Has the 'Does God Exist Thread' impacted you in any way?? (2 Viewers)

[Cookie182]

Take that back homo.

I love Supernatural.

Nah, you love Dean Winchester. Difference

 

[Cookie182]

Any former christians now atheists/agonostic exclusively because of the thread?

 

[katie tully]

Nah, you love Dean Winchester. Difference

It's true, the man is a dead set fox.

 

[Cookie182]

It's true, the man is a dead set fox.

I have an obssessed sister lol

I asked my gf the reason- supposedly Sam is actually better looking but more of a pussy and "cute"

Dean is yea... a masculine fox.

 

[gibbo153]

Any former christians now atheists/agonostic exclusively because of the thread?

doubt it.

i'm sure it could have been a contributer to someone who was already starting to fall away, perhaps even the catalyst for someone to start really questioning their beliefs, who then could have fallen away due to a larger number of factors.

but i'd be quite surprised if the thread had actually single-handedly started and then seen-out the entire process of someone falling away.

 

[Brontecat]

i actually meant it helped me to grow more in faith because it forced me to actually think about what i do believe and to attempt to counteract other opinions (even if i was sometimes unsuccessful)

although i only did start posting in this thread the other day it is no indication of how many times i have actually been kept up top date with the thread e.g. actually read the thread

 

[Uncle]

i drank some energy drink of some kind then i said, "praise the lord satan!", then my comrade went "horray for satan!", so, "just drink or die motherfucker"

 

[gibbo153]

i actually meant it helped me to grow more in faith because it forced me to actually think about what i do believe and to attempt to counteract other opinions (even if i was sometimes unsuccessful)

although i only did start posting in this thread the other day it is no indication of how many times i have actually been kept up top date with the thread e.g. actually read the thread

good to hear. Christians are definately called to have a defence for their faith,

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" - 2 Corinthians 15:5
​

but its more important to base these around an understanding of one's own reason for belief,

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15
​

In general i think Christians who enter fierce debate surrounding prior proofs for God are not trusting in His power, nor showing His love to those they are arguing with.


*throws holy water on everyone*

 

[Iron]

cheers mollan

 

[themerald]

It has reaffirmed my horror at the wilful ignorance - or more accurately, self-delusions - of a frightening proportion of the world.

umm maybe you shouold look into it a bit more before you start saying people who believe in god are delusional. I, for one, am not delusional, but i believe in god.
Take a look at biochemistry for instance.
It was not around when the theory of evolution was put in place, it is a newer science, and it pretty much blows the theory of evolution out of the water.

I think people who dismiss others as ignorant because they don't believe the same thing are the ignorant ones.

 

[Graney]

You wouldn't typically be aware if you were delusional...

How does biochemistry 'blow the theory of evolution out of the water', I've never heard that one before?

 

[katie tully]

umm maybe you shouold look into it a bit more before you start saying people who believe in god are delusional. I, for one, am not delusional, but i believe in god.
Take a look at biochemistry for instance.
It was not around when the theory of evolution was put in place, it is a newer science, and it pretty much blows the theory of evolution out of the water.

I think people who dismiss others as ignorant because they don't believe the same thing are the ignorant ones.

As somebody who understands a fair bit about biochemistry, I can assure you that it does not blow evolution of out the water.

Infact if you take a look at another science, such as molecular genetics, you will see that it supports evolution and the theory of a common ancestor indisputably.

Please share your infinite wisdom on the idea that biochemistry disputes evolution.

 

[Laika_]

umm maybe you shouold look into it a bit more before you start saying people who believe in god are delusional. I, for one, am not delusional, but i believe in god.
Take a look at biochemistry for instance.
It was not around when the theory of evolution was put in place, it is a newer science, and it pretty much blows the theory of evolution out of the water.

I think people who dismiss others as ignorant because they don't believe the same thing are the ignorant ones.

haha what the fuck

 

[Kwayera]

umm maybe you shouold look into it a bit more before you start saying people who believe in god are delusional. I, for one, am not delusional, but i believe in god.
Take a look at biochemistry for instance.
It was not around when the theory of evolution was put in place, it is a newer science, and it pretty much blows the theory of evolution out of the water.

I think people who dismiss others as ignorant because they don't believe the same thing are the ignorant ones.

Clearly you are delusional if you think that biochemistry "blows evolution out of the water", given they're mutually dependent.

Also, this bears repeating. Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[katie tully]

I'm not delusional.
Biochemistry disputes evolution.
I'm not delusional.
Biochemistry disputes evolution.
I'm not delusional.
Biochemistry disputes evolution.
I'm not delusional.
Biochemistry disputes evolution.
I'm not delusional.
Biochemistry disputes evolution.
I'm not delusional.
Biochemistry disputes evolution.
I'm not delusional.
Biochemistry disputes evolution.

 

[Graney]

A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe

Robert L. Dorit


"Will you honestly tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that the shape of my nose was ordained and 'guided by an intelligent cause?'" In exasperation, but not without humor, Charles Darwin posed this question to Charles Lyell in 1860, the year Darwin dealt with the maelstrom unleashed by the publication of The Origin of Species. In both the popular and the scientific press, Darwin had to contend with the wrath of those for whom the notion of a living world based on accident, time and natural selection was simply too disquieting. Look around, Darwin's critics argued, and see the evidence of design. And where there is design, there must be a designer.

One hundred thirty-six years later, this argument makes a reappearance in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Adorned this time around with the language of molecular biology, spiced up with charges of a conspiracy of scientists, masquerading as an appeal for truth and not for theology, it is nonetheless the same old thing: There cannot be design without a designer. Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the author, nor scoff at his unease with a world apparently lacking purpose, the case for intelligent design put forth in Darwin's Black Box is built on some deep misunderstandings about evolution, molecular organization and, ultimately, about the nature of scientific inquiry. Because of these misperceptions, not a blow is landed on the central, radical claim of Darwinian thinking: Biological order and design emerge from the workings of the evolutionary process and not from the hand of a designer.

This book will, no doubt, find its defenders. Those who are uneasy with a materialist explanation of the living world will welcome this attack on the Darwinian worldview. But as a practicing biologist, and a card-carrying molecular evolutionist, I cannot but find the premise of this book—that molecular discoveries have plunged a wooden stake through the heart of Darwinian logic—ludicrous. This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution has "grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead end problems." Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor "has been moribund for decades" and that "molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." And all this time I have been thinking that this is probably the golden age of evolutionary biology (although 1860 and the early years of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s were probably not bad, either). For the first time we have molecular methods that allow the generation of massive amounts of detailed data relevant to a host of evolutionary questions. We have techniques that allow us to follow the control and expression of single genes in living organisms. We can now move genes from one species to another to test their function in a novel genetic context. Computational power now allows us to compare tens of thousands of DNA sequences to one another in search for conserved motifs, shared functions and common ancestry. We can carry out simulations of complex biological phenomena and find solutions to quantitative problems that seem to defy analytic solutions. Not bad at all, I thought.

What then is Behe's argument? The central point of Darwin's Black Box is not always easy to spot, but it appears to rely on Behe's notion of irreducible complexity. Molecular systems, defined to include both linked sets of biochemical reactions (the clotting cascade) and aspects of cellular organization (cilia and flagella), for example, are apparently "irreducibly complex": They only work when all the pieces are in place and finely tuned. Any single component, on its own, is useless. If there is a single missing piece, the whole apparatus ceases to function, like a mousetrap without a spring. Such complex mechanisms, argues Behe, could not have arisen "in a Darwinistic manner." Their complexity shows an intelligent designer at work. But this is a conclusion reached only by stacking misunderstandings of the evolutionary process upon misrepresentations of the practice of evolutionary biology. I emphasize six fallacies inherent in Behe's claim, although there are many others where these came from.

Fallacy one: There is a boundary between the molecular world and other levels of biological organization.

By the author's own admission, the Darwinian argument appears to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization—bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms. Only at the molecular level does the argument somehow fail. But, in fact, there is no fundamental discontinuity between the molecular and the supramolecular level in biology. The traditions, tools and approaches of the molecular biologist may differ radically from those of the functional morphologist, but the fabric of living systems is seamless. There is nothing that makes design at the molecular level any more special than design or organization at any other level in biology. If anything, molecular design may be somewhat easier to account for, because the components of molecular machines are frequently the products of identifiable genes.

Fallacy two: The current utility of a given feature (molecular or otherwise) explains "why" the feature originally evolved.

By this logic, if a particular protein is part of a complex system—say, the eye—that protein must have arisen to play a role in the incipient eye. But we know this is not the case. Many of the proteins in the eye lens, for example, begin their careers doing something completely different and unrelated to vision. Evolution is a creative scavenger, taking what is available and putting it to new use. The correct metaphor for the Darwinian process is not that of a First World engineer, but that of the Third World auto mechanic who will get your car running again, but only if parts already lying around can be used for the repair. Ironically, it is at the molecular level that this recycling of available parts is most apparent. My current favorite example (of many available) is the discovery that a gene complex originally involved in specifying the pattern of segmentation in insects has now been found to assist in the proper development of the vertebrate hindbrain (a structure that has no counterpart in segmented insects). This homeotic complex of genes is an exquisite piece of molecular machinery, precisely of the sort that the author finds so imponderable in a Darwinian world. Once the origin and the current role of the homeotic complex are disentangled, the problem vexing Behe—"...biochemical systems cannot be built up by natural selection working on mutations: no direct gradual route exists to these irreducibly complex systems"—simply disappears. Then we can see that just as the aging home-run hitter is drafted to be the designated hitter, the homeotic complex that helps guide the development of the vertebrate hindbrain predates the vertebrates by hundreds of millions of years. The homeotic complex did not evolve to regulate hindbrain development, it was recruited. In fact, homeotic complexes have been recruited over and over again wherever delicate control of gene expression is required. Design-from-scratch and direct routes are not luxuries afforded to the evolutionary process.

Fallacy three: Unless we can identify advantages for each imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary bit of biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation.

There has always been a version of popular evolution that consists of identifying some curious feature of the living world, speculating on why that feature might be "good for the organism" and imagining how that feature may have come to pass. Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible stories concerning the evolution of a given biological feature. But plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionary biology may finally be coming of age precisely because we are moving away from particularistic, speculative scenarios—the just-so stories. The rigorous testing of evolutionary hypotheses depends on the use of comparative data, on an understanding of mechanism and, increasingly, on the experimental manipulation of components of the system. It does not (see fallacy two) depend on inventing an "advantage" for a partially evolved flagellar motor. In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or of the clotting cascade. Unsolved questions, however, are the hallmark of an exciting science.

Fallacy four: Molecular evolution: "a lot of sequences, some math, and no answers."

In a peculiar quest for an article or book that "tells us how specific biochemical structures came to be," Behe has made glancing contact with the literature of my field. What he has found apparently dismays him. The basic tools of the trade—the comparative analysis of sequences and structures, the mathematical modeling of the evolutionary process and the experimental generation of biologically relevant molecules in abiotic systems—are summarily dismissed. What then is left? Would the accumulating evidence that myriad novel molecular functions for proteins and nucleic acids can be evolved (not engineered) in vitro count as evidence against intelligent design? How about the observation in real time of the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by bacteria? Drug resistance by viruses? Herbicide resistance by weeds? I suspect that in the end nothing would cause the author to abandon his commitment to intelligent design.

Fallacy five: There is a conspiracy of silence among scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation.

Anyone who has ever attended a scientific meeting will find the notion of a conspiracy of silence—well, unlikely. The meetings I go to are usually characterized by N scientists voicing at least N+1 opinions on the topic at hand. When Behe reviews the indices of several major biochemistry textbooks and finds that fewer than one percent of the entries deal with evolution, I fear he may be onto something: Molecular biologists and biochemists often have no training in evolution. Given my conference experience, however, that does not always stop them from voicing a personal opinion about the evolutionary process. But like my personal opinions about the analysis of detailed crystallographic data, such opinions should not be mistaken for expertise.

Fallacy six: The evolution of complexity is unaddressed and unexplained.

The very definition of complexity, and the rules that govern its emergence, are indeed critical issues in evolutionary biology. But the problem becomes deeply uninteresting if the only legitimate approach to solving it is the demonstration of "a direct, gradual route [leading to] irreducibly complex systems." We are still deciding how to measure complexity, debating whether the history of life shows a tendency toward increased complexity and arguing about whether biological organization is but a subset of the larger problem of order and complexity. We do not as yet know what form the answers will take, but mathematical models, computational simulations and, increasingly, experimental results suggest that complexity and organization may be inexorable outcomes in multicomponent systems. If our hypotheses about complexity are to be of any use, however, they will have to be materialist explanations grounded in material cause.

I've often wondered why the argument from design so appeals to engineers and chemists. I suspect that the problem derives from the day-to-day experience of these professions. Engineers and chemists know that they do not get a desired outcome—stable bridge or purified compound—from random inputs, time and a statistical principle for differential representation. In these professions, there is no design without a designer, no desired outcome without careful and intelligent planning. But personal experience is not always the best guide.

Behe's argument for intelligent design ultimately fails because it is a belief and not a potential explanation. The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints.

A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe » American Scientist

Darwin's Black Box - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overwhelming criticism apparently.

 

[Laika_]

lol what she said literally doesnt make sense

biochemistry is just a branch of chemistry? it isnt a scientific theory lol,, it doesnt prove or disprove anything.

nonetheless, im confused and saddened by this recent development about evolution being proved incorrect by biochemistry. WHY? WHY DO IT BIOCHEM?

 

[Tully B.]

umm maybe you shouold look into it a bit more before you start saying people who believe in god are delusional. I, for one, am not delusional, but i believe in god.
Take a look at biochemistry for instance.
It was not around when the theory of evolution was put in place, it is a newer science, and it pretty much blows the theory of evolution out of the water.

ummm maybe you should look into it a bit more. Please refer to comments made above about your very silly statement regarding the incompatibility of biochemistry and evolution and ADMIT THAT YOU'RE WRONG.

 

[rant]

I don't believe in magic, I don't believe in I-ching, I don't believe in Bible, I don't believe in tarot, I don't believe in Hitler, I don't believe in Jesus, I don't believe in Kennedy, I don't believe in Buddha, I don't believe in mantra, I don't believe in Gita, I don't believe in yoga, I don't believe in kings, I don't believe in Elvis, I don't believe in Zimmerman, I don't believe in Beatles~

I just believe in me.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

It has reaffirmed my horror at the wilful ignorance - or more accurately, self-delusions - of a frightening proportion of the world.

This.