dirty up the cosmos with great clouds of alcohol and laughing gas, dirt, bits of broken rock, and all sorts of other untidy, disordered muck. To look at it now, you'd hardly know a guiding intelligence had any hand in it at all, so good a job was done of making it appear natural. Right down to leftover radiation from the (ho ho) Big Bang.
A similarly woeful tale can be told of biology. With the theory of evolution, the gradual piecing together of the fossil record and the discovery of DNA, the Lord no longer was able to carefully direct each individual sperm to its divinely-chosen eggs, to maintain control of the flow of genes each and every time anything reproduced. There was nothing left for him to do, which probably came as a relief, what with the slimy, messy, icky nature of... well, nature.
And so it went on. God was not getting further away - just smaller and smaller. The effect can be the same, in the right light. But old Jehovah was fading away, like one of those little chalky feeding blocks you drop in the fishtank before you go on holiday. ( Of course, God was not being nibbled by fish - that would be silly! )
Geology too. When nosey geologists started digging the ground up and peering too closely at what they found, God had no choice but to call it a day and fake a load of strata, fossils, ancient coastlines, coal deposits, drifted continents and all the other paraphernalia to make it look like the Earth was an extra few billion years old. Like a pile of sweets surrounded by four-year-olds, the Lord just kept getting smaller.
And that is where we find Him today. In the cracks and gaps in our scientific knowledge. Unlike God, scientists are not omniscient, and so there are still plenty of gaps for God to hide in, and be invoked as an ideal explanation at a moments notice. The inexorable progress of science, like a bulldozer on autopilot, is slowly filling in the gaps, making poor old Jehovah vacate them and find some even more obscure hiding place.
Science cannot explain THIS, they cry, That is sure proof of God's existence and cleverness. Look what we've found, they shout, the only possible explanation is our God (as defined in edition 27a of this particular translation of the Bible). How could anyone possibly argue with such damning evidence?!?
And yet the bulldozer grinds forward, pushing heaps of fresh knowledge and understanding into the hidey-holes where gods are to be found lurking like trolls under bridges.
Strangely enough, the people who espouse this sort of deity invariably fail to acknowledge that they are insulting the very omnipotent being whose existence they try to convince us of. To say that the world works perfectly well without divine intervention, except here, here, here and over there, is to say that God is a pretty shoddy builder. He is, it seems, unable to put together something without using magic god-glue to stop it falling to pieces. My son can do better than that with his Lego! By saying that God exists because of the cracks in the universe, what does that tell us about this God? That he is incompetent; he cannot finish the job he started; he’s a cowboy builder?
To use the God-Of-The-Gaps argument is to open up your poor old deity to scientific scrutiny. If you say that proof of your God can be shown by a particular unexplained phenomenon, you’re going to be in trouble when science gets round to examining and explaining that phenomenon. Does your God vanish or die, or just scuttle over to the next Gap, like some giant cockroach when the light is switched on?
Sometime, someday, most of the important gaps will be closed, and those remaining believers who rely on this form of argument will be heard saying "Ah, but what about the mating ritual of the Venezuelan Accordion Beetle, eh? You can't explain that with your stupid test tubes, can you? Bow down and praise the Lord in apology!” The remaining believers will have to fall back on good old ignorance ("Continental drift? What's that then?"), denial ("I wouldn't believe it even if you proved it to me!") or old-fashioned faith ("The world is really as I feel it ought to be, not as it is").
Far and few, far and few, are the gaps where the deities live.
I think that's really all that needs to be said about your god of the gaps argument and why even God should be insulted.
Early in history Gods could be found everywhere. There were gods of the sea, gods of storms, gods of forests, gods of rivers, gods of cities, and probably gods of that place under the stairs where you can't quite reach, even though there's a really useful Hoover attachment back there somewhere. When monotheistic religions appeared, they attempted to congeal these diverse gods into a single, all-powerful God Of The Universe, like so many plastic soldiers melting into one lump under a magnifying glass on a sunny day. In the case of Judeo-Christianity, this God is Jehovah. [1]
Unfortunately, Jehovah seems to be shrinking. Melting, like the Wicked Witch after being brutally attacked with a bucketful of water. God, who once shook the planet, created stars, filled oceans and populated continents and coral reefs with everything from starfish to starfruit, seems to be suffering from a case of erosion that would put the ice-worn mountains of the North to shame.
Cosmology, geology and biology are the sciences that cover pretty much everything there is. (Okay, so physicists and chemists may pull rank, but the first three divide things up into handy packages.) God was once held responsible for creating the stars in their crystal sphere, for moving the sun around the Earth, for opening and closing the windows in the sky to let the rain and snow in. For placing comets, planets and supernovae as signs, portents and landing-lights for Wise Men on camels. For the perfect order and majesty of the clean and neatly-arranged Heavens.
Sadly, God had to relinquish his control when the telescope was invented. To hide his tracks He was careful to dirty up the cosmos with great clouds of alcohol and laughing gas, dirt, bits of broken rock, and all sorts of other untidy, disordered muck. To look at it now, you'd hardly know a guiding intelligence had any hand in it at all, so good a job was done of making it appear natural. Right down to leftover radiation from the (ho ho) Big Bang.
A similarly woeful tale can be told of biology. With the theory of evolution, the gradual piecing together of the fossil record and the discovery of DNA, the Lord no longer was able to carefully direct each individual sperm to its divinely-chosen eggs, to maintain control of the flow of genes each and every time anything reproduced. There was nothing left for him to do, which probably came as a relief, what with the slimy, messy, icky nature of... well, nature.
And so it went on. God was not getting further away - just smaller and smaller. The effect can be the same, in the right light. But old Jehovah was fading away, like one of those little chalky feeding blocks you drop in the fishtank before you go on holiday. ( Of course, God was not being nibbled by fish - that would be silly! )
Geology too. When nosey geologists started digging the ground up and peering too closely at what they found, God had no choice but to call it a day and fake a load of strata, fossils, ancient coastlines, coal deposits, drifted continents and all the other paraphernalia to make it look like the Earth was an extra few billion years old. Like a pile of sweets surrounded by four-year-olds, the Lord just kept getting smaller.
And that is where we find Him today. In the cracks and gaps in our scientific knowledge. Unlike God, scientists are not omniscient, and so there are still plenty of gaps for God to hide in, and be invoked as an ideal explanation at a moments notice. The inexorable progress of science, like a bulldozer on autopilot, is slowly filling in the gaps, making poor old Jehovah vacate them and find some even more obscure hiding place.
Science cannot explain THIS, they cry, That is sure proof of God's existence and cleverness. Look what we've found, they shout, the only possible explanation is our God (as defined in edition 27a of this particular translation of the Bible). How could anyone possibly argue with such damning evidence?!?
And yet the bulldozer grinds forward, pushing heaps of fresh knowledge and understanding into the hidey-holes where gods are to be found lurking like trolls under bridges.
Strangely enough, the people who espouse this sort of deity invariably fail to acknowledge that they are insulting the very omnipotent being whose existence they try to convince us of. To say that the world works perfectly well without divine intervention, except here, here, here and over there, is to say that God is a pretty shoddy builder. He is, it seems, unable to put together something without using magic god-glue to stop it falling to pieces. My son can do better than that with his Lego! By saying that God exists because of the cracks in the universe, what does that tell us about this God? That he is incompetent; he cannot finish the job he started; he’s a cowboy builder?
To use the God-Of-The-Gaps argument is to open up your poor old deity to scientific scrutiny. If you say that proof of your God can be shown by a particular unexplained phenomenon, you’re going to be in trouble when science gets round to examining and explaining that phenomenon. Does your God vanish or die, or just scuttle over to the next Gap, like some giant cockroach when the light is switched on?
Sometime, someday, most of the important gaps will be closed, and those remaining believers who rely on this form of argument will be heard saying "Ah, but what about the mating ritual of the Venezuelan Accordion Beetle, eh? You can't explain that with your stupid test tubes, can you? Bow down and praise the Lord in apology!” The remaining believers will have to fall back on good old ignorance ("Continental drift? What's that then?"), denial ("I wouldn't believe it even if you proved it to me!") or old-fashioned faith ("The world is really as I feel it ought to be, not as it is").
Far and few, far and few, are the gaps where the deities live.
I think that's really all that needs to be said about your god of the gaps argument and why even God should be insulted.
Okay, I watched a debate on "Washington Journal", this morning, between an advocate of ID and one , Boston was his name, of the evolution myth. Looking bad for your side, Kyle and Sam! He was revealed to be exactly what he-or you two, for that matter-deny beig? What's that, you ask? A worshipper of theory!
He actually attempted to use gravity-which science has no answers about except for knowing it exists-to defend evolution's murky evidence! Everyone KNOWS gravity exists-they see it at work all around them each and every day they live in God's creation! The evolutionists would have everyone believe that because there are similiarities in structure of biological specimens-ones THEY percieve to be evidence of "evolution"-that we should everyone else should be expected to accept their interpretation. Sorry-I reject it, as I'ne said before, uterly!
"we don't know much about gravity-but we know it exists." What a completely unintelligent statement to use!
Folks, these guys who think so much of their great intellect-please, use your own-it will serve you MUCH better in your life's walk!
He actually attempted to use gravity-which science has no answers about except for knowing it exists-to defend evolution's murky evidence! Everyone KNOWS gravity exists-they see it at work all around them each and every day they live in God's creation! The evolutionists would have everyone believe that because there are similiarities in structure of biological specimens-ones THEY percieve to be evidence of "evolution"-that we should everyone else should be expected to accept their interpretation. Sorry-I reject it, as I'ne said before, uterly!
"we don't know much about gravity-but we know it exists." What a completely unintelligent statement to use!
Folks, these guys who think so much of their great intellect-please, use your own-it will serve you MUCH better in your life's walk!
There is absoultely nothing coherent enough in this post to argue about that hasn't been mentioned a half dozen times already.
Coherence-with words like you have attempred to use meaningfully in your comments? If you complicate things enough-it makes it much easier to pull the wool over the eyes of your victims.
You've done nothing but quote people who have the same biased mentality that you hold in divine reverence! You won't even take a look at a web-site I recommend-because you are afraid that you may begin to doubt the lies you were taught by your masters.
You need to restudy your second law of dynamics and keep it in context of the "science" you hold so dear! Your point about "closed systems" doesn't apply!
Give an example of one thing that supports your comment about the "entropy" issue!
If you say: A seed which becomes a plant...a fetus which grows to adulthood....bricks becoming a building-you're way off course!
All these things-from the moment their processes have begun-are on the path to eventual destruction.
Evolutionists resort to tactics like the one I encountered yesterday. I accidentally-after being warned on the site-typed in .com instead of .org to navigate to the "Institute of Creation Resaearch"site-www.icr.org. the .com mistake took me to a sex-chat site which actualy had faux buttons for ICR pages. When I realized what I had done, after going around in circles a couple of times-I tried to go to ICR's site and was refused access-haven't had access since!
This is what the truth is up against, people-malicious tactics like this!
Show me proof of the god you worship, Kyle! I'm confident you can't! Only empty assumptions.
You've done nothing but quote people who have the same biased mentality that you hold in divine reverence! You won't even take a look at a web-site I recommend-because you are afraid that you may begin to doubt the lies you were taught by your masters.
You need to restudy your second law of dynamics and keep it in context of the "science" you hold so dear! Your point about "closed systems" doesn't apply!
Give an example of one thing that supports your comment about the "entropy" issue!
If you say: A seed which becomes a plant...a fetus which grows to adulthood....bricks becoming a building-you're way off course!
All these things-from the moment their processes have begun-are on the path to eventual destruction.
Evolutionists resort to tactics like the one I encountered yesterday. I accidentally-after being warned on the site-typed in .com instead of .org to navigate to the "Institute of Creation Resaearch"site-www.icr.org. the .com mistake took me to a sex-chat site which actualy had faux buttons for ICR pages. When I realized what I had done, after going around in circles a couple of times-I tried to go to ICR's site and was refused access-haven't had access since!
This is what the truth is up against, people-malicious tactics like this!
Show me proof of the god you worship, Kyle! I'm confident you can't! Only empty assumptions.
You're blaming internet porn on evolutionists? Really scraping the bottom of the argument barrel, eh?
You have no idea what you're talking about in regards to entropy. All those examples that you list as invalid, are, actually, cases where pockets of mass can gain organization at the cost of massive amounts of spent energy. It doesn't matter that a building eventually falls down, it still gained organization. Are you trying to say that things can't gain organization? Use complete sentences, dear lord.
You have no idea what you're talking about in regards to entropy. All those examples that you list as invalid, are, actually, cases where pockets of mass can gain organization at the cost of massive amounts of spent energy. It doesn't matter that a building eventually falls down, it still gained organization. Are you trying to say that things can't gain organization? Use complete sentences, dear lord.
There you go again! You say it-prove it!
Funny you use the "building" example-the only one which requires an outside force, in your view!
That "organization" as you say, is in concert with the subjects demise-you cannot seperate it!
You can't explain because, Kyle, it is obvious that you are the one who knows not of what you speak. Only (notice the sntence fragment)what others speak.
At the end of the day, I can lay down my head, which is weary from having to put people like you in their proper place, and know that what I believe comes from me!
You, on the other hand, don't have that luxury. You go to bed each night with the knowlege that you have heard the truth-truth you have in no way effectively disputed-and you've rejected it! You go to bed believing in the flawed assumptions of imperfect men!
I guess that gives you something to do each day-search for the answers you will never find until you face the truth!
"Science"? I don't need your brand!
Funny you use the "building" example-the only one which requires an outside force, in your view!
That "organization" as you say, is in concert with the subjects demise-you cannot seperate it!
You can't explain because, Kyle, it is obvious that you are the one who knows not of what you speak. Only (notice the sntence fragment)what others speak.
At the end of the day, I can lay down my head, which is weary from having to put people like you in their proper place, and know that what I believe comes from me!
You, on the other hand, don't have that luxury. You go to bed each night with the knowlege that you have heard the truth-truth you have in no way effectively disputed-and you've rejected it! You go to bed believing in the flawed assumptions of imperfect men!
I guess that gives you something to do each day-search for the answers you will never find until you face the truth!
"Science"? I don't need your brand!
I go to sleep each night wondering why I put up with you.
Now you're asking me to prove that organisms gain complexity. This is the most stupid thing you've said yet, and that's saying a lot. I'm not going to bother.
I keep thinking one of these days you're going to say 'surprise' and that you've been egging us on by finding the most inane, borderline psychotic arguments and pasting them together.
Now you're asking me to prove that organisms gain complexity. This is the most stupid thing you've said yet, and that's saying a lot. I'm not going to bother.
I keep thinking one of these days you're going to say 'surprise' and that you've been egging us on by finding the most inane, borderline psychotic arguments and pasting them together.
Arguments you can't compete with, you mean.
Go ahead and believe your brand of science-keep searching for the answers you eill never find.
I've given you the answer-you've rejected it.
You are the one's who brought religion into this converstion-I try to reason with god-haters by exposing their weaknesses. Yours is monumental!
Post a Comment
Go ahead and believe your brand of science-keep searching for the answers you eill never find.
I've given you the answer-you've rejected it.
You are the one's who brought religion into this converstion-I try to reason with god-haters by exposing their weaknesses. Yours is monumental!
<< Home
