A favorite creationist tactic is to deny any and all evidence for any piece of science that contradicts their beliefs. But, some take it even further. They will look at the evidence that does exist, declare that it's not enough, then summarily dismiss all the evidence as non-existent. I hope the following example shows how absurd this line of thinking is.
Suppose person A lives in California and person B lives in New York. Let's say that person A and person B run into each other in CA and person A asks how person B got there. B claims that she drove her car from NY to CA. A then asks for evidence.
B remembers that she kept some of her receipts. She has receipts from gassing up a couple times along the way. She has some receipts from eating meals along the road. But, alas she doesn't have every single receipt, so she can't form an unbroken line. Further, she can't account for the gaps in between receipts - for instance, how did she get to dinner from lunch? She can present her car, but this is not enough for A. A claims that due to some missing receipts and not having enough evidence, none of the receipts, the car, or anything else that B presents count as evidence that B did indeed drive across the country.
Clearly, this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater though. A has taken the evidence that does exist, and thrown it away as if it did not simply because it did not meet A's demands. Without a full explanation down to some nebulous detail, nothing counts at all toward an explanation in A's eyes. Yet, it's absurd to claim that those receipts do not constitute some evidence of the claim made by B, as we can all hopefully see. Never-the-less, we see this attitude from creationists all the time in denying wide swathes of science, whether it be evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, or even modern medicine. In short, the creationist would rather deny reality in order to hold onto her preconceptions than to accept reality for what it is and shape her beliefs around it. Yet, it's a bad argument to make, because it only makes the creationist look silly and uninformed.
49 comments:
I just love a good analogy and that was a damn good one!!
Sounds like what happens when people disregard the historicity of the Bible, too. :D
GCT,
I also thought your analogy was damn good. It really simplifies abiogenesis. Simple is good.
I feel a little silly and a bit uniformed in asking this, but why do we start and finish in essentially the same place? Shouldn’t there be low complexity in New York and high complexity in CA? I would have thought that we would start in New York with a Ford Escort running on hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen (and sparking battery cables) and then make a rest stop Rahway, NJ to unload some amino acids. Then we start heading west and the map flies out the window. We show up in CA driving the starship Enterprise with with dividing cells in the radiator fluid, fresh Dim Sum from Beijing on the front seat, and moon rocks in the trunk. No one seems to understand when we explain it all by saying “You understand how I got to Rahway, right? Well, just extrapolate from there.”
If only the analogy were more accurate. More on the money would have been that the person traveled from New York to the moon, but was missing all evidence of the portion where they travelled through space.
"If only the analogy were more accurate. More on the money would have been that the person traveled from New York to the moon, but was missing all evidence of the portion where they travelled through space."
How so? The point was that you can't simply dismiss all the evidence (and claim that it doesn't exist) because you haven't filled in every single gap, whether real or imaginary.
"The point was that you can't simply dismiss all the evidence (and claim that it doesn't exist) because you haven't filled in every single gap, whether real or imaginary."
This same argument could be used to prove Bible preservation, could it not?
"This same argument could be used to prove Bible preservation, could it not?"
Prove Bible preservation? What do you mean?
Anon, that might be true if there were any evidence that the Bible was a credible source. Trust me, no one's looked harder than atheists.
Bible preservation: The fact that the text of the original authors of scripture has remained in tact throughout the years since it was written.
"Bible preservation: The fact that the text of the original authors of scripture has remained in tact throughout the years since it was written."
Has it? That would be news to many scholars, considering that we know the ending to Mark is a late addition, the story of Jesus saying, "Let you who is without sin cast the first stone," is a late addition, etc.
Anyway, to answer your first question:
"This same argument could be used to prove Bible preservation, could it not?"
No.
GCT, you've gotta stop doing what you claim Christians do: Believe everything you read. The argument that these things were added later is not new, nor is it any more correct now than it was 2 years ago. Why are you only skeptical of Christian claims and not of those in your own wheelhouse? Between this and the pure neglect of word study in the other thread, you are beginning to show your amateur style of debate. You can't just rehash old arguments that have already been handily defeated. Come up with something original on your own that we can discuss intelligently. This is just silly.
"GCT, you've gotta stop doing what you claim Christians do: Believe everything you read."
Where have I said that?
"The argument that these things were added later is not new, nor is it any more correct now than it was 2 years ago."
So, you are claiming that these are not late additions?
"Between this and the pure neglect of word study in the other thread, you are beginning to show your amateur style of debate."
Um...yeah, right.
"You can't just rehash old arguments that have already been handily defeated."
OK, so where is the defeat of this?
"Come up with something original on your own that we can discuss intelligently. This is just silly."
Ah, I see. So, instead of actually debating the point, you're going to simply try and shame me into giving up the point without actually having to defend your point. And, my debating is what's in question?
No, these are not late additions. I am not avoiding any argument. Give me something to debate about, and I will. You have presented nothing that hasn't already been defeated. I'm happy to discuss anything you like, but don't just start copying and pasting, or linking to wikipedia like before. Give me the argument in your own words.
"No, these are not late additions."
Yes, actually, they are. They are not in our earliest and best manuscripts, they don't fit the rest of the writing, etc. Modern scholars are pretty well unanimous on this point if not completely.
"I am not avoiding any argument."
Yes, actually you are. I've asked for you to support your assertions and all you gave me was more assertions.
"Give me something to debate about, and I will. You have presented nothing that hasn't already been defeated."
Like what? Where are the defeater arguments?
"I'm happy to discuss anything you like, but don't just start copying and pasting, or linking to wikipedia like before. Give me the argument in your own words."
Which is generally what I do, however giving supporting material is also part of debating. Also, if someone else has done the work, why should I re-invent the wheel, so to speak. I'm not using other materials to state my arguments, but for supporting material to my arguments. There's a world of difference and you would do well to learn that.
"No, these are not late additions."
Yes, actually, they are. They are not in our earliest and best manuscripts, they don't fit the rest of the writing, etc. Modern scholars are pretty well unanimous on this point if not completely.
-------------------
They are in over 90% or the existing remaining texts that make up the Textus Receptus. The only places they are questioned are in circles dealing with the Vaticanus which has nothing to do with our modern King James bible.
---------------------------
Please pick an argument so we can continue. What assertions would you like supported?
"They are in over 90% or the existing remaining texts that make up the Textus Receptus. The only places they are questioned are in circles dealing with the Vaticanus which has nothing to do with our modern King James bible."
The KJV is full of errors you realize, right?
The earliest and best manuscripts do not contain the passages in question. Later manuscripts had these passages inserted, and then the inserted passages were faithfully copied, which is why it's in a lot of the manuscripts.
"The KJV is full of errors you realize, right?"
Well you believe all Bibles are full of errors, because they all talk about a God you don't believe in. If you wanna argue Bible versions, you've gotta have one you believe in to start with.
"The earliest and best manuscripts do not contain the passages in question. Later manuscripts had these passages inserted, and then the inserted passages were faithfully copied, which is why it's in a lot of the manuscripts."
Total hogwash. I'd like to see these earliest manuscripts (that have no connection to the Vatican in any way.) Show me, and I won't argue. This argument has been claimed before and it's simply untrue. Nobody has ever been able to produce these supposed "older manuscripts." LOL!
I'm beginning to wonder if you have any original thought. At least others have their own reasons for unbelief, but you are simply an internet search-geek who doesn't wanna believe and google's new reasons every day. You talk alot, but say nothing. I love you GCT, and I do pray you one day do let the sacrifice of Jesus wash you clean of your sins, but for now, I'm done with you. I'll argue with folks who can think for themselves. (insert random "Christians can't think for themselves" statement here. Google it quick!)
"Well you believe all Bibles are full of errors, because they all talk about a God you don't believe in. If you wanna argue Bible versions, you've gotta have one you believe in to start with."
Sigh. No, the KJV is known to have come from very faulty translations. For someone so full of bluster, I'm surprised that you don't know this rather well attested fact.
"Total hogwash. I'd like to see these earliest manuscripts (that have no connection to the Vatican in any way.) Show me, and I won't argue. This argument has been claimed before and it's simply untrue. Nobody has ever been able to produce these supposed "older manuscripts." LOL!"
Modern scholars are unanimous on this one. Even Christianity Today agrees on this. I suggest that you do a little searching and find out instead of simply denying. Of course, you said that these arguments have been defeated already, and yet you've done nothing to support that assertion, except to continue to make that claim.
"I'm beginning to wonder if you have any original thought."
Yes, because all of my blog posts are copied and pasted from elsewhere, right? I'm beginning to wonder if you have any concept of civility, not being condescending, humility, and how to actually argue for something.
"At least others have their own reasons for unbelief, but you are simply an internet search-geek who doesn't wanna believe and google's new reasons every day."
Evidence for your accusations please? Hey, give me some evidence for god and I'll believe. I've maintained that from day one of being an atheist.
"You talk alot, but say nothing."
Then refute my claims. Present evidence for your god and your religion. What are you waiting for?
"I love you GCT..."
No you don't. You don't even know me.
"...and I do pray you one day do let the sacrifice of Jesus wash you clean of your sins..."
Perhaps you could start the process by telling me how any of that makes sense. Why did a benevolent god require a human/deity/blood sacrifice in order to convince himself to allow himself to forgive us for sins that he placed upon us?
"...but for now, I'm done with you."
OK Brave Sir Robbin.
"I'll argue with folks who can think for themselves. (insert random "Christians can't think for themselves" statement here. Google it quick!)"
So, using other's knowledge to form my arguments is somehow not thinking for myself? I'm sure it's much easier to simply make it up as you go along, the way you seem to do. Hey, you want to believe that the ending of Mark and the woman in adultery stories are real. Just believe it and think for yourself that it's true and then you can simply continue to assert it's true regardless of what experts say. If anyone points out what the experts say just claim that they aren't thinking for themselves. What a clever strategy. This precludes you from having to back anything up, because it's far better to say everything in your own words and make up your own facts (it's called thinking for yourself) than to actually use the facts and knowledge that we as humans have figured out. Plus, the added bonus is that anything you want to be true can be true.
Quick, google what I just said to see where I got it from. Good luck finding it.
"Perhaps you could start the process by telling me how any of that makes sense. Why did a benevolent god require a human/deity/blood sacrifice in order to convince himself to allow himself to forgive us for sins that he placed upon us?"
If there is a God, why does he need to have your approval on how he does things? Wouldn't that make you God? Your way doesn't have a God, because any God would have to answer to your "ultimate authority" which would make God submissive to you, and that ain't the way it goes down.
If there is a God, why does he need to have your approval on how he does things? Wouldn't that make you God? Your way doesn't have a God, because any God would have to answer to your "ultimate authority" which would make God submissive to you, and that ain't the way it goes down.
A major thrust of religion is "God's" attempt to convey to humans the moral standards by which people should live by. If said moral standards don't make sense or are contradictory, in nature, then it would call into question if such a being really existed.
Such a being would know that humankind is endowed with the ability for critical thinking and so, to present a system built on the edifice of illogical constructs, would be to undermine the entire communique which would defeat its underlying purpose.
Think about it? If "God" is going to do what he wants to do irregardless of its seeming contradictory nature, why even share this system with humankind in the first place? It's a certain recipe for confusion, chaos and disaster.
"If there is a God, why does he need to have your approval on how he does things?"
I'm not asking for my approval, I'm asking that what he does actually makes logical sense. And, what TRT said - what morality is served by human/god/blood sacrifices and how is justice served by this?
"Your way doesn't have a God, because any God would have to answer to your "ultimate authority" which would make God submissive to you, and that ain't the way it goes down."
My way? Which way is my way? Anyway, god would owe us a moral obligation by virtue of creating us sans our consent on the matter. Do you deny this?
God owes you nothing. You owe him everything.
"God owes you nothing. You owe him everything."
So, you ascribe to the god can do whatever he wants to us mentality? I bet you don't agree that parents can do what they want to their kids, however.
Parents are stewards of children, not creators.
Parents do create children...didn't you learn that in school, or do you think that god magically makes babies appear inside of women? The act of bringing a sentient being into the world means that you take on a moral obligation to that being. Children do not ask to be born, and parents do not have the moral right to treat their children any way they want to. Parents can not (morally) harm their children, abuse them, etc.
It would be the same if we were to create children in test tubes. We would be morally obligated to treat them with respect, etc.
It is the same with god. If god has brought thinking, feeling life forms into existence, then god owes them a moral obligation. god is not free to do with us as he wishes and still be considered a moral entity.
Parents create sperm and an egg. God is the one that allows that to become a child. Otherwise we'd just have lifeless fetus's being removed from women's uteruses... uteri... uterinies... whatever.
"Parents create sperm and an egg. God is the one that allows that to become a child. Otherwise we'd just have lifeless fetus's being removed from women's uteruses... uteri... uterinies... whatever."
Wow, and you really believe that? Sorry, but it's biology all the way. The parents of the animal (in sexual reproduction) both produce a set of genetic material that comes together and becomes offspring through purely natural forces. There's no need to invoke god and no evidence that any god does anything to start the process or help it along.
Even so, my point still stands. Even if we were to create life-forms that are capable of thinking and feeling, etc. we would assume a moral responsibility to them, just as god has assumed one with us. god is not free to do with us as he wishes. He is not free to torture us, make us suffer, etc. And, even if he were, what does that say about a god that uses that takes you up on your offer to torture humanity? This is certainly not an omni-benevolent god.
"There's no need to invoke god and no evidence that any god does anything to start the process or help it along."
So enlighten me on why it is a child's heart starts beating?
It's called fetal development. When the egg meets the sperm, the cell that is formed has the shared genetic material of the parents. This genetic material carries within it the instructions for developing cells. As those cells develop, they take on the shape and attributes of certain organs. We've known this for many, many years now. Is it really news for you?
Still didn't answer the question. What causes the electrical signal to be sent that causes the fetus's heart to start beating.
Don't be pompous till you've actually answered the question.
No need to invoke magic.
I mean, do you really think that we have to resort to "goddidit" to explain fetal development?
I read this page, but it doesn't say anywhere why the heart begins to beat. It says that it does beat, but has no explanation of why it would begin.
It begins because the muscles are "programmed" (for lack of a better word) to contract and pump blood. It's just a matter of development. It's not magic.
But, you seem intent on asserting that god is behind it all, yet you are very short on evidence for your proposal. What is your evidence that god has a hand in it? It's not enough to simply try and point out a gap in our knowledge and then insert your god into it. Surely you know by now that that is fallacious thinking, don't you? So, where is your evidence?
"It begins because the muscles are "programmed" (for lack of a better word) to contract and pump blood"
Programming = programmer. The first heart had to start for some reason.
The idea of my argument is simply to show you that science can't prove everything. Again, how long would a gap have to stand for you to realize that science can't answer it? Just as you accuse Christians of not allowing any evidence that will prove them wrong, you eliminate an opportunity for any supernatural explanation.
"Programming = programmer. The first heart had to start for some reason."
That's an incorrect argument from analogy. The reason reproduction happens is because the genetic material evolved to allow for more complexity.
"The idea of my argument is simply to show you that science can't prove everything."
There may be questions that science will never answer. This isn't one of them, and trying to manufacture a gap where none exists is pretty lame.
"Again, how long would a gap have to stand for you to realize that science can't answer it?"
Forever. We will always continue to try and answer questions. That's the thing about science is that we don't give up. We aren't content to simply throw up our hands and claim that "goddidit."
"Just as you accuse Christians of not allowing any evidence that will prove them wrong, you eliminate an opportunity for any supernatural explanation."
Once again you show that you don't understand science. There are no rules in the scientific method that preclude supernatural explanations. The real problem is that they are non-starters. We have no way of testing them. I've not eliminated any opportunity, I'm simply being practical until such time as we can admit supernatural explanations.
Secondly, I've yet to hear a supernatural explanation. "goddidit" is not an explanation for anything.
Thirdly, I've always said that if a Xian could provide evidence that I would no longer be an atheist. Instead of complaining that I won't accept evidence, perhaps you should provide it. Instead of making excuses about your arguments, perhaps you should provide your evidence. The reason that you shy away is that you have no evidence. You know that god of the gaps reasoning is fallacious, and you know that that is exactly what you are doing. You're trying to find any gap in science where you can insert your god without any evidence, because you know that if you had to give evidence, you'd be up a creek.
I'd like to see your evidence that the heart starts beating because of genetic "programming."
Pick up some textbooks on fetal development and biology. There's tons of evidence for the biological process of reproduction. I can't believe that there's so many creationists on this thread that are denying reproduction occurs as a natural process. This is literally blowing my mind to be honest.
You are flat out wrong about this, and you obviously know it because you won't offer an answer. Evidence for why the heart begins to beat please.
Flat out wrong about what? That reproduction isn't magic? What exactly am I wrong about? And, why should I have to provide a treatise on heart development when you can't be bothered to actually learn something about that which you deny (especially since I have given supporting information)?
And, where is your answer? You keep wanting to claim that "goddidit" but you can't support it, so you try and stay on the attack and act as if there's no other answer because in reality it is you that can't support your assertions.
Let's try something else. Let's say that no one knows how or why hearts start to beat. So what? That gives you no license to insert "goddidit" as an answer. At best, we would have to say that we don't know. So, you seem to be working rather hard for what could only be a pyrrhic victory for you. Why don't you actually present evidence for your assertions of magic?
So you're going from "We know why it happens" to "we don't know why it happens?"
You get touchy when your claims are unfounded.
Reading compreheshun, ur doin it rong.
What I said was that even if we didn't know, you still have no argument to make in your favor. But, hey, thanks once again for making it plain that you will do anything you can to avoid the fact that you can't back up your assertions and that you'd rather try to play rhetorical games than actually examine the evidence.
LOL! Just trying to hold you to your arguments just like you do with me. So do we know or not? Simple question.
Has nothing to do with God, Christianity, Atheism, etc. Do we know the answer or not?
"LOL! Just trying to hold you to your arguments just like you do with me."
BS. You got caught trying to misrepresent my arguments. Just admit it.
I've already pointed you to quite a bit of information on this, so I would say that we know enough about human reproduction and reproduction in general to say that we do know. We know there is no magic involved, thank you very much.
Now, care to back up your assertion that magic man does it?
You did not refer me to any page that said we knew how it happened. As a matter of fact, it was pretty obvious we didn't.
Well, you actually have to read them instead of dismissing them without looking at them. I know that it's a faux pas for you to question your beliefs or to be wrong (since anyone who is wrong is unfavored by god) but the lengths you go...all I can say is there's more to life and our knowledge than what some goat herders wrote in books about 2000 years ago. Join the 21st century will ya?
LOL do the theists actually realise that the cardiovascular system is working before the heart development reaches the point at which it can be described as 'beating'?
http://www.nervenet.org/EMBRYO/heart.html
I just read the page you linked from top to bottom, and still have a question I hope you can help me with:
All of the information listed as "Heart Embryology" describes the building of a two-pump organ (the heart.) It describes in fairly good detail how each part works and what each part is important for. However, it is never discussed why the dual-pump begins actually pumping. It's similar to an assembly manual for one of those pendulum powered devices that seem to work on their own once you start them going.
To get them started, you must push, or lift some part of the pendulum in order for gravity and momentum to eventually take over and continue the work. I have yet to see where the original input for the heart that allows it to start working comes from.
We see the dual-pump working, and understand the importance, but we've never seen the original power source. What starts the pump actually pumping?
Jesus. Obviously.
Post a Comment