Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!news1.best.com!news.aimnet.com!news.ossi.com!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!noao!news.Arizona.EDU!argon.GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU!jasonp From: jasonp@argon.GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU (Jason Posey ) Newsgroups: a.bsu.religion,alt.chrisnet,alt.christnet.hypocrisy,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.fan.jesus-christ,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc,uk.religion,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.atheism,alt.satanism,alt.evil,alt.magick.virtual Subject: Re: AOLimousine: Theology: A Rebuttal Date: 29 Mar 1996 22:06:18 GMT Organization: University of Arizona, Unix Users Group Lines: 123 Message-ID: <4jhmsq$hhk@news.ccit.arizona.edu> References: <4gngg7$2ot@news1.netzone.com> <4jbvea$mh@jobe.shell.portal.com> <4jd7i9$3vn@suba01.suba.com> <4jg108$11ju@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.gas.uug.arizona.edu Xref: shell.portal.com a.bsu.religion:5043 alt.christnet.hypocrisy:6859 alt.christnet.philosophy:12844 alt.recovery.religion:11015 alt.religion.christian:107553 talk.religion.misc:211735 uk.religion:2032 alt.magick.tyagi:7356 alt.atheism:283507 alt.satanism:40149 alt.evil:23944 In article <4jg108$11ju@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, Christopher Massey wrote: >In article <4jd7i9$3vn@suba01.suba.com>, charon@qni.com says... > >>>It is most UNscientific to presume that there is no God. Any true >>>"scientist" MUST adhere to at least an agnostic mindset. To do otherwise >>>is to abandon the established rules of scientific investigation. > >(big snip) >> If one theory >>can be supported by empirical evidence, while another can only be >>supported by blind faith, guess which one is the most likely to pay a >>huge dividend (at least from a scientific standpoint...). > >Blind Faith? I'm afraid the Christian faith happens to be based on a man >named Jesus Christ who healed the sick, raised the dead, and rose himslef >from the dead. I know it's all open to debate, but it certainly can't be >called blind faith. Given that pretty much everything in the New Testament has been shown by scholars to have not been written by the people who are supposed to have written them, that they contradict each other, that there is no evidence whatsoever that any man named Jesus or Yeshua ever lived, preached, and was crucified, one has to say yes, Christianity is based not merely on blind faith but on conscious self-deceit. >Also, I don't think you were around when evolution took >place (assuming it did) so you too are working with second hand evidence, >just as a Creationist. 1. Evolution is happening all the time, so of course we all are and have been around while it was and is taking place. Don't be such a boob. 2. We are working with fossil records, fruit flies, genetic studies, embryonics, microbes, and a host of other observable proof. Creationists are working with... a book of more than dubious authenticity which they can't even agree on the meaning of, despite it's being the supposed Guide to All Truth. A book with no more claim to veracity in this regard than the Eddas, the Vedic literature, or the creation stories of any other religion. We have to look at the universe before us and choose: >Design or Chance. Oversimplification, as usual. >>>We look around us everyday and see an uncountable multitude of organized, >>>operating Systems in creation (or, for your benefit, "nature"). At no >>>time has it ever been observed that a System or Program (a predetermined >>>set of instructions for accomplishing a specific task) has been produced >>>without the influence of some intelligent being outside of that System or >>>Program. >> >> Are you implying that evolution and natural selection could not work >>without the guidance of a "higher power" (i.e. god)? If so, please >>explain why you think this could not be an entirely automatic process. > >Evolution implies that a single-celled organism through mutations developed >into everything we have today. Mutations are not known for producing >wonderful knew things. Usually, it's an extra limp limb or something, but >even assuming mutations did work for the good in some cases, how can >something with no eyes develop a bdy part as intricate as an eye. They didn't just sprout fully formed eyes one day, perverse one. If any of you creationist folks ever actually BOTHERED to STUDY biology in ANY depth, you'd know that there are many simple life-forms, such as planarians, with very simple, rudimentary eye-structures, which serve largely to react to light in varying degrees depending on their level of complexity. Tellingly, one doesn't see fully developed eye-structures in the fossil record until quite some time after life first appears. >And what >about symmetry? You'll notice that you are quite symmetrical, along with the >majority of animals out there. If we got all these things (arms, fingers, >eyes, ears, etc.) by random mutations, how is it that the same mutations >happened on the left side of our bodies as on the right? Even if we did >manage to pull it off, what are the chances of nearly every other animal >fluking out too? (Please don't give me an example of a nonsymmetrical animal, >I'm sure some exist) The same genes control the growth of both sides of your body. Please, folks, if you don't know enough about genetics to know that much (and I seriously doubt if any creationist does), don't try to make genetics an issue. You will fail. Of course, you will ALWAYS fail, but you'll just be even more annoying if you bring the issue up. >>If you are walking through the forest and you come along a spot >>>where 20 stones are lined up on the dirt, 2 inches apart from each other >>>you will automatically, and sensibly, assume that someone was here before >>>you and that they set these stone in such a pattern. Even 5 stones would >>>cause you to reach this conclusion. Have you ever studied DNA or the >>>eyeball? >> >> Have you ever studied fairy rings? Those near-perfect circles of >>fungi that were though by people in the middle ages to have been caused >>by the dancing of woodland sprites? Those formations, odd in their >>regularity, were assumed to be created by a supernatural force - until >>scientists discovered that it was simply the way that the mushrooms in >>question reproduced. > >Are you trying to compare the design in a human body to a circle? That's >quite a stretch. The point was that what people had thought was the result of conscious design, wasn't. As for your rock example, first, there are in fact places where wind and water can and have caused unusually regular natural formations, which the ignorant (such as yourself) might mistake for man-made structures. Second, when you give the example of a row of rocks in the forest, by implication, all of the other rocks, which are not so ordered, are not the result of conscious design. That is, no need for a god like yours, they'd have done it on their own without him. > > Chris M. > BTW, if people find my tone insulting, tough. I couldn't care less. -- -------------------------------------------------- <<<<>>>>