It turns out though that some aspects of modern physics are seriously questionable.
Evolution I'm pretty sold on; I don't see any other way in which life could evolve, even though I'm not an expert myself.
Relativity however, has apparently had problems from the start, not to mention its fraudulent conception by Einstein who pretty much stole every idea from someone, and has at this point been so ingraned in our heads that we can't question it...
@Spjungen There is substantial evidence for evolution, and Ill buy evolution for a lot of things. However, many scientists darn near have evolution as a theory for everything in biology. I think that is a little too much of an extrapolation for the evidence that we have now. That said, I saw a study recently where scientists kinda sorta made yeasts multicultural, which was a huge sticking point for me. Even still, there are some things about humans in particular that seem to fly in the
@Nebster173 My thoughts as well. I believe he is incorrect and trying to marry ideas that are too difficult to combine (blind faith+scientific method), but he is a smart man to recognize the abundance of evidence which exists and honest in not trying to lie about this fact.
It seems to me there's no point in attacking a religion that accepts science as valuable and wants to teach evolution as a proven scientific theory. Let them have their faith, who cares? :)
As a Catholic, I get so agitated when people claim that intelligent design is the reason for their faith. My own father, who holds a PhD from MIT in chemistry, thinks this. I'd like to ask these people to REALLY look at a theological and philosophical perspective of God, as Dr. Collins has.
Death came after the fall of man. Theistic macro-evolutionists can't be Christians, since they hold to the heresy that death of lifeforms came before man sinned.
He doesn't say what the alternative purposes could possibly be, which the parts supposedly leading to the full-fledged flagellum supposedly had. So his argument amounts to wishful thinking, and the bandwagon argument fallacy. As for his talk of god-of-the-gaps, he doesn't seem to understand that by rejecting intelligence ultimately behind nature, that he is embracing the ONLY alternatige, which is the lack of intention, tantamount to accidents. Therefore, this man has an accidents-of-the-gaps.
Francis Collins isn't denying intelligent design, he's endorsing it by saying God is far more amazing than the young earth creationists are making God out to be.
I have read Collins book, and found nothing in the way of "verifiable" empirical science in support of the Darwinian continuum, it all amounted to unverifiable "inferences", nothing more!
@Visiondrugs1 I have read the Greatest Show on Earth and reviewed it on Amazon. You should read the response to Dawkins delusions, THE GREATEST HOAX ON EARTH,
@heiningerjohn ok so let's say that's true. so let's abandon our best reasoned inferences and posit that everything happened because of a nosy, jealous, creepy, father figure hiding somewhere outside the laws of nature willed it all into being. damn, that's religion at its finest, how sad.
While I don't agree with his "theistic evolution" idea, it is refreshing to see someone at least attempting to square his beliefs with the science. Interesting clip.
What a loan of dung! This clip proves that Collins isn't a believer because there are rational reasons for that, but because at some point he started believing, and that's that. He clearly admits that there's no reason to postulate god's existence - the argument from design fails - yet he continues to believe and finds a cockamamie way to reconcile his belief with the facts. Thumbs down to intellectual dishonesty!!
This video, "Dawkins Stumped" is a hoax video which was manipulated to create the illusion that Dawkins was stumped. Just search on YT and check it out for yourself. Francis Collins is a 'believer' and his argument like all Christian arguments is based on 'faith', he says this repeatedly, that belief in a god brings him comfort. I think this is true of most people who believe in a god.
@andygray That's the only way to believe in God, and they know it. God can't be proven because it's 100% in your mind. Empirically, you cannot prove him, ever. And what can't be empirically proven, can't be scientifically proven.
@CntthnkO15 No doubt you have never met the people made my clothes, or yours, but the fact that we are wearing them tells me there are clothes makers. Maybe this is only all in our "mind", and the clothes really designed and made made themselves, particularly as the clothes makers would be far more complex, and thus far more difficult to explain than the cloths making themselves.
@andygray It's basically another way of saying "let us believe what we want, and u can believe in what u want". I'm fine with that as long as they don't force it on other people, especially their kids. Richard Dawkins is right...there shouldn't be such a thing as a "Christian child", or a "Muslim child"...people should have freedom to believe in whatever religion they want (or lack of religion), and parents should have no right to enforce this one way or another. We need laws to protect this.
@Casshyr Oh I have no objection to people believing in what they like as long as they do not bring their beliefs into the political arena. I personally think that parents should not be encouraged to indoctrinate their children into any belief system, let them decide for themselves when they are capable of making decisions. For me it occurred when I was 13 and rejected the Christian indoctrination I was subjected to from birth. For years I was very confused about this paradoxical Christian god.
@andygray Still more utterly mindless nonsense! We live in a "democracy" and everyone in has the right to run for office on the basis of that they feel is in the best interest of the culture, and the Christian worldview has had a decisive beneficial impact on science and western culture. Humanism is itself a religion, as is atheism. I personally think that our public education should not be indoctrinating children on the religious beliefs of evolutionary humanism and materialism.
@Casshyr More mindless nonsense! Dawkins wants to teach our kids that there is no ultimate basis for values or morality, and that they are all purely the result of ruthless, uncaring, selfish genes intent on survival and self preservation, by the savage elimination of all competitors, particularly eliminating the weak and disadvantaged.
There is nothing more dangerous or destructive to our Children than this atheistic and Humanistic mindless, and hedonistic worldview.
@heiningerjohn no he doesn't. Stop putting words in other people's mouth. Either cite me the quotation (which you won't find any), or stop this. You can believe in whatever you want, but don't put in words in other people, alright? btw, if you are going to cite "Selfish Gene", you should be aware he is merely citing a biological observation, but it by no means suggest he wants a society built around this principle.
@Casshyr Evolutionist Jason Lanier, "There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature." Dawkins. "All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth."(Psychology Today 30 Jan-Feb 1997). Also, read last chapter of TGSOE, and there are other quotes..
@heiningerjohn Um, ok, i fail to see how you conclude that to "he wants to teach kids there is no ultimate basis for values or morality". Dawkins is simply saying the world as it is. As an analogy, it's like me telling you the world is a cruel world. Those who have the money get their way, those who don't have to learn to deal with it. That's life. That's just tough. Now, does that make me unloving? No. I simply describe the world as it is.
@Casshyr Wake up! If you teach Darwinism the way Dawkins wants to teach it, warts and all, that's exactly the message you are communicating to Children. Dawkins Humanistic atheistic evolutionary worldview is one that has no meaning or purpose, and no basis for morality or ethics. He well understands that, why can't you.
@heiningerjohn No, you think like this because you want it to be true so you can use it as an excuse to disbelieve evolution. We are already teaching evolution at school, do you ever hear teachers telling kids "hey, there's no moral! Go nuts! Rob a bank, kill your enemy. Be free and do whatever you want!"?
@heiningerjohn Dawkins himself gave a video on how he thinks concepts of morality and ethics evolved via evolution. He certainly believes in the values of ethics and morals! (any sensible person does). The difference between him (and me) versus you is you think morals have to be derived from God, while we think morals are decided collectively together as a society that can be re-adjusted and refined over times.
@heiningerjohn ....just cause you can't handle that this is it doesn't mean there is a god(s). and you don't believe in the morals of the bible either (good thing) or you would stone your children and gays, you wouldn't work on the sabbath, sell your daughter, etc. the whole god concept was made up by the winning tribe in the desert- god is on our side, god loves us, we are his chosen peeps. Get it now? its made up!! they didn't know any better.
by the way, giving up god(s) is like giving up on Santa...it's not big thing. You just live a more rational life. A million hand praying isn't as useful and one pair of hands working. there are no theist in hospitals. cheers!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@1tabligh Could infinite monkeys, using infinite typewriters, for an infinite amount of time eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare? Imagine if there was an infinite amount of possible universes, each comes about with a infinite set of different rules, could not one end up like ours? What if the creatures that came about naturally in this one universe couldn't detect the rest of the multiverse and thought, "The only way this could come about is design." I'd personally facepalm.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@Pokarot Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh I wouldn't conclude that matter, 'unknowing and unperceiving" is my creator and all things, I also wouldn't conclude that my bread gets toasted by magical pixies.
You're using an argument from ignorance, I could explain my position more, but there is really no point trying to explain a position to someone else when they don't understand their own.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@Pokarot We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
@1tabligh Saying that matter would become his 'creator'. It is saying the matter is.. a being? Matter is the basis of our world. And it is VERY strange, I would also call it the greatest show on Earth (and in the universe). If you have an explanation on why it is as it is... please. But I believe you should have evidence if you want to propose anything.
@bukifuriku Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is *free* of all such properties.
@1tabligh Thank you for the reply. I agree with you on the dimensions, but could you explain the 'necessary being'? Does this being have an intelligence, or is it a... framework for the unknown?
@bukifuriku The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@bukifuriku Does this being have an intelligence,...
____
If the power hidden in the depths of matter does not arise from the universal intelligence, what factor guides it to the elaboration of forms, to an amazing regularity and harmony?
If that power is an agent devoid of intelligence and conscious will, why does it never fall prey to disorder, and why does its compounding of matter never result in collision and destruction?
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@tulipsontheorgan Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings? No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@tulipsontheorgan NO. tell that to the millions of starving children in Africa and to millions ....
___
Your war monger politicians spent billions of dollars on wars instead of building the proper infrastructure at the UN to help the "starving children in Africa and to millions...." etc and you have the nerve to blame the grand architect of the Universe for the stupidities of your politicians?
@1tabligh ...you think some omni-sky-daddy would step in to help the millions each year of 1-5 year old starving babies. I thought he made the earth and the sun to go around it. Oops! earth goes around the sun, don't kill me for saying it. I thought the sky daddy flooded the earth because of sodomy but children starving to death slowly- now THAT he will allow to happen. What a wonderful, wonderful omni-sky-daddy.
@tulipsontheorgan If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@tulipsontheorgan Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@andygray What utter nonsense! Unlike Darwinism and naturalism, Collin's faith, like science itself, is based on a multitude of observations regarding the anthropic nature of the cosmos and in inherent nature and characteristics of human beings. There would not even be a universe, or life, were it not for a multitude of factors that are finely tuned and per-existent, including the water molecule, the cosmological constants and precisely balanced sub-atomic particles. End of story!
@heiningerjohn whatever dude...keep thinking there is an invisible daddy watching over you. One who cares about you and all the millions of people slowly starving, or the women who get gang raped, all the people who have been tortured to death or died from disease or natural disasters. He loves YOU!!! anyway, I'm out, this is pointless.
Anyone who doubts that evolution is a religion should watch the 'Dawkins Stumped' video. Dawkins was asked a simple scientific question. The look on his face is: How dare you question my religion!
@Mdebacle Anyone who doesn't understand how evolutionary theory is founded on solid evidence and confirmed repeatedly by its correct predictions should spend some time at talkorigins(dot)org and at the youtube channels of C0nc0rdance, DonExodus2, QualiaSoup and AronRa. As for the true nature of "intelligent design theory", look no further than the transcripts and decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case -- the facts are there.
The crucial step in training a new adherent to evolution is to convince them that inbreeding chromosomal mutants can displace the unmutated. Any attempt to point out the biological absurdity of this is like talking to a re-animated corpse.
The "Dawkins Stumped" video will cause people to observe the non-evolution of the human genome and eventually bring down the evolutionist house of cards.
@Mdebacle "inbreeding chromosomal mutants can displace the unmutated"?? That's nonsense with no relation to any claim made by evolution theory. And what is "non-evolution of the human genome" supposed to mean? Are you saying that just because our recorded history (going back 30K years, if you count cave paintings in Europe) shows human physiology staying about the same, the genome hasn't changing at all? That's absurd. We see lots of obvious changes, but they're minor compared to 300K years.
If your lab had a chimp with a chr fusion (giving it 47) and your job is to produce a strain with 46, two things are certain:
(1) you would test inbreeding and more inbreeding,
(2) your test would self-destruct long before it produced a decent banjo picker.
If humans have evolved 15 to 20 million base pairs in 6 million years, that is 3 per year. Pharaoh's mummy would be 10000 base pairs closer to chimp or evolution sleeps with the fishes.
@Mdebacle Both your scenarios (lab experiment with a chimp, measuring a 3300-year-old genome) are based on a profound misunderstanding (or patently false misstatement) of evolution theory. Mutation (which is random) and natural selection (which is not random) are not goal-directed, and do not operate at a constant rate of change. If you have the mental strength to study the subject without prejudice, you will find that the evidence for common ancestry of species is compelling and overwhelming,
[constant rate of change.] Maybe not constant, but certainly an average rate of change of 3 base pairs per year.
This would cause isolated segments of the human population to be missing the most recently evolved base pairs. In spite of the political incorrectness, if evolutionists could prove a more "chimp-like" population exists, even if only a thousand base pairs, y'all could blow trumpets from the roof tops.
@Mdebacle "but certainly an average rate of change of 3 base pairs per year." => i know this is an old post...but what do you mean by that? What's changing? The individual genome? Or the comparison of genome in one generation against the next?
@Mdebacle "comparison of one generation's genome to the next should be moving away from chimps at about 50 base pairs per generation." => scientific source for this plz
1.06% consistent sequence divergence between humans and chimps at shared genes, so call it 30 million base pairs
Supposed common ancestor was 5 to 6 million years ago, so divergence at 5 base pairs per year.
If this ancestor was a four-footed beast with crested skull and brain size 300 cc. , then certainly humans (not chimps) were doing most of the evolving.
@Mdebacle I don't mean to sound skeptical, but i am having trouble finding sources for some of your other claims. Please provide the sources for the following:
1) Chimpanzee-Human LCA has a brain size of 300cc
2) An actual scientific study that analyzes the whole genome of the pharoh
wikipedia says Australopithecus afarensis had 380–430 cc.
talkorigins says Sahelanthropus tchadensis had 350 cc.
There may not yet be a whole genome of a pharaoh, scan on Zahi Hawass for latest. As "Dawkins stumped' video tells us, no one in their right mind is expecting to see evidence of evolution in the human genome. As a defence contractor once said,"we had the contract for spare parts for 25 years. Nobody cared if it worked or not."
@Mdebacle "no one in their right mind is expecting to see evidence of evolution in the human genome" => actually no, what you call micro-evolution is expected to happen in all species, including humans. Genetic resistance against HIV is such an example. And your earlier point about pharaoh's DNA not closer to monkey as expected..you can't really say that if there's no study that analyzes the genome of a pharaoh!
What kind of fellowship could God have with humans if he knew everything we were about to say? It would be pointless ,wouldn`t it ? And if He didn`t know ,he wouldn`t be God
@megaead69 False dichotomy? Maybe. Logical extension of science slowly and inexorably removing the role of god from the universe, starting with a geocentric theory and now ending creationism? Definitely.
"For me, this [ Christianity] provides an enormous sense of comfort; a harmony that I can't find in other ways" - Francis Collins in this video
This above quote taken from this video sums up Francis Collin's REASONS for his religiousness. At the end of the day, religion can easily be summed up as a simple strategy or coping strategy for FEELING GOOD. Logic and reasoning are abandoned for the simple pleasures of FEELING GOOD. At least he admits it.
Oh, you mindless Darwinists. Sigh. It really doesn't matter what the facts are, or the logic is, you must persist in your religious evolutionary fervor. Oh, well, at least those of us who are thinking people can see the reasons to doubt Darwinism.
@JTCiao The facts , not fervor, back up the advance of evolution from theory to fact. if you are concerned with the facts then the answers lead to a natural explanation devoid of a supernatural being.
@fuzzierwuzzier As stated by US Defense Department consultant on deception, Dr Ray Hayman, the more intelligent you are the more easily you are deceived, with scientists being particularly prone to deception, with the context of the deception being the key factor. Meaning, Darwinism is the perfect example of this reality, and Collins is one of its many many victims.
@heiningerjohn The reality is that mindless mutations and blind natural selection has no overall perspective or predictive power, and wouldn't have the foggiest notion of where anything or everything is evolving to, or ever why. Meaning, that Darwinism is incapable of ever evolving and arranging specific parts, in a specific way, to work as a fully functional whole, to fit into an overall finely balanced fully integrated co-dependent Eco-system. In short, it doesn't work.
@heiningerjohn If you read Dr. Collins's book (Decoding the Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief), he actually addresses this belief by Creationists. He presents scientific evidence that evolution can, and has, evolved fully functional and dramatic changes in animals, refuting several examples that Creationists champion. I recommend reading informed viewpoints that are different than your own. It is the best way to test your own beliefs against reality.
@heiningerjohn John....please put the one ancient book DOWN!!! There are so many other NEW books to read. We have learned so much in the past 200, 100, 50, 10 years!!! Discovery upon discovery-where have U been? U don't have to give the pope money to save U from the plague-just have to keep the rats away (actually fleas). We know where thunder comes from. I know U have been to a hospital before-that is what MAN does. pray to dog or god and get the same results. Get it now?
@heiningerjohn The implication of what you are saying is that you must not be very intelligent, as you have (supposedly) NOT been prone to deception. Very interesting indeed...
@heiningerjohn The only deception Francis Collins is a victim of is christianity. By the way, you may need to reconsider your own level of intelligence if you subscribe to the twisted logic that being ignorant is somehow protecting yourself from deception. That in it self is an idiotic deception that you are apparently proud to sport. Please continue to denounce intelligence, religion needs people like you.
@JTCiao Thinking perhaps but not knowing nor understanding the undoubtable. Doubting Darwinism is at the moment quite outrageous if one does not have a better explaination and I doubt you have
Well despite the obvious point that it would be better than no foot at all, this is not how evolution works. It shows the pathetic nature of the people asking the question to even consider it.
Francis Collins believes in theistic evolution because of his belief about so-called "Junk DNA." "Junk DNA" has been recently disproved. It has been discovered that the non-coding segments of DNA are not junk, after all, but are actually vital to gene regulation (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed). Although, they don't code for protein that doesn't mean they're useless. This research has been published in journals Nature, RNA.
You can't deny something unless it's a fact. You can deny the holocaust, you can deny evolution, you can deny gravity, because those are facts (I say you CAN deny them, you will look stupid to do so). Intelligent design isn't a fact at all. I've never once in my entire life denied Intelligent Design, I've just pointed out that it it's garbage. Francis Collins is doing the same.
okay now religious ppl have resorted to evolution being "god's" mechanism hahahahahaha..what a farkin joke..if even now ppl cant see the reality then the r simply delusional. because if you accept evolution then you have to accept adam n eve never existed you have to accept earth is infact as old as science says it is..well if we are agreeing on science on almost everything WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED GOD FOR?????cuz science clearly has logged a dick in Theism's butt. STOP BEIN HYPOCRITE!!!
If supporters of ID want ID to be a REAL scientific theory like evolutionary theory, then ID needs to be able to make predictions or solve problems just like any other scientific theory (atomic theory, germ theory, etc). Until ID can be applied usefully, it doesn't do anything more valuable than 'stork theory' does for science. Science is a tool used to solve problems.
The (main) problem with Francis Collins' position is that a hypothesis like his says nothing about what God might be. It's just a vacuous position that sticks an unnecessary entity at the beginning of time and after that everything happens by laws of Physics.
As Einstein said if there are two theories on something that both work, the simplest one will be true. Why stick an imaginary being that you CAN'T know anything about in there? It complicates everything and leads to paradoxes everywhere.
anyway this is pointless...its obvious that we have different views. we can keep at this forever. i respect yours and therefore i hope you'd respect mine. thanks and good day. please don't reply because i don't think i'd have enough time to reply to you...
if i take an object and move it to another position, and another person comes along, and says "it was already here when i found it", do you think that he should believe that the object was already there? or the fact that somebody moved it?
how could you apply this same principle to the universe before it is formed? is it really the case that the needed components were just there? why is it so impossible that someone, or something put it there and started the reaction?
science explains a lot of things. i believe in evolution, but i also believe in God. i.e. im on francis collins' position. science can explain how we came out into existence, but WHY is it like that? why is it the dark matter works in this particular way? how is it possible that it was already in existence?
@lovelikefire93 RAELLY? Your actually 50 and still hold such ridiculous opinions? I though age brought wisdom not stupidity! You sound like a College campus atheist
well don't you think that if francis collins, a world renowned scientist, came to believe Jesus Christ on the grounds of historical evidence (as he stated in his book), that there should be sufficient grounds to believe?
plus given all the knowledge scientists know im surprised that they don't really ponder about how remarkble the universe is...even simple elements like nitrogen, why is it in group V, why does gravity work downwards.
I suspect Collins has been frightened into denying the truth of Intelligent Design after seeing what happened to the careers of those few, brave scientisits who try to take on the terrifying, totalitarian consensus of silence surrounding evolution
Collins gets into trouble here. Evolution relies on random mutations, and sometimes mutations occur when UV photons, say, strike DNA. But these are quantum mechanical events, which are subject to an inherent uncertainty. God himself can no more have absolute knowledge of a quantum mechanical system than humans can, unless mathematics itself is violated. So how could God know how evolution would turn out?
@geesjack How deluded do you have to be in order to call Dr. Collins a monster.....as if you can hold a candle to what that man has done for humanity via mapping the human genome. Get real.
@bahdahdoop "as if you can hold a candle to what that man has done for humanity via mapping the human genome"
Hey, he was simply the lucky guy who got the job, if he didn't do it, someone else would have done it, he cannot be put on the same level as the great men in history.
He has a split personality, it's scienitifically nonsence to even assume that god knows about the discussion he is having, this would mean he has knowledge of every simple element in the universe and it's dynamics.
@saintpine "Lucky"? Are you kidding me? He's one of the most accomplished scientists in the world, and was so even before the genome project. You sound bitter and jealous. You're going to have to learn to accept the fact that there are men with more knowledge and intelligence than you who hold a different world view.
@bahdahdoop "You're going to have to learn to accept the fact that there are men with more knowledge and intelligence than you who hold a different world view."
Holy crap, that’s not a big thing, it's obvious.
I could easily accept Collins being a deist, but I find it quite ridiculous how he could come to being a theist or a Christian.
He is surely a more intelligent man than me by far, but I refuse to believe he applies the same skeptical and scientific analysis to the bible.
@bahdahdoop "Your thinking is beyond fallacious. Collins' view is just as valid as yours. You're being childish by refusing to recognize that."
You must be joking, the Jesus fairy tale is no where near "just as valid", you could have thousands of equal unsubstantiated options with equal lack of proof.
@saintpine How does Collins get from deism to Christian theism? The historical evidence for Jesus's ressurection is very strong (most historians now agree Jesus was crucified and buried by a Jewish Sanhedrin, that his burial place was well-known in the area, that his tomb was discovered empty and that his disciples had experiences in hich they think they saw him alive and were willing to die for their belief in a ressurection event which ran contrary to their cultural predispositions!)
@relarerfhjk "The historical evidence for Jesus's ressurection is very strong..."
There is absolutly no historical evidence, where did you get this nonsense from, Lee Strobel ?
"willing to die for their belief"
Nonsense, we have no evidance for this and anyway it wouldn't prove anything, extraordanary claims requires extraordinary evidance, and Collins understands this.
Watch this serious of videws exposing the die for a lie falsity.
@saintpine Thehistorical evidence is so strong that almost all modern historians agree on those four fundamental facts about Jesus (not a single living NT historian now denies that Jesus lived, was crucified and his tomb discovered empty). Even famous atheist NT historian Gerd Ludeman now says "it may be taken as historically certain that Jesus's disciples and local sceptics had experiences in which they believe they saw Jesus alive after his death" The evidence is overwhelming
@saintpine The overhwleming evidence comes in the exhaustive studies and dating of of Paul's letters, the original gospel manuscripts,and cross-comparisons with historians who mention Jesus and his brother James conversion to Christianity, such as Tacitus.
The historical evidence for these events is so strong that even atheist and non-Christian NT critics universally accept these facts today (they only disagree on how to interpret them)
In reality this sort of "overwhelming evidance" you reserve only to Christian issues.
In reality the evidance is very weak and fonts external from the bible are simple one line claims so vague and of dubious origins and meaning and never an eyewitness first hand account.
It's absolutly no problem for a historian to accept some issues as historical accurate, once you start making extraordinary claims, you cannot leave a low degree of acceptance anymore.
@saintpine On the contrary the evidence is so overhwhelming,that historians NT Wright and Gerd Ludeman say these events are as "historically certain" as the fall of Jerusalem (which Jesus accurately predicted).
The evidence is so strong because we have early independent sources (Paul's 1st Corinthians and Mark) within 20-30 years of Jesus's death, naming dozens of eyewitnesses still alive at the time,describing recent events which were easy for local people to falsify if they werent true
@saintpine The evidence for the ressurection is overhwelming, and forms part of a cumulative case for the truth of Christianity, when taken alongside the cosmological evidence for a single creator, and the existence of moral truths, which indicates a morally-perfect creator.
Theres no good naturalistic explanation of those four fundamental facts about Jesus, agreed upon by all NT critics.We know the ressurection didnt come from pagan myths as it ran contrary to Jewish culture and belief!
@relarerfhjk "The evidence for the ressurection is overhwelming"
I find these claims quite ridiculous, and I'm sure that you haven't even watched the videos I proposed.
You would never use the same gullibility for other claims from other religions.
We are running around in circles.
if I had witnessed a person flying into the air, the first thing I would say is "holy crap, thats a good trick", It would be the last thing to believe in supernatural events, let alone believe bronze age stories.
@saintpine I don't need to; I have all the world's best historians on my side. As Cambridge University historian C. F. D. Moule wrote "It is impossible to deny the five facts about Jesus's death on historical grounds; those who do so, deny them on philosophical or theological grounds alone"
You can't pre-judge a miracle to be implausible (without factoring in all the evidence) automatically rejecting supernatural explanations ,commits the Hume Fallacy and is the antithesis of rational enquiry
You can play around the issue as much as you want.
What is an historian after all?
They are like the journalists today, stories are told by people who have never been on the scene and often an article is written from a few words from 3rd hand interviews.
You would never use the same kind of gullibility for other non-Christian claims.
@saintpine Indeed,a historian doesnt deal with empirical proof like science.But that would mean you could never attest to any historical fact, including the death of Caesar, since we have no empirical proof, only written biographies after the event.
Extraordinary claims do NOT require extraordinary evidence,that is known as the Hume Fallacy!!
Probability theorists say you cant judge an event to be improbable without factoring in background evidence and the plausibility of rival explanations!
If extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence, than how about doing some research in all the miraculous claims from other religious groups ?
Seriously who cares if the History of Caesar is 100% or 2% accurate, the text doesn't make any absurd claims that would make anyone skeptical and anyway it doesn't make any difference if a person believes it or not.
Why do you not apply the same gullible credulity to other religious miracle claims ?
@saintpine Extraordinary claims dont require extraordinary evidence, if it is more improbable that the facts would be as they are,if that was NOT the explanation.This is standard probability theory since John Stuart Mill, John Earman and modern atheist philosophers like Antony Flew ripped apart David Hume. They say you cant judge the inherent improbability of any explanation without first factoring in the probability that the event would have happened if that was not the explanation!
Enjoy yourself, we simply running in circles, you haven't watched the video and you don't answer my questions, I have just turned 50, I'm too old to waste my time on this nonsense.
@saintpine you cant find one historian (qualified or respected in the field) who denies Jesus's existence whereas, if you were to read my posts, I was able to name historians widely regarded as among the greatest ATHEIST historians of the New Testament, (such as the German scholar Gerd Ludeman) who admit not only Jesus's existence but the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances and the fact that the very FIRST disciples believed in the ressurection which proves it was NOT a myth created later!
@saintpine Your desperation is so hilarious to watch.
Carrier does NOT deny Jesus existed, watch his debate with William Lane Craig! Carrier is a minority extremist though in that he denies some of the 4 uncontested historical facts about Jesus.
I suggested you were "desperately searching" because last night the best you could do was produce someone with a degree in German and someone else with...a fucking BA in history! Wow, that's reputable historians right there! LOL
Carrier says clearly that he is skeptic of the existence of Jesus.
What's this desperation you are talking about?, is it not clear to you that it wouldn’t change my life if Jesus existence was proven or not, so deal with it.
I do believe a man existed over which the entire fairy was built; there simply is no extra biblical evidence for it.
An historian has no specific qualification to provide evidence for the existence of Mr. Jesus, we have already discussed this. cont...
@saintpine Well that only demonstrates how closed your mind is. Firstly, it has been conclusively demonstrated Jesus existed (which is why no historian denies it) secondly if the 4 historical facts about Jesus's death (which the vasy majority of historians accept) really are facts, then it increases the probability that he was exactly who he claimed to be,which would surely have an effect on you if its true!
"extrabiblica evidence" how many times? The GOSPELS WERE NOT PART OF THE BIBLE!!!
The choice is yours now, I'm 50 years old and I don't have patience with childish and cheeky games, if you think you are not capable of avoiding the pathetic "LOL", "you lose", and other colorful crap around your comments, avoiding my questions, ignoring important comments without acknowledging, the discussion ends here.
Why don't you apply the same skeptic analysis to the bible? or look up other miraculous claims from Catholics and other religions ?
@saintpine a historian needs to have a qualification to prove hes a fucking historian, dude!
the same way I wouldnt listen to someone with a degree in agriculture, giving his opinion on the debates within particle physics!
What convinces you Jesus's ressurection was a "fairy story", since historians now mostly agree Jesus's disciples really did see him alive after his execution and really did believe him to be the risen Christ despite having every cultural reason to reject such a belief!
A historian hasn't the qualification to prove anything, and it's quite pathetic to think that an historian would risk his reputation to make theological claims.
I have repeated the same things over and over again.
I've had enough of your naive stupidity, this type of naive and gullible hehaviour is reserved only for your fairy tale, but you ignore all the others, you haven't answers many of my questions and we keep playing around the same issue like kids.
@relarerfhjk "I don't need to; I have all the world's best historians on my side. As Cambridge University historian C. F. D. Moule wrote "It is impossible to deny the five facts about Jesus's death on historical grounds"
2. C. F. D. Moule was an Anglican priest and theologian, really an excellent unbiased reference.
He didn't need any historical proof, it's obvious that he CANNOT deny.
You would never apply this sort of naive gulliblity for non Christian miracolous claims.
@saintpine well, you've just blown your own argument apart. On that basis, you can never trust an atheist NT historian, since he would be biased in the opposite direction! In which case,you may as well give up.
You can't attack CFD Moule's credibility to win this argument. Why? Because I quoted ATHEIST historians who admit the same facts. For example, Gerd Ludeman admitted "it may be taken as historically certain" that locals had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion!
@relarerfhjk "well, you've just blown your own argument apart... you can never trust an atheist NT historian"
I don't trust atheist historians BECAUSE they are atheists, what the hell are you babbling about ?
I couldn't care less if they are atheists or not, the problem is that you present a one historian THAT DOES HAVE a biased agenda, and this alone is sufficient to undermine his HISTORICAL work.
A serious Christian scientist would say I cannot give an answer and not "God did it".
@5tonyvvvv "Time and chance can not produce ...Homochirality"
You are going to have to come up with something better if you think you can destroy a strong castle of the best and well established science accepted by 99% of the hundreds of thousands of biologists in the world.
I have no agenda; it doesn't cause me any anxiety to have evolution disproved scientifically, unlike Christians that would never accept anything that would require a comma to be changed in their personal belief of god.
It turns out though that some aspects of modern physics are seriously questionable.
Evolution I'm pretty sold on; I don't see any other way in which life could evolve, even though I'm not an expert myself.
Relativity however, has apparently had problems from the start, not to mention its fraudulent conception by Einstein who pretty much stole every idea from someone, and has at this point been so ingraned in our heads that we can't question it...
As for Freud, he's totally full of shit.
Spjungen 1 week ago
@Spjungen There is substantial evidence for evolution, and Ill buy evolution for a lot of things. However, many scientists darn near have evolution as a theory for everything in biology. I think that is a little too much of an extrapolation for the evidence that we have now. That said, I saw a study recently where scientists kinda sorta made yeasts multicultural, which was a huge sticking point for me. Even still, there are some things about humans in particular that seem to fly in the
jimbo525SE 1 week ago
@Spjungen face of evolution. The most classic example being the moral law.
jimbo525SE 1 week ago
I respect Collins and all Christians.
Spjungen 1 week ago
One of the few Christians I respect. He IS dead wrong though.
Nebster173 1 week ago
@Nebster173 My thoughts as well. I believe he is incorrect and trying to marry ideas that are too difficult to combine (blind faith+scientific method), but he is a smart man to recognize the abundance of evidence which exists and honest in not trying to lie about this fact.
It seems to me there's no point in attacking a religion that accepts science as valuable and wants to teach evolution as a proven scientific theory. Let them have their faith, who cares? :)
TheSamuraiGoomba 6 days ago
gurrrl...
TheIndianaatheist 2 weeks ago
boecxyec what a stupid argument
AtTheEast18 1 month ago
As a Catholic, I get so agitated when people claim that intelligent design is the reason for their faith. My own father, who holds a PhD from MIT in chemistry, thinks this. I'd like to ask these people to REALLY look at a theological and philosophical perspective of God, as Dr. Collins has.
kubrox91 1 month ago
If you read Collins' Wikipedia entry it says he was Home Schooled. Thats all you need to know.
lewisner 1 month ago
Death came after the fall of man. Theistic macro-evolutionists can't be Christians, since they hold to the heresy that death of lifeforms came before man sinned.
AthosAmo 1 month ago
He doesn't say what the alternative purposes could possibly be, which the parts supposedly leading to the full-fledged flagellum supposedly had. So his argument amounts to wishful thinking, and the bandwagon argument fallacy. As for his talk of god-of-the-gaps, he doesn't seem to understand that by rejecting intelligence ultimately behind nature, that he is embracing the ONLY alternatige, which is the lack of intention, tantamount to accidents. Therefore, this man has an accidents-of-the-gaps.
AthosAmo 1 month ago
Francis Collins isn't denying intelligent design, he's endorsing it by saying God is far more amazing than the young earth creationists are making God out to be.
H0tkebab 1 month ago
I have read Collins book, and found nothing in the way of "verifiable" empirical science in support of the Darwinian continuum, it all amounted to unverifiable "inferences", nothing more!
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn Read the greatest show on earth by Dawkins then.
Visiondrugs1 2 months ago
@Visiondrugs1 I have read the Greatest Show on Earth and reviewed it on Amazon. You should read the response to Dawkins delusions, THE GREATEST HOAX ON EARTH,
heiningerjohn 1 month ago
Comment removed
fuzzierwuzzier 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heiningerjohn ok so let's say that's true. so let's abandon our best reasoned inferences and posit that everything happened because of a nosy, jealous, creepy, father figure hiding somewhere outside the laws of nature willed it all into being. damn, that's religion at its finest, how sad.
fuzzierwuzzier 2 months ago
While I don't agree with his "theistic evolution" idea, it is refreshing to see someone at least attempting to square his beliefs with the science. Interesting clip.
boicers 2 months ago
There is no mechanism of evolution. There is nothing to cause evolution.
Such a belief is fantasy.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon So how did life came to be diversified on our planet?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn since the time of the flood, there has been a lot of variation of species ordered by the genome.
Variation of secies does not cause evolution because the information in each genome is limited to the information it contains.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon Since the time of the flood? ROLOL!!!
" Variation of secies does not cause evolution because the information in each genome is limited to the information it contains."
Cite a paper that falsifies this assertion. Also provide evidence that a Gene cannot aquire new information and that it is limited.
wowamonn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a loan of dung! This clip proves that Collins isn't a believer because there are rational reasons for that, but because at some point he started believing, and that's that. He clearly admits that there's no reason to postulate god's existence - the argument from design fails - yet he continues to believe and finds a cockamamie way to reconcile his belief with the facts. Thumbs down to intellectual dishonesty!!
mamboz1 3 months ago
Comment removed
mamboz1 3 months ago
This video, "Dawkins Stumped" is a hoax video which was manipulated to create the illusion that Dawkins was stumped. Just search on YT and check it out for yourself. Francis Collins is a 'believer' and his argument like all Christian arguments is based on 'faith', he says this repeatedly, that belief in a god brings him comfort. I think this is true of most people who believe in a god.
andygray 3 months ago
@andygray That's the only way to believe in God, and they know it. God can't be proven because it's 100% in your mind. Empirically, you cannot prove him, ever. And what can't be empirically proven, can't be scientifically proven.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
@CntthnkO15 No doubt you have never met the people made my clothes, or yours, but the fact that we are wearing them tells me there are clothes makers. Maybe this is only all in our "mind", and the clothes really designed and made made themselves, particularly as the clothes makers would be far more complex, and thus far more difficult to explain than the cloths making themselves.
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@andygray It's basically another way of saying "let us believe what we want, and u can believe in what u want". I'm fine with that as long as they don't force it on other people, especially their kids. Richard Dawkins is right...there shouldn't be such a thing as a "Christian child", or a "Muslim child"...people should have freedom to believe in whatever religion they want (or lack of religion), and parents should have no right to enforce this one way or another. We need laws to protect this.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr Oh I have no objection to people believing in what they like as long as they do not bring their beliefs into the political arena. I personally think that parents should not be encouraged to indoctrinate their children into any belief system, let them decide for themselves when they are capable of making decisions. For me it occurred when I was 13 and rejected the Christian indoctrination I was subjected to from birth. For years I was very confused about this paradoxical Christian god.
andygray 3 months ago
@andygray Still more utterly mindless nonsense! We live in a "democracy" and everyone in has the right to run for office on the basis of that they feel is in the best interest of the culture, and the Christian worldview has had a decisive beneficial impact on science and western culture. Humanism is itself a religion, as is atheism. I personally think that our public education should not be indoctrinating children on the religious beliefs of evolutionary humanism and materialism.
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@Casshyr More mindless nonsense! Dawkins wants to teach our kids that there is no ultimate basis for values or morality, and that they are all purely the result of ruthless, uncaring, selfish genes intent on survival and self preservation, by the savage elimination of all competitors, particularly eliminating the weak and disadvantaged.
There is nothing more dangerous or destructive to our Children than this atheistic and Humanistic mindless, and hedonistic worldview.
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn no he doesn't. Stop putting words in other people's mouth. Either cite me the quotation (which you won't find any), or stop this. You can believe in whatever you want, but don't put in words in other people, alright? btw, if you are going to cite "Selfish Gene", you should be aware he is merely citing a biological observation, but it by no means suggest he wants a society built around this principle.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Evolutionist Jason Lanier, "There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature." Dawkins. "All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth."(Psychology Today 30 Jan-Feb 1997). Also, read last chapter of TGSOE, and there are other quotes..
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn Um, ok, i fail to see how you conclude that to "he wants to teach kids there is no ultimate basis for values or morality". Dawkins is simply saying the world as it is. As an analogy, it's like me telling you the world is a cruel world. Those who have the money get their way, those who don't have to learn to deal with it. That's life. That's just tough. Now, does that make me unloving? No. I simply describe the world as it is.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Wake up! If you teach Darwinism the way Dawkins wants to teach it, warts and all, that's exactly the message you are communicating to Children. Dawkins Humanistic atheistic evolutionary worldview is one that has no meaning or purpose, and no basis for morality or ethics. He well understands that, why can't you.
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn No, you think like this because you want it to be true so you can use it as an excuse to disbelieve evolution. We are already teaching evolution at school, do you ever hear teachers telling kids "hey, there's no moral! Go nuts! Rob a bank, kill your enemy. Be free and do whatever you want!"?
Casshyr 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn Dawkins himself gave a video on how he thinks concepts of morality and ethics evolved via evolution. He certainly believes in the values of ethics and morals! (any sensible person does). The difference between him (and me) versus you is you think morals have to be derived from God, while we think morals are decided collectively together as a society that can be re-adjusted and refined over times.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn ....just cause you can't handle that this is it doesn't mean there is a god(s). and you don't believe in the morals of the bible either (good thing) or you would stone your children and gays, you wouldn't work on the sabbath, sell your daughter, etc. the whole god concept was made up by the winning tribe in the desert- god is on our side, god loves us, we are his chosen peeps. Get it now? its made up!! they didn't know any better.
tulipsontheorgan 2 months ago
by the way, giving up god(s) is like giving up on Santa...it's not big thing. You just live a more rational life. A million hand praying isn't as useful and one pair of hands working. there are no theist in hospitals. cheers!
tulipsontheorgan 2 months ago
@tulipsontheorgan The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Could infinite monkeys, using infinite typewriters, for an infinite amount of time eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare? Imagine if there was an infinite amount of possible universes, each comes about with a infinite set of different rules, could not one end up like ours? What if the creatures that came about naturally in this one universe couldn't detect the rest of the multiverse and thought, "The only way this could come about is design." I'd personally facepalm.
Pokarot 1 month ago
@Pokarot The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh So you're saying, "I believe in the god of the gaps."
Congratulations for at least admitting it.
Pokarot 1 month ago
@Pokarot Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I wouldn't conclude that matter, 'unknowing and unperceiving" is my creator and all things, I also wouldn't conclude that my bread gets toasted by magical pixies.
You're using an argument from ignorance, I could explain my position more, but there is really no point trying to explain a position to someone else when they don't understand their own.
Pokarot 1 month ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh You didn't spell God of the gaps right, you accidentally typed in ALLAH.
Pokarot 1 month ago
@Pokarot We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Saying that matter would become his 'creator'. It is saying the matter is.. a being? Matter is the basis of our world. And it is VERY strange, I would also call it the greatest show on Earth (and in the universe). If you have an explanation on why it is as it is... please. But I believe you should have evidence if you want to propose anything.
bukifuriku 1 month ago
@bukifuriku Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is *free* of all such properties.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Thank you for the reply. I agree with you on the dimensions, but could you explain the 'necessary being'? Does this being have an intelligence, or is it a... framework for the unknown?
bukifuriku 1 month ago
@bukifuriku The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@bukifuriku Does this being have an intelligence,...
____
If the power hidden in the depths of matter does not arise from the universal intelligence, what factor guides it to the elaboration of forms, to an amazing regularity and harmony?
If that power is an agent devoid of intelligence and conscious will, why does it never fall prey to disorder, and why does its compounding of matter never result in collision and destruction?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh NO. tell that to the millions of starving children in Africa and to millions of women in the sex slave industry in Asia.
tulipsontheorgan 1 month ago
@tulipsontheorgan The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@tulipsontheorgan The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@tulipsontheorgan Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings? No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@tulipsontheorgan NO. tell that to the millions of starving children in Africa and to millions ....
___
Your war monger politicians spent billions of dollars on wars instead of building the proper infrastructure at the UN to help the "starving children in Africa and to millions...." etc and you have the nerve to blame the grand architect of the Universe for the stupidities of your politicians?
Talk to YOUR stupid politicians!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh ...you think some omni-sky-daddy would step in to help the millions each year of 1-5 year old starving babies. I thought he made the earth and the sun to go around it. Oops! earth goes around the sun, don't kill me for saying it. I thought the sky daddy flooded the earth because of sodomy but children starving to death slowly- now THAT he will allow to happen. What a wonderful, wonderful omni-sky-daddy.
tulipsontheorgan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tulipsontheorgan If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@tulipsontheorgan Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@andygray What utter nonsense! Unlike Darwinism and naturalism, Collin's faith, like science itself, is based on a multitude of observations regarding the anthropic nature of the cosmos and in inherent nature and characteristics of human beings. There would not even be a universe, or life, were it not for a multitude of factors that are finely tuned and per-existent, including the water molecule, the cosmological constants and precisely balanced sub-atomic particles. End of story!
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn whatever dude...keep thinking there is an invisible daddy watching over you. One who cares about you and all the millions of people slowly starving, or the women who get gang raped, all the people who have been tortured to death or died from disease or natural disasters. He loves YOU!!! anyway, I'm out, this is pointless.
tulipsontheorgan 2 months ago
@andygray I have viewed the uncut footage and Dawkins WAS stumped.
heiningerjohn 1 month ago
Put in other words...
ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN,
a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV), a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (III)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
boecxyec 4 months ago
ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.
boecxyec 4 months ago 4
@boecxyec (1) Ask theist what caused evil.
(2a) Continue process until theist admits that evil came from God.
(3a) God is evil, you win!
(2b) Continue process until theist admits that evil is separation from God.
(3b) God isn't omnipresent, you win!
*These sorts of proofs are silly.
dinoflatulate 4 weeks ago
@dinoflatulate And why only a omnipresent God would exist?
omlj1971 1 week ago
Anyone who doubts that evolution is a religion should watch the 'Dawkins Stumped' video. Dawkins was asked a simple scientific question. The look on his face is: How dare you question my religion!
Mdebacle 4 months ago
@Mdebacle Anyone who doesn't understand how evolutionary theory is founded on solid evidence and confirmed repeatedly by its correct predictions should spend some time at talkorigins(dot)org and at the youtube channels of C0nc0rdance, DonExodus2, QualiaSoup and AronRa. As for the true nature of "intelligent design theory", look no further than the transcripts and decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case -- the facts are there.
ottotellick 4 months ago
@ottotellick
The crucial step in training a new adherent to evolution is to convince them that inbreeding chromosomal mutants can displace the unmutated. Any attempt to point out the biological absurdity of this is like talking to a re-animated corpse.
The "Dawkins Stumped" video will cause people to observe the non-evolution of the human genome and eventually bring down the evolutionist house of cards.
Mdebacle 4 months ago
@Mdebacle "inbreeding chromosomal mutants can displace the unmutated"?? That's nonsense with no relation to any claim made by evolution theory. And what is "non-evolution of the human genome" supposed to mean? Are you saying that just because our recorded history (going back 30K years, if you count cave paintings in Europe) shows human physiology staying about the same, the genome hasn't changing at all? That's absurd. We see lots of obvious changes, but they're minor compared to 300K years.
ottotellick 4 months ago
@ottotellick
If your lab had a chimp with a chr fusion (giving it 47) and your job is to produce a strain with 46, two things are certain:
(1) you would test inbreeding and more inbreeding,
(2) your test would self-destruct long before it produced a decent banjo picker.
If humans have evolved 15 to 20 million base pairs in 6 million years, that is 3 per year. Pharaoh's mummy would be 10000 base pairs closer to chimp or evolution sleeps with the fishes.
Mdebacle 4 months ago
@Mdebacle Both your scenarios (lab experiment with a chimp, measuring a 3300-year-old genome) are based on a profound misunderstanding (or patently false misstatement) of evolution theory. Mutation (which is random) and natural selection (which is not random) are not goal-directed, and do not operate at a constant rate of change. If you have the mental strength to study the subject without prejudice, you will find that the evidence for common ancestry of species is compelling and overwhelming,
ottotellick 4 months ago 2
@ottotellick
[constant rate of change.] Maybe not constant, but certainly an average rate of change of 3 base pairs per year.
This would cause isolated segments of the human population to be missing the most recently evolved base pairs. In spite of the political incorrectness, if evolutionists could prove a more "chimp-like" population exists, even if only a thousand base pairs, y'all could blow trumpets from the roof tops.
Mdebacle 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mdebacle "but certainly an average rate of change of 3 base pairs per year." => i know this is an old post...but what do you mean by that? What's changing? The individual genome? Or the comparison of genome in one generation against the next?
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr
The comparison of one generation's genome to the next should be moving away from chimps at about 50 base pairs per generation.
Pharoah's mummy should be about 10000 base pairs closer to a chimp (or if you prefer the human-chimp common ancestor)
Mdebacle 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mdebacle "comparison of one generation's genome to the next should be moving away from chimps at about 50 base pairs per generation." => scientific source for this plz
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr
Per wikipedia article Human_genome
3 billion DNA base pairs
1.06% consistent sequence divergence between humans and chimps at shared genes, so call it 30 million base pairs
Supposed common ancestor was 5 to 6 million years ago, so divergence at 5 base pairs per year.
If this ancestor was a four-footed beast with crested skull and brain size 300 cc. , then certainly humans (not chimps) were doing most of the evolving.
Mdebacle 2 months ago
@Mdebacle I don't mean to sound skeptical, but i am having trouble finding sources for some of your other claims. Please provide the sources for the following:
1) Chimpanzee-Human LCA has a brain size of 300cc
2) An actual scientific study that analyzes the whole genome of the pharoh
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr
Yes, 300 cc. is probably too small
wikipedia says Australopithecus afarensis had 380–430 cc.
talkorigins says Sahelanthropus tchadensis had 350 cc.
There may not yet be a whole genome of a pharaoh, scan on Zahi Hawass for latest. As "Dawkins stumped' video tells us, no one in their right mind is expecting to see evidence of evolution in the human genome. As a defence contractor once said,"we had the contract for spare parts for 25 years. Nobody cared if it worked or not."
Mdebacle 2 months ago
@Mdebacle "no one in their right mind is expecting to see evidence of evolution in the human genome" => actually no, what you call micro-evolution is expected to happen in all species, including humans. Genetic resistance against HIV is such an example. And your earlier point about pharaoh's DNA not closer to monkey as expected..you can't really say that if there's no study that analyzes the genome of a pharaoh!
Casshyr 2 months ago
What kind of fellowship could God have with humans if he knew everything we were about to say? It would be pointless ,wouldn`t it ? And if He didn`t know ,he wouldn`t be God
ilikezappa 4 months ago
As a Christian, I'm very glad to see Dr. Collins kill the false dichotomy between evolution and theism.
megaead69 4 months ago 13
@megaead69 False dichotomy? Maybe. Logical extension of science slowly and inexorably removing the role of god from the universe, starting with a geocentric theory and now ending creationism? Definitely.
TheUkearchy 2 months ago
this is an edited auto clip, I doubt he is saying what it sounds like. watch Potholer's video on editing tricks.
CapQuacer 5 months ago
"For me, this [ Christianity] provides an enormous sense of comfort; a harmony that I can't find in other ways" - Francis Collins in this video
This above quote taken from this video sums up Francis Collin's REASONS for his religiousness. At the end of the day, religion can easily be summed up as a simple strategy or coping strategy for FEELING GOOD. Logic and reasoning are abandoned for the simple pleasures of FEELING GOOD. At least he admits it.
blaisingm 5 months ago
Oh, you mindless Darwinists. Sigh. It really doesn't matter what the facts are, or the logic is, you must persist in your religious evolutionary fervor. Oh, well, at least those of us who are thinking people can see the reasons to doubt Darwinism.
JTCiao 5 months ago
@JTCiao The facts , not fervor, back up the advance of evolution from theory to fact. if you are concerned with the facts then the answers lead to a natural explanation devoid of a supernatural being.
fuzzierwuzzier 5 months ago
@JTCiao even Francis Collins who is a christian agrees that evolution is a fact. Don't tell me you know more about biology than Francis Collins.
fuzzierwuzzier 5 months ago 23
@fuzzierwuzzier there are non-Christians who deny evolution. David Berlinski.
Sage80 3 months ago
@fuzzierwuzzier As stated by US Defense Department consultant on deception, Dr Ray Hayman, the more intelligent you are the more easily you are deceived, with scientists being particularly prone to deception, with the context of the deception being the key factor. Meaning, Darwinism is the perfect example of this reality, and Collins is one of its many many victims.
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn The reality is that mindless mutations and blind natural selection has no overall perspective or predictive power, and wouldn't have the foggiest notion of where anything or everything is evolving to, or ever why. Meaning, that Darwinism is incapable of ever evolving and arranging specific parts, in a specific way, to work as a fully functional whole, to fit into an overall finely balanced fully integrated co-dependent Eco-system. In short, it doesn't work.
heiningerjohn 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn If you read Dr. Collins's book (Decoding the Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief), he actually addresses this belief by Creationists. He presents scientific evidence that evolution can, and has, evolved fully functional and dramatic changes in animals, refuting several examples that Creationists champion. I recommend reading informed viewpoints that are different than your own. It is the best way to test your own beliefs against reality.
AUInnocent 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn John....please put the one ancient book DOWN!!! There are so many other NEW books to read. We have learned so much in the past 200, 100, 50, 10 years!!! Discovery upon discovery-where have U been? U don't have to give the pope money to save U from the plague-just have to keep the rats away (actually fleas). We know where thunder comes from. I know U have been to a hospital before-that is what MAN does. pray to dog or god and get the same results. Get it now?
tulipsontheorgan 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn The implication of what you are saying is that you must not be very intelligent, as you have (supposedly) NOT been prone to deception. Very interesting indeed...
eosimias1 2 months ago
@heiningerjohn The only deception Francis Collins is a victim of is christianity. By the way, you may need to reconsider your own level of intelligence if you subscribe to the twisted logic that being ignorant is somehow protecting yourself from deception. That in it self is an idiotic deception that you are apparently proud to sport. Please continue to denounce intelligence, religion needs people like you.
fuzzierwuzzier 2 months ago
@JTCiao Thinking perhaps but not knowing nor understanding the undoubtable. Doubting Darwinism is at the moment quite outrageous if one does not have a better explaination and I doubt you have
Area51UFOGynaecology 5 months ago
@JTCiao And what reasons are those??
atheistram 5 months ago
He might be a theistic evolutionist but it certaintly isnt biblical.
superjam18 6 months ago
Must read article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS. Just google the title.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52
Very shoddy article using the the same old "what use would half a foot be" childish arguments.
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@1Munro3000 LOL 'what use would half a foot be'
roddiero 5 months ago
@roddiero
Well despite the obvious point that it would be better than no foot at all, this is not how evolution works. It shows the pathetic nature of the people asking the question to even consider it.
1Munro3000 5 months ago
Francis Collins believes in theistic evolution because of his belief about so-called "Junk DNA." "Junk DNA" has been recently disproved. It has been discovered that the non-coding segments of DNA are not junk, after all, but are actually vital to gene regulation (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed). Although, they don't code for protein that doesn't mean they're useless. This research has been published in journals Nature, RNA.
Mogley52 6 months ago
You can't deny something unless it's a fact. You can deny the holocaust, you can deny evolution, you can deny gravity, because those are facts (I say you CAN deny them, you will look stupid to do so). Intelligent design isn't a fact at all. I've never once in my entire life denied Intelligent Design, I've just pointed out that it it's garbage. Francis Collins is doing the same.
bigfilmhat 6 months ago
okay now religious ppl have resorted to evolution being "god's" mechanism hahahahahaha..what a farkin joke..if even now ppl cant see the reality then the r simply delusional. because if you accept evolution then you have to accept adam n eve never existed you have to accept earth is infact as old as science says it is..well if we are agreeing on science on almost everything WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED GOD FOR?????cuz science clearly has logged a dick in Theism's butt. STOP BEIN HYPOCRITE!!!
chinamanspeakenlis 6 months ago
Francis Collins should be an inspiration for all christians, he certainly is onfe of the most intelligent living christians ther eis
unfad1ng 6 months ago 2
If supporters of ID want ID to be a REAL scientific theory like evolutionary theory, then ID needs to be able to make predictions or solve problems just like any other scientific theory (atomic theory, germ theory, etc). Until ID can be applied usefully, it doesn't do anything more valuable than 'stork theory' does for science. Science is a tool used to solve problems.
blaisingm 6 months ago
What a marvelous example of doublethink..
00range 7 months ago
The (main) problem with Francis Collins' position is that a hypothesis like his says nothing about what God might be. It's just a vacuous position that sticks an unnecessary entity at the beginning of time and after that everything happens by laws of Physics.
As Einstein said if there are two theories on something that both work, the simplest one will be true. Why stick an imaginary being that you CAN'T know anything about in there? It complicates everything and leads to paradoxes everywhere.
warren52nz 7 months ago
@warren52nz I believe you meant Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor slashes any unnecessary or unneeded components to explain a theory.
whhardiek1972 7 months ago
@whhardiek1972 Yes Occam's Razor, I'd forgotten it had an actual name. I'm pretty sure Einstein referred to it. You can't get much simpler than E=MC²
warren52nz 7 months ago
anyway this is pointless...its obvious that we have different views. we can keep at this forever. i respect yours and therefore i hope you'd respect mine. thanks and good day. please don't reply because i don't think i'd have enough time to reply to you...
lovelikefire93 8 months ago
@saintpine
if i take an object and move it to another position, and another person comes along, and says "it was already here when i found it", do you think that he should believe that the object was already there? or the fact that somebody moved it?
how could you apply this same principle to the universe before it is formed? is it really the case that the needed components were just there? why is it so impossible that someone, or something put it there and started the reaction?
lovelikefire93 8 months ago
@saintpine
science explains a lot of things. i believe in evolution, but i also believe in God. i.e. im on francis collins' position. science can explain how we came out into existence, but WHY is it like that? why is it the dark matter works in this particular way? how is it possible that it was already in existence?
lovelikefire93 8 months ago
@lovelikefire93 RAELLY? Your actually 50 and still hold such ridiculous opinions? I though age brought wisdom not stupidity! You sound like a College campus atheist
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@saintpine
well don't you think that if francis collins, a world renowned scientist, came to believe Jesus Christ on the grounds of historical evidence (as he stated in his book), that there should be sufficient grounds to believe?
plus given all the knowledge scientists know im surprised that they don't really ponder about how remarkble the universe is...even simple elements like nitrogen, why is it in group V, why does gravity work downwards.
lovelikefire93 8 months ago
Evolution=EPIC FAIL
fashklash 8 months ago
I suspect Collins has been frightened into denying the truth of Intelligent Design after seeing what happened to the careers of those few, brave scientisits who try to take on the terrifying, totalitarian consensus of silence surrounding evolution
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
Collins denies the YEC ID movement i.e. he doesn't think that God created the Universe in seven 24 hour periods.
ivlfounder 8 months ago
Collins gets into trouble here. Evolution relies on random mutations, and sometimes mutations occur when UV photons, say, strike DNA. But these are quantum mechanical events, which are subject to an inherent uncertainty. God himself can no more have absolute knowledge of a quantum mechanical system than humans can, unless mathematics itself is violated. So how could God know how evolution would turn out?
ClamCrunchy 9 months ago
this monster is killing many pople with his lies..
geesjack 9 months ago 2
@geesjack How deluded do you have to be in order to call Dr. Collins a monster.....as if you can hold a candle to what that man has done for humanity via mapping the human genome. Get real.
bahdahdoop 9 months ago
@bahdahdoop "as if you can hold a candle to what that man has done for humanity via mapping the human genome"
Hey, he was simply the lucky guy who got the job, if he didn't do it, someone else would have done it, he cannot be put on the same level as the great men in history.
He has a split personality, it's scienitifically nonsence to even assume that god knows about the discussion he is having, this would mean he has knowledge of every simple element in the universe and it's dynamics.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine "Lucky"? Are you kidding me? He's one of the most accomplished scientists in the world, and was so even before the genome project. You sound bitter and jealous. You're going to have to learn to accept the fact that there are men with more knowledge and intelligence than you who hold a different world view.
bahdahdoop 8 months ago
@bahdahdoop "You're going to have to learn to accept the fact that there are men with more knowledge and intelligence than you who hold a different world view."
Holy crap, that’s not a big thing, it's obvious.
I could easily accept Collins being a deist, but I find it quite ridiculous how he could come to being a theist or a Christian.
He is surely a more intelligent man than me by far, but I refuse to believe he applies the same skeptical and scientific analysis to the bible.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine Your thinking is beyond fallacious. Collins' view is just as valid as yours. You're being childish by refusing to recognize that.
bahdahdoop 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bahdahdoop "Your thinking is beyond fallacious. Collins' view is just as valid as yours. You're being childish by refusing to recognize that."
You must be joking, the Jesus fairy tale is no where near "just as valid", you could have thousands of equal unsubstantiated options with equal lack of proof.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine How does Collins get from deism to Christian theism? The historical evidence for Jesus's ressurection is very strong (most historians now agree Jesus was crucified and buried by a Jewish Sanhedrin, that his burial place was well-known in the area, that his tomb was discovered empty and that his disciples had experiences in hich they think they saw him alive and were willing to die for their belief in a ressurection event which ran contrary to their cultural predispositions!)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "The historical evidence for Jesus's ressurection is very strong..."
There is absolutly no historical evidence, where did you get this nonsense from, Lee Strobel ?
"willing to die for their belief"
Nonsense, we have no evidance for this and anyway it wouldn't prove anything, extraordanary claims requires extraordinary evidance, and Collins understands this.
Watch this serious of videws exposing the die for a lie falsity.
DID the disciples die for a lie? ProfMTH
watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine Thehistorical evidence is so strong that almost all modern historians agree on those four fundamental facts about Jesus (not a single living NT historian now denies that Jesus lived, was crucified and his tomb discovered empty). Even famous atheist NT historian Gerd Ludeman now says "it may be taken as historically certain that Jesus's disciples and local sceptics had experiences in which they believe they saw Jesus alive after his death" The evidence is overwhelming
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "The evidence is overwhelming..."
How about linking to some of this overwhelming evidence ?
The only overwhelming evidance I see are those of Christian apologists that repeat the same nonsense exactly like you are doing.
You apply this kind of "overwhelming evidence" and naive gullibility only to bible claims.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine The overhwleming evidence comes in the exhaustive studies and dating of of Paul's letters, the original gospel manuscripts,and cross-comparisons with historians who mention Jesus and his brother James conversion to Christianity, such as Tacitus.
The historical evidence for these events is so strong that even atheist and non-Christian NT critics universally accept these facts today (they only disagree on how to interpret them)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk
In reality this sort of "overwhelming evidance" you reserve only to Christian issues.
In reality the evidance is very weak and fonts external from the bible are simple one line claims so vague and of dubious origins and meaning and never an eyewitness first hand account.
It's absolutly no problem for a historian to accept some issues as historical accurate, once you start making extraordinary claims, you cannot leave a low degree of acceptance anymore.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine On the contrary the evidence is so overhwhelming,that historians NT Wright and Gerd Ludeman say these events are as "historically certain" as the fall of Jerusalem (which Jesus accurately predicted).
The evidence is so strong because we have early independent sources (Paul's 1st Corinthians and Mark) within 20-30 years of Jesus's death, naming dozens of eyewitnesses still alive at the time,describing recent events which were easy for local people to falsify if they werent true
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk
Do you find anyone doing anything to debunk or falsify Sai Baba, or maybe John smith ?
Why would anyone bother ?
Overwhelming is quite ridiculous to use even for this issue, did you watch the video I linked some day ago ?
DID the disciples die for a lie? ProfMTH
watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I
There are many videos simular, any person with a normal skeptical attitude could never accept these claims.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine The evidence for the ressurection is overhwelming, and forms part of a cumulative case for the truth of Christianity, when taken alongside the cosmological evidence for a single creator, and the existence of moral truths, which indicates a morally-perfect creator.
Theres no good naturalistic explanation of those four fundamental facts about Jesus, agreed upon by all NT critics.We know the ressurection didnt come from pagan myths as it ran contrary to Jewish culture and belief!
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "The evidence for the ressurection is overhwelming"
I find these claims quite ridiculous, and I'm sure that you haven't even watched the videos I proposed.
You would never use the same gullibility for other claims from other religions.
We are running around in circles.
if I had witnessed a person flying into the air, the first thing I would say is "holy crap, thats a good trick", It would be the last thing to believe in supernatural events, let alone believe bronze age stories.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine I don't need to; I have all the world's best historians on my side. As Cambridge University historian C. F. D. Moule wrote "It is impossible to deny the five facts about Jesus's death on historical grounds; those who do so, deny them on philosophical or theological grounds alone"
You can't pre-judge a miracle to be implausible (without factoring in all the evidence) automatically rejecting supernatural explanations ,commits the Hume Fallacy and is the antithesis of rational enquiry
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk
You can play around the issue as much as you want.
What is an historian after all?
They are like the journalists today, stories are told by people who have never been on the scene and often an article is written from a few words from 3rd hand interviews.
You would never use the same kind of gullibility for other non-Christian claims.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidance, you cannot escape this.
Enjoy your fairy tale.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine Indeed,a historian doesnt deal with empirical proof like science.But that would mean you could never attest to any historical fact, including the death of Caesar, since we have no empirical proof, only written biographies after the event.
Extraordinary claims do NOT require extraordinary evidence,that is known as the Hume Fallacy!!
Probability theorists say you cant judge an event to be improbable without factoring in background evidence and the plausibility of rival explanations!
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk
nonsense!!
If extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence, than how about doing some research in all the miraculous claims from other religious groups ?
Seriously who cares if the History of Caesar is 100% or 2% accurate, the text doesn't make any absurd claims that would make anyone skeptical and anyway it doesn't make any difference if a person believes it or not.
Why do you not apply the same gullible credulity to other religious miracle claims ?
Answer please.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine Extraordinary claims dont require extraordinary evidence, if it is more improbable that the facts would be as they are,if that was NOT the explanation.This is standard probability theory since John Stuart Mill, John Earman and modern atheist philosophers like Antony Flew ripped apart David Hume. They say you cant judge the inherent improbability of any explanation without first factoring in the probability that the event would have happened if that was not the explanation!
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk
Enjoy yourself, we simply running in circles, you haven't watched the video and you don't answer my questions, I have just turned 50, I'm too old to waste my time on this nonsense.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine you cant find one historian (qualified or respected in the field) who denies Jesus's existence whereas, if you were to read my posts, I was able to name historians widely regarded as among the greatest ATHEIST historians of the New Testament, (such as the German scholar Gerd Ludeman) who admit not only Jesus's existence but the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances and the fact that the very FIRST disciples believed in the ressurection which proves it was NOT a myth created later!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk "you cant find one historian (qualified or respected in the field) who denies Jesus's existence"
Thomas L. Thompson
Richard Cevantis Carrier
Oh sorry. they deny Mr Jesus, so they don't qualify as "respected in the field".
"post-mortem appearances and the fact that the very FIRST disciples believed in the ressurection "
Watch the video i linked and others from the series from ProfMTH, the truth is more important that Jesus or any other fairy tale.
saintpine 7 months ago
@saintpine Your desperation is so hilarious to watch.
Carrier does NOT deny Jesus existed, watch his debate with William Lane Craig! Carrier is a minority extremist though in that he denies some of the 4 uncontested historical facts about Jesus.
I suggested you were "desperately searching" because last night the best you could do was produce someone with a degree in German and someone else with...a fucking BA in history! Wow, that's reputable historians right there! LOL
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk
Carrier says clearly that he is skeptic of the existence of Jesus.
What's this desperation you are talking about?, is it not clear to you that it wouldn’t change my life if Jesus existence was proven or not, so deal with it.
I do believe a man existed over which the entire fairy was built; there simply is no extra biblical evidence for it.
An historian has no specific qualification to provide evidence for the existence of Mr. Jesus, we have already discussed this. cont...
saintpine 7 months ago
@saintpine Well that only demonstrates how closed your mind is. Firstly, it has been conclusively demonstrated Jesus existed (which is why no historian denies it) secondly if the 4 historical facts about Jesus's death (which the vasy majority of historians accept) really are facts, then it increases the probability that he was exactly who he claimed to be,which would surely have an effect on you if its true!
"extrabiblica evidence" how many times? The GOSPELS WERE NOT PART OF THE BIBLE!!!
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk
cont...
The choice is yours now, I'm 50 years old and I don't have patience with childish and cheeky games, if you think you are not capable of avoiding the pathetic "LOL", "you lose", and other colorful crap around your comments, avoiding my questions, ignoring important comments without acknowledging, the discussion ends here.
Why don't you apply the same skeptic analysis to the bible? or look up other miraculous claims from Catholics and other religions ?
it's 10 PM now.
saintpine 7 months ago
@saintpine a historian needs to have a qualification to prove hes a fucking historian, dude!
the same way I wouldnt listen to someone with a degree in agriculture, giving his opinion on the debates within particle physics!
What convinces you Jesus's ressurection was a "fairy story", since historians now mostly agree Jesus's disciples really did see him alive after his execution and really did believe him to be the risen Christ despite having every cultural reason to reject such a belief!
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk
A historian hasn't the qualification to prove anything, and it's quite pathetic to think that an historian would risk his reputation to make theological claims.
I have repeated the same things over and over again.
I've had enough of your naive stupidity, this type of naive and gullible hehaviour is reserved only for your fairy tale, but you ignore all the others, you haven't answers many of my questions and we keep playing around the same issue like kids.
saintpine 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk
Most historians believe his disciples did see him after his execution!!! Maybe in the states lol
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk "I don't need to; I have all the world's best historians on my side. As Cambridge University historian C. F. D. Moule wrote "It is impossible to deny the five facts about Jesus's death on historical grounds"
2. C. F. D. Moule was an Anglican priest and theologian, really an excellent unbiased reference.
He didn't need any historical proof, it's obvious that he CANNOT deny.
You would never apply this sort of naive gulliblity for non Christian miracolous claims.
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine well, you've just blown your own argument apart. On that basis, you can never trust an atheist NT historian, since he would be biased in the opposite direction! In which case,you may as well give up.
You can't attack CFD Moule's credibility to win this argument. Why? Because I quoted ATHEIST historians who admit the same facts. For example, Gerd Ludeman admitted "it may be taken as historically certain" that locals had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion!
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "well, you've just blown your own argument apart... you can never trust an atheist NT historian"
I don't trust atheist historians BECAUSE they are atheists, what the hell are you babbling about ?
I couldn't care less if they are atheists or not, the problem is that you present a one historian THAT DOES HAVE a biased agenda, and this alone is sufficient to undermine his HISTORICAL work.
A serious Christian scientist would say I cannot give an answer and not "God did it".
saintpine 8 months ago
@saintpine Time and chance can not produce the Information needed for one single protein, Learn Homochirality!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "Time and chance can not produce ...Homochirality"
You are going to have to come up with something better if you think you can destroy a strong castle of the best and well established science accepted by 99% of the hundreds of thousands of biologists in the world.
I have no agenda; it doesn't cause me any anxiety to have evolution disproved scientifically, unlike Christians that would never accept anything that would require a comma to be changed in their personal belief of god.
saintpine 8 months ago