Posted: Jun 07, 2014 11:36 pm
Hello ADParker! Our family is getting ready to go get some wings (BBQ that is) and watch Game 2 of the Stanley Cup Finals at a sports bar, so I don't think I'll be able to get to your whole comment, but thanks for writing!
Yeah, as the Bible says, Love hopes all things!
Hey ADParker! I didn't put a link to the debate because I've had my hands slapped with a ruler when I've done that at other atheist sites, and then they block you, and then they boot you!
This thread is about a counterclaim to the evolution of the eye. So, the book I'm reading is considered the authoritative work on the topic; the author's colleague is, as I said, a prof of eye-stuff at the University of California, who I debated on this very topic. That's why I thought it was relevant. Probably, about 99.95% of folks online who argue about eye stuff and evolution haven't ever picked up a text on the evolution of the eye, and probably 99.99995% haven't debated an eye guy on the topic. So by letting you guys know that I'm a bit familiar with the topic at hand, you might not be inclined to think that I'm just making stuff up. (Of course, educated and informed people make stuff up all the time, just like other people, yes, agreed.)
Good point ADParker. I agree that it's so easy to fall into the logical fallacy of an invalid appeal to authority. Of course, a zillion other PhDs reject God, and countless PhDs believe in all kinds of crazy things. Agreed. I offered that bit of info not as evidence that creation is true, but as a counter to the mocking that I saw in this thread and as a counter to the widespread mocking of creationists as summarized by Richard Dawkins, "'if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane..." Of course, many of the fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, rejected evolution and believed in our creator God, so the claim that only the uneducated reject materialist origins shouldn't be used by evolutionists.
In fact, don't you think that the public and the media are rather gullible when they accept that materialists have done a good job of showing that you can explain origins apart from the existence of a Creator? By the way, at the risk of getting my hand slapped or just being considered self-centered, a well-received British Darwinist author, James Hannam, quoted that line from Dawkins in his blog across the pond about his debate with me.
I'm looking forward, ADP, to replying to the rest of your post. But, as I mentioned that the public and the media seem rather gullible regarding materialist origins, if it's okay, let me leave you with this question (my fifth)!
- Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins?
Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness, therefore they don't even have a theory to explain where we've come from, let alone a robust theory. It seems ADP, that the following pattern shows that materialists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these six irrefutable observations:
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with existing complex reproducing life
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.
This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists. Consider also how the process might have originated to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule? Atheists have nothing and we can affirmatively know that they will forever have nothing in that regard, because a high-level understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions. Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.
Talk to you later ADP!
- Bob Enyart
ADParker wrote:Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So you are this Bob Enyart then I take it. Interesting. I have to wonder if you are actually interested in joining the forum as an active member, or if this is just a fly-by, time wasting, kind of thing. Because that happens a lot. Time will only tell on that of course.
Yeah, as the Bible says, Love hopes all things!
ADParker wrote:Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:That would be Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved by Ivan R Schwab. (Just giving people context you understand
And you debated his colleague? Um okay, doesn't seem terribly relevant to much of anything that you debated a colleague of someone who wrote a book, but okay. What form did this "debate" take? Is there a form of it anywhere, such as a video or something like that?
Hey ADParker! I didn't put a link to the debate because I've had my hands slapped with a ruler when I've done that at other atheist sites, and then they block you, and then they boot you!
This thread is about a counterclaim to the evolution of the eye. So, the book I'm reading is considered the authoritative work on the topic; the author's colleague is, as I said, a prof of eye-stuff at the University of California, who I debated on this very topic. That's why I thought it was relevant. Probably, about 99.95% of folks online who argue about eye stuff and evolution haven't ever picked up a text on the evolution of the eye, and probably 99.99995% haven't debated an eye guy on the topic. So by letting you guys know that I'm a bit familiar with the topic at hand, you might not be inclined to think that I'm just making stuff up. (Of course, educated and informed people make stuff up all the time, just like other people, yes, agreed.)
Good point ADParker. I agree that it's so easy to fall into the logical fallacy of an invalid appeal to authority. Of course, a zillion other PhDs reject God, and countless PhDs believe in all kinds of crazy things. Agreed. I offered that bit of info not as evidence that creation is true, but as a counter to the mocking that I saw in this thread and as a counter to the widespread mocking of creationists as summarized by Richard Dawkins, "'if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane..." Of course, many of the fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, rejected evolution and believed in our creator God, so the claim that only the uneducated reject materialist origins shouldn't be used by evolutionists.
In fact, don't you think that the public and the media are rather gullible when they accept that materialists have done a good job of showing that you can explain origins apart from the existence of a Creator? By the way, at the risk of getting my hand slapped or just being considered self-centered, a well-received British Darwinist author, James Hannam, quoted that line from Dawkins in his blog across the pond about his debate with me.
Richard Dawkins once said that 'if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).' It rapidly became clear that Bob was none of these things. For a start, I know a fair bit about evolution and genetics. But when it came to familiarity with the arguments, he was way ahead of me. On epigenetics, RNA/DNA chemistry, and animal physiology, I was hopelessly outclassed. Bob is not ignorant. And it is pretty clear he is neither stupid nor insane. He came across, in fact, as extremely intelligent. So perhaps he is wicked? Well... I am sure he is nothing of the sort.
-James Hannam, British Author and Darwinist
I'm looking forward, ADP, to replying to the rest of your post. But, as I mentioned that the public and the media seem rather gullible regarding materialist origins, if it's okay, let me leave you with this question (my fifth)!
- Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins?
Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness, therefore they don't even have a theory to explain where we've come from, let alone a robust theory. It seems ADP, that the following pattern shows that materialists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these six irrefutable observations:
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with existing complex reproducing life
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.
This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists. Consider also how the process might have originated to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule? Atheists have nothing and we can affirmatively know that they will forever have nothing in that regard, because a high-level understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions. Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.
Talk to you later ADP!
- Bob Enyart