My Three Books on the Subject of Evolution: (All three books are now on Kindle.)

3 covers

Before you dig into my blog, I would like to introduce you to the three books I wrote on the subject of evolution. Please feel free to take a look at my two-minute trailers for each book (below). I hope at least one of these books will stimulate your interest. Direct links to each book on Amazon are under each trailer. Below the videos is a brief introductory statement about my blog and two videos that show the problems with ape-to-human evolution.

Click on this link below to go straight to Amazon and The DNA Delusion:

 The DNA Delusion

Click on this link to go straight to Amazon and Evo-illusion:

Evo-illusion.

The trailer for my second book, Evo-illusion of Man:

Click on this link to go straight to Amazon and Evo-illusion of Man: Evo-illusion of Man at Amazon

About this Site-My Statement

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei

“Whether all this which they call the universe is left to the guidance of unreason and chance medley, or, on the contrary, as our fathers have declared, ordered and governed by a marvelous intelligence and wisdom.”-Socrates

http://www.evoillusion.org is an objective discussion about the scientific validity of evolution. The scientific argument about the validity of evolution should not be a debate about evolution versus any other notions about origins. The discussion here is about whether or not evolution can stand alone as valid science. Or is evolution a fraud that should be eliminated from textbooks, schools, and museums of natural history. There is no doubt that random mutations and natural selections do occur, and that they can alter the characteristics and traits of populations of living organisms. The debate should be about whether or not those randomly selected mutations were and are up to the task of forming new species and their organ sets and body parts, and of inventing and improving the initial designs of biochemical and biological systems.  Or is there something else in nature that is far more impressive?

My primary problem with evolution doesn’t involve design. Evolution’s greatest problem involves invention; the bringing into existence of complex systems that are new, useful, and not obvious, where they didn’t previously exist at all. New useful, and not obvious are the requirements for an invention from the United States Patent Office. Every body part of every species, every organ, every biological and biochemical system is an invention, far more so than any invention that was ever made by any man. The only intelligence we know of that is capable of inventing complex entities is us. Humans. Humans were not even around when nature’s unbelievable inventions and designs were created. Even if we were, we are not nearly within light-years of being intelligent enough to invent and design the phenomenal and complex entities in nature. For example, a skin cell is so small that 10,000 can fit on the head of a pin. But each skin cell is more complex than a nuclear submarine. Each skin cell, in fact, each cell in our bodies, manufactures 2,000 new protein molecules every second. The average protein molecule is composed of 500 amino acid molecules that need assembling. Amino acid molecules are assembled in strands like a pearl necklace. Can you imagine assembling 500 amino acid molecules in strands, and making 2,000 strands per second? Well, every cell in your body does it. Just one living skin cell is light-years beyond the ability of any human to invent and design. The choice then is, did evolution’s complete lack of intelligence invent and design the uber-complex and phenomenal entities of nature, or did an intelligence far beyond our abilities to comprehend do the job. 

So basically this is the theme of my blog. If this fits what you are looking for, I hope you will enjoy perusing my pages. Below my three book trailers are two videos, How To Tell the Difference Between Human and Ape Skulls, and The Smithsonian’s Fake Hominids. They are kind of an addendum to my book, Evo-illusion of Man. I hope you have a few moments to take a look. Feel free to leave a comment. 


1,005 Comments

  1. Charlie said,

    Steve,

    Again, many thanks. Your site has been a wonderful stepping stone for further studies.

    I’ve had a number of these debates since I was last on your site. And it appears to me that the one thing that all of these diehard evolution proponents have in common is that they claim to be carrying the banner of Logic and Reason. That they are somehow upholding the integrity of Logic and Reason and that Logic and Reason justify that their position is superior.

    When in fact, they must abuse Logic- using it against itself in a very obfuscated manner in order to hide the fact that they are actually standing upon a foundation that is no more solid than a puff of air.

    Methodological Naturalism and Empirical Rationalism (MN and ER) is what I keep seeing hailed as the bedrock of all knowledge. It is no doubt quite useful for many things- especially bearing witness to the marvels of modern technology. But they are not eligible toward making assertions about the origin of those things upon which they rely for their very existence.

    Every argument FOR evolution relies upon the use of MN and ER (arguably- ABused). But as you will no doubt observe, MN and ER depend wholly upon Logic and Reason. Without them, they simply cannot exist. Logic and Reason are the ‘bedrock’.

    Let’s deal with Logic for brevity sake. Let me begin by separating the Observation of Logic from the Existence of Logic. No doubt the Observation of Logic (Man’s philosophies and methodological techniques) did not come into existence before Man’s Consciousness. But the Existence of Logic (the structured order in which the universe operates) existed before Man. There is no reason to deny that The Laws of Identity (Law of NonContradiction (LNC) and Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM)) were in operation and behaved as they do today well before Man gained Consciousness.

    If one asserts the following claim, ‘A Creator Exists’, it is either True or it is False. It may be asserted to be Indeterminable… but that should require that a proper and HONEST examination of BOTH the True and the False should continue. To do anything otherwise is a breach of logic since it commences by arbitrarily choosing one to be false and the other to be true without necessary proof.

    ‘A Creator Exists’ is either True, or it is False, or you may consider it to be Indeterminate- in which case BOTH the True and the False MUST be contemplated honestly in order to arrive at a logical and rational conclusion.

    The Evolution Proponent, however, tends to be quite dishonest about their evaluation of the True assertion. They create diminutive versions of a Creator (that resides within Logic- within Reason, within Nature- within bounds that are not honest representations of an Ultimate Absolute Creator as he may logically be defined), or they argue about the illogical nature of such an Ultimate Absolute Creator- illogically and arbitrarily dismissing completely the limitations of a finite creature to understand such an Ultimate Being.

    The evaluation is generally dishonest and is based completely upon personal distaste or incredulity of such an Ultimate Absolute Creator. And then they go about their merry way claiming that somehow they have used Logic to dismiss the necessity of the Creator.

    The trouble is plainly this. That they have arbitrarily chosen true or false without further independent proof and this is not a proper use of logic by any means. They have abused Logic in order to then proceed to uphold it and feel justified by it.

    They also run immediately into the following problem- which they struggle to hide with every known trick known to Man. That Logic is not self-existent. It is not Logical- by definition- that anything- especially Logic itself- be self-referentially existent. Logic is not in and of itself able to conjure itself into existence nor affirm its own existence or authority. Everything that resides within Logic must abide by the Laws of Logic. Including Logic itself- no matter how many deceptive chain links you add to the circle of evidence- it remains a circle. (Again- speaking of Logic as the structured order of the universe.)

    For that matter, Logic cannot be used to affirm or deny the existence of something upon which it depends for its existence. For example, Logic itself cannot be used as a proof to deny that ‘Logic pre-existed Man or that it came to exist at the command of a Creator’ when in fact the question of whether such a pre-Man creation of Logic occurred is the VERY SUBJECT at hand. To use Logic in such a manner would be a circular fallacy and clearly a breach of logic.

    What then? Where must Logic come from? Certainly one cannot logically deny that it just very well might come from something outside of itself (and of the universe). Perhaps from Something that exists outside of the bounds of Logic that has the power to call Logic- the structured order of the universe- and the universe itself- into existence? Logically, that cannot be denied.

    The simple truth of the matter is that a foundation that lays naively upon Logic and Logic alone as a reason for its own existence is just another religion that bases its bedrock foundation upon Circular Reasoning. All the while dealing with definitions that specifically exclude the use of such illogical thinking. And they do so arbitrarily upon faith and faith alone. They are thus no different than any other faith-based religion.

    The Christian God is at least defined outside of all creation and thereby quite capable- by definition- of creating the structured order in the universe- and the universe itself. He is cohesive and complete. Though admittedly it is very difficult to stand in the gaze of such a Creator… His self-definition fits the description that is appropriate. But the existence of a Creator is still no doubt a logical reality.

    The Evolution Proponents can have their faith if they so desire. But they cannot keep pretending that the banner of Logic and Reason is theirs and theirs alone to loft up high.

    • Adrian said,

      So charly, you think the christian god is more scientific than evolution? i was starting to take you seriously until you mentioned that.

      Please explain how “evolutionists abuse” logic in order to consider it unnecesary.
      You think you have to abuse much logic to consider zeus for the explanation of thunder? or santa claus for that matter?

      Did you just copy pasted all of that from some creationist-propaganda website?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      What an interesting comment. Sorry for the late reply, but I needed the time to reread and translate. You go for a specific god, a Christian god. I just don’t things are that specific. I don’t think a god that formed the universe and all of nature would choose to communicate with humans through a book. But that is my take, obviously. And you have yours. We certainly agree up to a point. Your notion of when logic first came into existence is an interesting one. Just like when did consciousness come into existence? Is it something that only we humans have? Or is there an immense form of consciousness in the universe? Did a form of consciousness precede the universe? When you really think about it, consciousness AND logic are both inventions of the universe and it’s source. The universe could have just as easily been devoid of consciousness, and been made of a mishmash devoid of logic. Both are completely unlikely entities. I want to place this comment in my page on favorites, if that’s OK. It’s a great one that gets the mind spinning for sure.

  2. Adrian said,

    575 comments, why can i only see 3 of them???

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Quit smokin’ that stuff.

      • Adrian said,

        Sorry i couldn’t help smokin a joint because i wanted to see if i could see the distorted reality that you are in but no luck.

    • Ken said,

      Adrian-

      Let me get this straight –
      You believe evolution – unguided happenstance as an explanation for all living things

      Stevebee believes (1) Bio-systems are designed in a far more intelligent way than any intelligent man who ever existed has the capability of designing.

      (2) Nothing has ever been invented, designed, assembled, and improved by an entity with an IQ of exactly zero. No man who ever existed can show that has or can happen.

      Then your response is “show me an alternative to evolution”, if you can’t , then evolution is true. Dude- how did the burden of proof get shifted to the ID people. My understanding of Evolution, which is admittedly little but probably average, was that it is a theory to disprove the presumption of design because life through simple visual observation appears designed . For example, at work we have a illustrative anatomy book called “Human Anatomy” it separates all the bodies systems (skeletal, nervous, pulmonary etc..) The human body seems unbelievable -seems very intelligently designed to me. For me to say that we are not intelligently designed would be like an accused murderer claiming that the victum fell on the knife 37 ties by accident. My point being shouldn’t the burden of proof be on those who say something that looks very intelligently designed , is really not, and prove their theory. Why can’t we as humans just observe something that is so complex and just give a head nod and say damn we, it ,or that is brilliantly made. Whatever designed it it sure is a hell of a lot smarter than me.

      stevebee- Your not so easily off the hook either. Assuming, you are right and we appear intelligently designed because we are, now what ? I’m just trying to be honest? Why are we programmed or designed and placed on this complex planet , with our complex bodies and even with all this complexity everything still seems like it is just hangin on by a thread? Sickness, natural disasters, suffering, even my own short comings. Hypothetically , if there is a designer is this all a cosmic joke. If there is a creator ,a IDer, why does my brain want to agree with you but I still hope Adrian is right it’s just a highly improbable cosmic coincidence? I get where you are coming from trying to sound all scientific, but your premise is quite simple “every thing looks designed and complex ..umm..Because it is… therefore there is a designer”. However, what is with all the smoke and mirrors. Why did or does the IDer do things or not do things to create doubt . I agree my body and the universe as a whole seems incredibly “unbelievably” complex and appears “designed” but on the other hand there’s sickness and earthquakes etc., which seem random and out of order and undersigned. If a designer does exist intrinsically my thought would be that everything would be perfect, unrandom, and the fact that everything is not perfect “feels” like evidence that there is no designer. The IDer seems to mix awesome good designed stuff with awful bad undesigned stuff which casts doubt even on the awesome cool designed stuff. If he (or it) exists why is he confusing us. This inner turmoil just makes me angry at the designer (if it exists), which makes me look for even more reasons not to believe in a designer. This whole issue makes me not want to be intellectually honest with myself. No wonder people hate ID proponents

      • RyanB said,

        For your question about why we’re here Ken, just keep asking, believe that it is an answer you can know, and keep your cup empty of all things but glaring truth. I promise you will find it. Yesterday I was where you were, today it has all fallen in to place. I don’t have all the answers…yet but I’ve got the most crucial part. And you will too if you keep following your desire for it! As for the disease and suffering, it’s all there for a reason. I know, sounds cliche, quaint and chincey, but keep hunting for real truth and it will make sense.

      • RyanB said,

        Ken, I don’t know how to contact you, but if you will head over to raw paleo forum, register, and then contact me, citrushigh, that is my user name, we can have a discussion and I’ll throw some things at you that you can chew on and decide for yourself about. If you’ll give me (really you, and more like we) a chance I can show you that it all makes sense. The only reason I’m going out of my way to do this (I’m happy to!) is because you are really after the truth.

        Steve, please don’t delete this comment, your site if very valuable and I’m not saying Ken should leave here and not come back, he should read the whole thing from top to bottom, but I think I can offer him some answers. Thanks!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are right on. The stuff in your section to me is what made me start taking a look at the religion I was brought up with when I was a young teenager. How could an entity that is so intelligent produce such horror? Is there an incredibly intelligent design entity that is so emotionless that it can make man, but make him miserable for eons? The design source had to invent emotions to go along with man. Along with that goes sympathy, caring, love…… If that designer invented or HAD those emotions, why didn’t that entity bring mankind into a peaceful healthy more loving world? For this and many other reasons, religious belief was eliminated as an option for me. Natural selection cannot possibly be the source. That is nothing but fantasy. We both know that has never been demonstrated, so eliminate evolution. Which leaves me with an unbelievably intelligent feelingless entity that produced emotion but doesn’t, or cannot, or will not or is unable, to care at all what happens to the humans that were formed by its endeavors. Some kind of machine-like intelligence? An entity like none we can imagine or have experienced? Bottom line for me: We just don’t know, no theory fits the evidence, and humankind is stuck with the most incredible Puzzle that exists in the universe. I would much rather be honest and say, “I don’t have the slightest notion, but here is what we do know for sure”, than believe or try to come up with a fantasy. So you are right. I am not off the hook, and never will be.

      • RyanB said,

        For what it’s worth I have seen proof that the creator is in fact infinite love. There is probably no punishment for what we perceive as ‘evil’ (yes that includes hitler, that is what infinite love is about) but we absolutely have to have free will or what is the point? And so that is what breeds challenges and supposed suffering, but to know that we are spiritually indestructable, and every single challenge, without excepting is surmountable with the belief that it is. The universe/creator what ever unloaded term you want to call it is conspiring on our behalf and wants to give us our hearts desires. I’m convinced. And it’s been a long long journey to this point. I’m not trying to convince you all, I’m just reporting my progression. If you believe that the answer is unknowable, then that is exactly what it will be. How else could it be under those circumstances? You will have to step outside of science to know this answer though.

        For anyone who cares to do an unscientific experiment for themselves here is recommendo reading….

        First and foremost….

        Infinite Possibilities by Mike Dooley,
        I don’t know if it’s a book, I listened to it on audio because I work 3 jobs and don’t have much time for reading (I’ve had this Monica Sjoo book I mentioned earlier for 2 weeks and I’m only on chapter 2, but if you can ignore the agenda it is so far, worth the read for the thought provoking concepts)

        Journey to the Ancestral Self by Tamarack Song, both audio and reading

        Jon Young’s “Advanced Bird Language” you can have no concept of what this series is about until you listen to it, it is one of my biggest life changing experiences along with Dooley’s work.

        Also “Seeing through native eyes” by the same author.

        Any books by Tom Brown Jr.

        Those should be enough to set you on your way if you give them a chance. What have you got to lose? If you have enough time to insult eachother on here, then you have enough time to expose yourself to new (old) ideas. If your positions are as concrete as you both think, then no harm will come to them. I think you will find that both your positions (Steve and Adrian) will become beside the point, but you will have to throw off your limiting beliefs and really give them a chance. If you find they have nothing to offer after you’ve actually practiced them, then your old beliefs will still be there waiting to welcome you back.

        Again, it’s not going to make a difference to me if either of you take any of my advice, other than I’ll be a little disappointed, I’m just so grateful that I’ve found they work for me and answered my questions. I wish you both the best and anyone else who reads this.

        As a disclaimer, none of this should reflect on Stevebee, he has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to knowing only very visible scientific truths, so if he chooses to leave this comment, it should only reinforce that he is confident in his position of strictly hard science. And of course Adrian I know you’re on the other side of the fence, and so same for you.

        If you decide to pick only one book from the list, make it Dooley’s, especially disc 3, tracks 8-12 but really you should give them all a chance. You may find them as torrents or I would be happy to upload them to a site like megaupload and give you the code. I do not believe in copyright laws because it give Artists/Authors control over your private property even though you are not infringing on theirs. ie I use MY cd’s to copy the work, or my computer memory or my printer paper. Also Dooley doesn’t care, practicing what he preaches, it is more important to him to spread what he considers to be “truths of being”. Please give it a chance.

  3. Adrian said,

    No Dane, steve bee doesnt have an alternate theory for evolution. I Have asked him the same question and haven’t got an answer. So dont waste your time dane..

    ID IS creationism in disguise, another thing is that you think that is a genuine scientific theory. Which is not and everybody including its main proponents KNOW IT.

    Steve do you know any main proponent who thinks that the nature of this ID is the christian god?

    ID is not a valid alternative theory, when are you going to realise that? Its uninformative and useless. Violates the principle of parsimony and it cannot be tested or falsified.
    But what do you care? you always avoid the issue or block people who disagree with you on youtube including me. So you stay in your safe blanket of denial and dismissal whenever somebody corners you to the point that you cant answer the question of ID.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You are a slow creationist. But a creationist nonetheless. The religious are fast creationists. No matter what, both sides are creationists. All of modern nature from a huge hot ball with water, chemicals, rocks, and dirt, is certainly a creation. 😀
      “Whether all this which they call the universe is left to the guidance of unreason and chance medley, or, on the contrary, as our fathers have declared, ordered and governed by a marvellous intelligence and wisdom.” Socrates
      See, your trainers fooled you again. I don’t think Socrates was a Christian. Do you?
      Adrian, you never have anything interesting to say. You just hang around and repeat the same garbage. “ID bad, evolution good” Try actually answering something for once.
      Nobody corners me. Evolutionauts call me tiresome names, and keep repeating the same tiresome dogma over and over. That’s what gets them and you banned.

      • Adrian said,

        Same bullshit about socrates, but knowledge was very limited by then, you havent been able to propose ONE reputable proponent of ID which has contributed anything useful or informative for mankind.
        You have nothing interesting to say only arguments of ignorance stacking all over your page with no other coherent theory but instead a less parsimonious and scientific theory.

        Yeah you call it dogma i call it questioning your bullshit about ID

        ID requires some supernatural intervention so you are a creationist.
        All of ID main proponents believe in the christian god. ID didnt came as a scientific theory but as a creationism in disguise and the people who came with that junk-science theory know it, even when you blindly try to convince yourself that it’s not.

        Im still waiting for an answer for a more viable theory and just to name a reputable scientist. Hawking is not an ID proponent and neither Einstein.

        “My theory is that we live in a computer simulated world, i have no proof and we cant find the source and can’t test claim and neither you can falsify it but you must accept it blindly because i say so and because i think i’m smart.”

    • Dane said,

      The genuine problem is that Steve acts like a religious zealot. He holds to the belief in something that, by his own admission, he has no workable theory or even any evidence which demonstrates it’s existence. He consistently replies how useless it is to even attempt to question the nature of the designers existence because it’s impossible to know…which just goes to show that ID, like creationism, works on faith and not on knowledge. The fact of the matter is that I have posited the only two logical origins of this intelligent designer, but Steve dismisses them because he does not want to confront the possibilities.

      Steve consistently says he doesn’t at all about ID, but he sure cares about trying to make that he knows, as an absolute fact, that an intelligent designer exists…which smacks of religious rhetoric. Further, he never, ever, permits the possibility that he might be wrong. See, Steve thinks evolution is total garbage because it’s a theory that is still developing. Because it doesn’t immediately gratify him with the answers he wants, he decides it must be wrong. He never, never entertains that notion that someday it will produce those answers…if those answers aren’t present now, they’ll never be there. The problem is that he adheres that he knows and admits is totally unprovable, but is confident that someday it will be proved. Hypocrite, much? He, and others, chide evolutionary theory for being around for 150 years, but is not complete, so it must be faulty. Really? Well, if ID has actually been around for as long as Steve claims-at least since the time of Socrates-I’d say ID has had WAY longer to prove it’s case…and still can’t.

      And that’s another thing. Steve LOVES to use this quote from Socrates:“Whether all this which they call the universe is left to the guidance of unreason and chance medley, or, on the contrary, as our fathers have declared, ordered and governed by a marvellous intelligence and wisdom.”

      What Steve DOESN’T post is the rest of the dialogue, which occurred between Socrates, Philebus and Protarchus. If one reads this dialogue, it is not only obvious that Socarates did not possess a clear understanding of science-he thinks the universe is made up of air, earth, fire and water and refers to them as ‘elements’- but it is doubly clear what Socrates is actually talking about: he believes that humans are of divine origin. He makes it clear that humans are the result of a divine process that was initiated by a divine entity. His entire dialogue is a religious dialogue and is actually an endorsement of Creationism.

      Quote mining and duplicity do not a good argument make.

      • 9pt9 said,

        You are way off and take yourself way too seriously. All steve is saying is the evidence doesn’t add up for evo. And by the looks of things there is obviously intelligence behind life. And it is beyond obvious.
        It doesn’t matter if there is an alternative theory. Evolution is poppycock nonetheless.

      • Dane said,

        No 9….Steve is doing more than that. He is attempting to proceed as if his knowledge is absolute. It isn’t. Nobody’s is. “The looks of things” is pretty piss poor evidence to try and say something is “beyond obvious”. If that’s the way science actually worked, we’d be in pretty bad shape.

        It DOES matter is there is no alternative theory. At the very least, I’ll stick with the theory that is always working towards advancing it’s understanding rather than going along with a position that claims to have absolute knowledge, but never works towards creating a working, viable theory for itself. You can’t just insist something is true and then insist it’s useless to try and verify that truth.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        So, do it. Believe what you want. This blog isn’t for you. You have swallowed your belief system, then shut the door. So why bother me? This site is for people who still have open minds and skepticism. You forfeited that for your belief in evolution. Nothing I can do about that, and I would never go back to where you are. So go find a site the believes the way you do, and play choir. Why hang out here?

      • Dane said,

        Because, Steve, just as you have an interest in exposing and trashing evolutionary science, I have an interest in exposing people who have hidden agendas and try smokescreen people into buying it. If you are so into people thinking for themselves and questioning what they hear, why are you so agitated when people question what you try and insist is true? If you weren’t prepared for that, then I suggest you cease running a public webpage.

        By the way, are you going to give me the info I requested concerning U of TA, Arlington and Anders Lyndon? From what little I gather from what you’ve had to say, it seems this place is better along than places like The Discovery Institute, so I’d like to look into their research some more. Who knows? That might be something valuable.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Hey, I have an idea for you: Try explaining the many questions posed here, which you do nothing but ignore. Anders would just be a distraction for your inability to address a single one. So give the many questions I pose here a try if you like. Otherwise, there are many other sites with people who are evo-indoctrinated just like you. You have run out of ammo here. Your stuff is repetitive and boring. “hidden agenda, religious rhetoric, faith, creationism”. zzzzz Said so many times before with the same result. And if you don’t want to take on any challenges, say bye. You did once, and you keep coming back. What’s the attraction?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Perfect Dane! You entered the gates of the indoctrinated at RS. THAT is a great site for you. You can trash me in unison with the others there, and feel even better about yourself. Groupthink does have that as an advantage. And you can rag about me being religious and all, and they will all agree and scratch your back. Be sure and scratch theirs! That’s an important part of groupthink. Bye

      • Dane said,

        Why would Anders Lyndon be a distraction? If he has something worthwhile to say, I’d like to see it. As I said before, this U of TA, Arlington seems to be working in a more constructive direction than organizations like The Discovery Institute. That being the case, I’d like to at least peruse what they offer to the debate.

        Why are you so reticent to provide detailed information about this person and place? You’re the one that brought this place and person up to begin with. You’re asking me to accept blindly that this place and person are what you claim. I’m saying that I want to see for myself, read for myself, examine for myself. Here I am actually thinking for myself yet all you do is chide me for it.

        So, I’ll ask you politely one more time…can you link me to somewhere that at least details what the U of TA, Arlington is all about and how it functions? Even better, can you link me to someplace that has any articles that this place has produced or published? At least tell me what U of TA stands for so I can further the search myself if you don’t want to help.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        See Dane, your comment here shows what a distraction Anders is. You can’t answer a single question posed by this blog. You evolutionauts get so easily distracted. I don’t blame you at all. You can’t answer reasonable challenges, so you must defer to unimportant stuff. Like Anders. So if you can answer the challenges on 4, 4b, 20, that would be a good start. If not, you are the failure that you have already proven yourself to be. Bye Bye again.

      • Dane said,

        So, in other words, you have to sink to inventing fictitious people and places to garner support. This is coming from the same guy who claims evolution is a perpetrated hoax.

        You know, it’s funny Steve, how you consistently insist upon validation for any information source that pro-evolutionists use but you can’t be bothered to do the same. Hypocrite, much? I guess I can just parrot your response and say that you’re just too distracted to actually come up with a justified invalidation of the ToE.

        Question is…now that we know that there is no such place as U of TA, Arlington and no such person as Anders Lyndon…what else have you intentionally lied about on this blog? I’m sure that answers will be forthcoming.

  4. Dane said,

    Attempting to trash evolution is ludicrous unless you’re able to do it from A to Z, which you aren’t even close to doing. Just pointing out the mechanics that evolutionary theory is still looking into finding a workable explanation for does not trash evolution. At best, it merely reveals what an biologist, anthropologist, paleontologist, zoologist etc. will tell you…no, it’s not a complete theory…it’s still in a continual process of advancement. Conversely, just sitting there saying that evolution is fake and trash, but not having anything better to offer doesn’t serve you at all. If there is no plausible theory for an alternative due to the lack of evidence, why not work towards seeking that evidence out? Your just hellbent on diverting all of your energy to trashing evolution, but you’re not willing to turn any of that energy towards developing a workable alternative. If you don’t care about ID, as you’ve said numerous times, why bother even mentioning an intelligent designer over and over again as you do? It seems you care enough to declare as an absolute fact that this designer exists, but you don’t care enough to work constructively towards a workable theory that irrefutably establishes the designers existence. Your whole approach smacks more of religious zealotry rather than an objective approach to examining life. I’m beginning to think that’s what this blog is really all about.

  5. Adrian said,

    Yes, same old straw man arguments.
    Oh you evolutionists are 100% sure that how the universe came to be and are dogmatic.

    No, i dont think any serious evolutionist is dogmatic. You haven’t been able to propose any coherent theory. “The humand mind is limited” I agree, so why can’t it go bothways? if its so limited but you don’t even consider the possibility that your’e wrong.
    Your argument goes like this “I can’t imagine how can evolution produce eyes or teeth or whatever therefore it is impossible.
    Argument of ignorance as always.
    Come on steve, don’t you have anything new?
    Even if we had 90% less evidence of evolution. It would still be very much strong than a junk theory like ID.

    Are you familiar with the principle of parsimony? falsiability?
    Stick with philosophy not with science.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      A summation of all of Adrian’s comments: “ID bad. Ugh! Evolution GOOD!”

      • Adrian said,

        Yeah distort facts to pretend your position is stronger.

        Summation of ALL your comments and webpage.
        Evolution is doesnt explain many things so i choose a position which explains even less.

        You always evade the issue when i question your silly quasi-religious belief on ID
        Your belief in ID is based on FAITH not evidence.

  6. Adrian said,

    Hey steve why don’t we challenge you in to presenting anything new besides arguments of ignorance and how bout presenting a workable scientific theory for your position which you claim is stronger in spite of not meeting any of the criteria to be scientific.
    You already admitted that its a belief so why don’t you stick to just that? A belief. Nothing more.

  7. Adrian said,

    Steve’s limited mentality: “Everybody who disagrees with me and question my motives is indoctrinated”

    “Everyone who accepts my position without questioning it, without disagreeing, and even if they are fundamentalists christians, are open minded”

    Way to go steve!

  8. Charlie said,

    It looks like my previous comment might have gotten ‘cleaned up’ from here. I don’t mind, actually, since it was indeed quite long, and it flatters me that it now appears on page 29…

    I just didn’t want it to get lost as an entry on this page, since it is where I had first posted it. So I thought I would simply post a link to that page, along with the title and excerpt:

    https://evillusion.wordpress.com/my-favorite-posts/

    Why the Denial of Creator is an Abuse of Logic
    by Charlie Frias, 3/2011

    “I have enjoyed a number of debates now, with people that are adamantly convinced that the Theory of Evolution is a true and ‘intellectual’ explanation for the Origin of Man. That we are all somehow mindlessly created by Nature itself and that no Creator was necessary.

    It appears to me that the one thing that all of these die-hard Evolution proponents have in common is that they claim to be carrying the banner of Logic and Reason… that they are somehow upholding the integrity of Logic and Reason and that Logic and Reason justify that their position is superior. I find that to be dishonest or naive or both.

    :::

    Feel free to read the rest of the article on Page 29.

    Thank you,

  9. Ronnyboy117 said,

    I love your website! i myself am kind of inbetween creationism and evolution. BUt i thank you so much for the information!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks! And thanks for the visit. In my case, I went from Genesis as a kid, to Darwin as an adult, to where I am now: “We humans aren’t within light years of figuring this damn Puzzle out.”

  10. 9pt9 said,

    Read a book and stop arguing from personal incredulity. The argument was solved 150 years ago you IDot creatard!!!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I think I heard that somewhere before. 🙂

  11. stevebee92653 said,

    You need to ck 1a. Don’t come back unless you do. Bye

    • Dane said,

      Hmm….let’s read 1a and see exactly it says about U of TA, Arlington and Dr. Anders Lyndon.

      It says this, word for word:
      “One of my favorites. The U of TA Arlington is a thinktank that researches and discusses biology and evolution. Evolutionauts routinely have problems counting the A’s in the name. They spend (waste) their time researching the University of Texas, Arlington, Texas, in hope of finding Dr. Anders Lyndon, a department head at the U of TA Arlington. Their big hope is to find flaws in my being, since they have so much trouble finding flaws in my writing. It’s amazing how easy it is to distract these evolutionauts from the important discussion: biology, evolution, and the origin of species and bio-systems. They routinely have a major need to find flaws in their opponent, because they are so devoid of evidence for their belief system. If those evolutionauts would count the number of A’s in the name they would realize that the University of Texas, Arlington would read : U of T, Arlington, Texas. Not U of TA, Arlington. Further, there are numerous Arlington’s. Never was the state of Texas mentioned in U of TA, Arlington. To name a few other Arlington’s: Arlington, MA, Arlington, MN, Arlington, VA, Arlington, KS, Arlington, SD, Arlington, GA. So off they go, on a wild goose chase, wasting their time on a useless search to find flaws not in the least bit related to the discussion. They are so zealous in their need to succeed in their search and destroy mission that they don’t spend a second thinking out the name. I wonder how many more evolutionauts will be so exuberant in their search for flaws in stevebee that they find it necessary to do a study on the staff of the U of T, Arlington, Texas, in search of Anders. I hope many.”

      Hmmm…all it says is that U of TA, Arlington is a thinktank and that someone Dr. Anders Lyndon works there. That’s about it.

      See, Steve…you’re simply trying to turn your deflection into another persons deflection. YOU cite this place and this person as a source…yet, when anyone attempts to confirm the existence of this source, the well is dry. You don’t give any info about this place or this person.

      When someone does confront you, all you do is blather on about how that person just doesn’t want to answer your questions or is simply trying to find fault with you personally or something else just as inane. The problem is that this is how real research works: if you cite a source, I should be able to go that source myself to confirm that information you’ve drawn from it is accurate, that the works of this person apply to your point and that no ‘cherry picking’ of data has occurred.To be put it bluntly, I want to see U of TA’s body and Anders Lyndon’s body of work for MYSELF. Since you are so big on people thinking for themselves, let’s see if you practice what you preach.

      So, for the last time, I’ll ask…what is this U of TA, Arlington? Which Arlington is it in, since there are over 30 Arlingtons in the U.S.? Who is Anders Lyndon and what does he have a doctorate in? Has he had any other research or articles published? If you refuse to disclose this information again, then I have no choice but to chalk you up as a liar who invents fictitious institutions and people in order to try and give his own personal beliefs some veneer of justification.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Re: “I should be able to go that source myself to confirm that information you’ve drawn from it is accurate.”
        Which information that I have “drawn from” do you need source for? I can’t wait to hear which of the elements on this blog need Anders for confirmation.
        I will gladly give the information that needs Anders source to Anders personally, since I see him weekly. I’ll have him answer.

      • Dane said,

        I’ll be perfectly honest with you and tell you that I’m referencing your YouTube videos where he is named as the source.

        I mean, I’ve seen the anderslyndon YouTube account, but who knows if that’s him or you.

        And why do I need you to act as in intermediary? Why can’t I go to him directly? And why are you avoiding answering the questions about U of TA, Arlington? Why can’t answer what it is and where it is? Why the big secret? Why can’t we go directly to this institute ourselves? I can’t wait to hear your answers on this.

  12. Ronnyboy117 said,

    So I have a question, now that you have seen issues with Darwinian Evolution, how come you choose not to be a creationist or an ID’ist?

    • Adrian said,

      Because he is probably a closet religious fundamentalist, have you ever see a so convicted belief in ID that is not from religious people?
      Believing so blindly in a unparsimonious theory which make less sense is just as comparable as a christian believing that jesus rose from the dead.
      Of course he could have resurrected but aren’t more simpler explanations?

      • Ronnyboy117 said,

        Why don’t you stump him then, use evidence with Evidence, I as a christian am somewhat neutral in this debate. Just because you stick to your guns doesn’t mean your religious fundamentalist if that was true you would be a religious fundamentalist also to which you probably are, But i want evidence refuting his arguements, People like you need to bring evidence not speculations otherwise your no different than religious people.

      • Dane said,

        Because there is nothing to stump, Ronny. If you read through this site, you’ll find that Steve’s arguments do not arise from any sort of evidence or data; rather they arise from inferences and the argument of incredulity.

        Simply put, Steve insists that are a host of complexities that are impossible to have come about via evolution. Unfortunately, Steve doesn’t say WHY these things are impossible…all he does is explain these structures, demonstrate their ‘complexity’ and insist that evolution could not produce such structures.

        If you read the front page of this site, Steve makes it clear that he has absolutely no evidence nor data to establish he’s right. All he does is attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory to show that it’s wrong, but it’s a futile gesture. Any credible biologist, evolutionary biologist, biochemist, anthropologist, paleontologist…any one of them will tell that evolutionary theory really doesn’t have all the answers yet BUT it’s searching for those answers every day. See, that’s what science does…it continues to advance it’s arena of knowledge to the best of it’s ability. However, Steve-and those of his ilk-don’t do that. They simply insist some intelligent being is responsible, but we can’t prove it, so we’re not going to. ID NEVER attempts to advance it’s breadth of knowledge or data…it doesn’t even try. It just tells us that this intelligent designer is impossible to reach for right now. But what about tomorrow? There IS no tomorrow in ID. Steve says the “puzzle” won’t be solved in his lifetime….well of course it won’t. No IDer is working on it.

        Further, Steve also admits that he has no methodology or process to prove he’s right. He admits there is no way he can demonstrate, show or reveal the intelligence that is supposedly responsible for all these complex structures.

        But the biggest problem is Steve himself. He states, over and over, how humanity is just light years away from solving the “Puzzle” and that the most honest thing for humanity to do, when it comes to life and how life came to be what it is on this planet, is to admit we don’t know. However, Steve does the exact opposite…he insists that he DOES know. He insists that an intelligent designer not only began the thing we know as life, but designed the lifeforms that fill our planet and built them accordingly. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Steve will not, in any way, permit the possibility that he’s wrong or even permit the possibility that one day evolutionary theory may answer all the questions we have. In this respect, he’s a hypocrite. You cannot say one minute that the most answer is “we don’t know” and the next minute that your beliefs are absolutely right and any other ideas are wrong.

        And no mistake…that’s what Steve is talking about…beliefs. Not facts, not confirmed data or evidence…but beliefs. He even says this on his front page. This website is dedicated to his BELIEFS…beliefs that he insists are right and any and all things contrary to those beliefs are wrong.

        Now, you can see that however you like, but I tell you…the only people I see with that kind of absolutist view are religious fundamentalists. So is Steve really a closet believer in some religion? Maybe. I’ve suspected this for a while, but that’s something you have to decide for yourself.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Belief? Oh, for the fun of it, lets try the evolution of the visual system. The which came first conundrum: Eye, visual cortex, code, optic nerve. Then divvy that up into eyes: sclera, lens, muscles that operate lens, retina, muscles that operate retina, nerves that operate lens, retina, brain controllers, vit hum, aq, hum, oculomotor muscles…….. Let me know how evolution could invent and build such a system, and in what order evolution did the job. THAT is my evidence. Evolution could not possibly be the source. Complexity isn’t your problem. It is one of them. Order of the build, and invention is even bigger. So, have at it. Let me know. Or shut it. You see, all I have to do is prove evolution couldn’t build ONE item in nature, and evolution and your absurd belief system are dead meat. ONE THING. You must prove evolution did everything. Or did an intelligence do the one thing, and evolution the rest? You are soooo stuck. Just too indoctrinated to have any notion.

      • John13 said,

        Steve why you annoy Dane?Since you see that HE DOESNT HAVE the answer why you repeat the same thing over and over again?Since he cannot answer, its pointless.He hasnt got the slightest idea about how this thing could have evolved.Oddly he insists to prove him how the eye, which he doesnt know how it evolved, cannot evolve.He wants you to prove him that pink unicorns do not exist.

        Instead of him proving that pink unicorns do exist..

      • Dane said,

        Oh Steve…your ability to think critically is hopelessly beyond repair.

        Complexity is not a problem for evolutionary theory; rather, it’s a mechanic that evolution doesn’t have a complete answer to. See, this is how your crippled mind thinks: ET doesn’t have a complete answer for this right now, so therefore I am right and ET is wrong.

        So that’s your proof? In other words, if a scientific does not have certain answers at this moment, that is proof that you are right? Lack of explanation is indicative that the opposite held belief is therefore true? That’s about as logical as me saying that you can’t prove that magical, invisible, pink unicorns don’t exist and since you can’t explain how they don’t exist, they must therefore exist.

        But even then Steve your own beliefs have the exact same problem. You know as well as I do you cannot explain how an intelligent designer that you claim did all you say it did could even exist. You can’t even prove design, much less an intelligent designer. You know as well as I do that design can only be inferred, it cannot be proven. You know as well as I do that your intelligent designer cannot be demonstrated to exist. You know as well as I do that, by your standards, this intelligent designer MUST be a supernatural entity…it cannot be an organic entity facilitated by natural processes. You and I both know that everything you have to say concerning ET is merely a belief, not fact. And you and I both know that there is no difference between you and the church goer who exclaims “God did it”.

        Really…I thought you’d come up with something better.

  13. Adrian said,

    Ronnyboy, the evidence is evolution which is a simpler explanation than Intelligent design, the only ones who says evolution is impossible are religious fundamentalists which have no scientific grounds to do it, This dude isn’t even a scientist, the same can be said about the 90% of the proponents of ID.

    ID is junk-science. But this sir is so absoultely convinced that aliens or god were responsible for our creation, even though it doesnt explain how or whey they come from or what can be expected from this theory. Its unfalsifiable.
    And the most important reason im not a fundamentalist or a close minded is that i change based on evidence. If i found evidence of an intelligent designer in action then i would change my mind, but not even the main proponets of ID can make up their mind about the theory to make it coherent.

    • John13 said,

      Funny you continue bringing religion on this subject.Why you, evolutionists do this? It seems you are afraid of something.It seems you know that your theories have many problems so you want to cover it by attacking religions.Didnt Dawkins told you that religion has nothing to do with this?Didnt Dawkins told you that a talk about a possible creator is of no use since no creator exists?So why you talk about God and religions?Oh wait i know why.Because you dont have arguments to support evolution.So when Steve asks some questions that YOU CANNOT ANSWER you attack him as a religious fanatic.Old same tricks.Did Dakwins learnt you those tricks?

      • Dane said,

        First of all John, there are questions to answer on this site. All of the so-called ‘questions’ are just Steve’s observations. In a nutshell, he observes that certain biological forms are much too complex to be the result of an unguided, unintelligent process like evolution. The problem is that he never says WHY it’s impossible…he just asserts that it IS impossible…it’s impossible that an organism gradually developed increasingly “complex” forms…but why? he never says.

        Second, he is not in possession of any data, proofs, experiments or evidence that would would make the complexity argument irrefutable. In case you haven’t noticed, he admits on the front page of this site that he does not have a shred of evidence to back him up…everything he has to say flows from his BELIEFS…he can’t prove anything but he believes it wholeheartedly.

        Third, yes it’s true…evolutionary theory doesn’t have the answers to everything. So what? Because it doesn’t have all the answers does that mean it won’t have any answers tomorrow? It took us centuries to figure out the mechanics of gravity and motion…and we’re STILL working on some problems. The point is that science always continues to move forward, whereas ID just stands still. Just because science doesn’t have a complete answer at this moment, is that any reason to just discard it and believe that some being, whose existence cannot in any way be established, is responsible?

        Finally, the reason we bring religion into this is because Steve’s mannerisms and behaviors so mimic those of a religious fundamentalist. He has a belief in something for which he has no proof. He firmly believes that this belief explains everything, even though this is in direct opposition to his stance that the most honest answer for everybody is “we don’t know”. Steve believes he DOES know and his belief is absolute. This belief is so absolute that he will not entertain even the possibility he might be wrong. He refuses to even consider that one day evolutionary theory might provide sufficient answers. He is an absolutist in his belief and automatically dismisses anything that runs contrary to this belief.

        Now, the only people that exhibit that kind of behavior when it comes to this debate are religious fundamentalists. This is funny because Steve claims that he is not religious at all. This is also coming from someone who thinks that evolution was predicated by atheism and that atheism is a religion, which is something fervent religious fundamentalists constantly claim. He also claims that he is neither an atheist nor an agnostic, so that pretty much narrows it down, doesn’t it?

    • John13 said,

      I am amazed about how confident you are on the subject of evolution.We know now that a biological cell is so complex that it cannot emerge on nature alone (if you have evidence for the opposite please provide them).Darwin didnt knew that. We know that this biological cell can be designed(by humans at least).That it emerged on nature alone is only a phantasy.No evidence to support this.Despite that evolutionists erase that from their data and try not to think it.Because if they do they will realise that their theory is flawed

      • Dane said,

        Well that’s where you’re wrong, John.

        No, we DON’T know for a fact that cell cannot emerge from an unguided, unintelligent process. We don’t know for a fact one way or the other.

        You’re trying to say that because contemporary science does not have an absolute answer as to what process enabled the first primitive cells to form, then the whole of evolutionary theory is invalidated. I can just as easily say that since no Creationist or IDer can provide absolute evidence for the existence of this intelligent designer nor can they even provide a methodology to test for the existence of this designer, then the whole “theory” of this intelligent designer is invalidated.

    • John13 said,

      So how would you name, the natural phenomenon that created venomous snakes, bat sonar, human consioucness etc etc?I am curious to hear.Give your best shot.What could be the natural phenomenon that created humans with consioucness, vision, 70 organs all of them usefull and all of them placed in the correct place…?

      • Adrian said,

        Mutations and natural selection is a more parsimonious explanation than ID which is a huge leap of faith. And just for the record, no one has ever proposed by experiment or othwerwise, how much a mutation can change a species over time. And this is falsifiable is you could demonstrate that no mutation is beneficial or that it is not inherited but this hasn’t been the case yet, all the arguments on this site is “Oh the eye is to complex i don’t have an idea how it could be formed therefore god exists” Huge logical fallacy.

        There are many webpages and books that addreses evolution of organs or the eye. They present a plausible way that it “could” be formed. Yes i say could because we weren’t there right?

        Anyway i prefer to stick with a more plausible explanation. ID is a no explanation, is a theory that is NEVER refined or added data, it’s a dead lazy theory that doesn’t addres anything about life other than “X supernatural being did it”

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Your whole comment is a logical fallacy.

      • Dane said,

        I would name it evolution. Does evolutionary theory have an absolute answer as to what the cause of consciousness is? No it doesn’t. Does it have an absolute answer as the processes that resulted in ‘complex’ organs? No it doesn’t.

        Does it have ideas about those things? Yes it does. It is continually advancing it’s arena of knowledge? Yes it is. Is evolution an observed process? Yes, it is.

        You seem to think that because evolutionary theory and contemporary science don’t have absolute answers to the questions you pose, then that means ET must be invalid and wrong. That’s like me saying I believe that there are magical, invisible unicorns all around us and challenge you to prove that I’m wrong. Since you can’t, that must mean I’m right. How logical is that?

        If you want me to buy into the existence of an intelligent designer, then show me credible evidence and data that one exists. Don’t give me inferences or philosophy. Produce hard evidence that such an entity exists, can manifest and be observed. Provide a methodology where one can test if an organism is designed.

        When you can do that, get back to me.

  14. John13 said,

    Funny how evolutionists just dont even want to bother to answer some questions that exist on this site.They know they dont have the answers but they want to ignore it and stuck to the argument “evolution is better”.For example we’ve never observed any type of Life emerging from nature but they claim that this is “irrelevant” and that this has nothing to do with evolution.They simply dont have the answer and they want to evade an unpleasant talk about it.Its funny how evolutionists who believe in such an irrational theory, believe that they are better compared to christian fanatics.They are worst. Humans have 70 organs all of them placed in a correct place and in a correct way.Only a confused mind could believe that this is a result of random process.Their theories are a nightmare to common sense, promoted by science that tries to fool people that she knows.

    Sorry i vote that my consioucness, vision, hearing etc is a result of creation.It sounds more reasonable and IT IS more reasonable.The rest can shut their brain off and convince themselves that Darwin who thought we evolved from Neadertals found the truth

    • Adrian said,

      John

      These are only arguments from ignorance that in no way strenghten the position about ID. Evolution still stands stronger even if it hasnt 100% of the answer.

      Your argument goes like this: I can’t understand how consciousness emerged or organs or brain therefore GOD exists. I can’t believe you fall for that logic.

  15. Adrian said,

    ID is a longer leap of faith than evolution for the obvious reasons, you brag alot about being intelligent “Just pure fact” yet you take this leap of faith claiming its more “scientific”
    Either you’re not that smart or you are willingly dishonest.

  16. Adrian said,

    Your whole comment about my comment is a logical fallacy.
    See how easy is to dismiss my comment without proving why ID is not wrong?
    Nice try!

  17. John13 said,

    Steve i think the best legacy of these Neo Darwinian theories is that they have managed to mislead millions of people that no creator exists and they’ve managed to persuade many people that Darwin found what is happening here.Unfortunatelly science lives a dark era were students and professors graduate with a religious belief on irrational theories.People like Dawkins know that they are theories are irrational yet they use religion to cover the fact.They, on purpose,downgrade creation to a supersition, covering up the failures of their theories.Its unfortunate to see our ancestors who believed in a creator to be more correct compared to modern science but this is true…

    • Ronnyboy117 said,

      i agree. I think that people like dawkins are so deep into their garbage that if they backed out other irrational believers AHEM anti-theistic dogmatic fools who just try to mix religion in with science so they can just cause trouble and call things like ID Psuedo-science.

      • Dane said,

        If you want me to buy into the existence of an intelligent designer, then show me credible evidence and data that one exists. Don’t give me inferences or philosophy. Produce hard evidence that such an entity exists, can manifest and be observed. Provide a methodology where one can test if an organism is designed. Show me empirical, observable and verifiable evidence that this entity is real.

        By the way, this continual and ridiculous idea that you if believe in evolution then you have to be an atheist or that atheism can’t exist without evolution is getting boring. When it comes to beliefs, why not take your own advice and think outside the box?

        When you can do that, get back to me.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        What on earth makes you think I care a lick what you “buy into”? Get real. To me you are one of 6 billion people on this earth. If you would rather be indoctrinated than think on your own, up to you. Have at it. You have been brain locked, and there is no way out for you. Sorry.

      • Dane said,

        And you’re just one of the people who swallowed the Creationist Kool-Aid and never thought to spit it out, Steve. I guess there really is nothing more that can be done for you. If you want to live believing in your religious dogma, then you’re free to do so. However, in an effort to be honest, you should change a couple things up there on your front page…you know, all that crap about how the honest answer is ‘we really don’t know’, your comments about atheism, the fact you aren’t religious…you know…just be honest.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Why do you waste your time with such idiotic comments? Trying to make me into something I am not just like all of the drones at RS is sooo old. So, go back to your friends at rats. I don’t get why you are so attracted to my blog. You think you are so scientific, and not religious. But you are. Your trinity NS, RM, and time, which you think is magical enough to invent all bio-systems, when any OBJECTIVE child knows it cannot. Not remotely close. It’s a big joke played on millions of gullible people like you and the groupthinkers at RS.

      • Dane said,

        Why do you waste your time trying to pretend that you are so rational and scientific in your approach? You are part of a groupthink yourself, Steve. You fall into the same blatant arguments of incredulity that every other IDer and Creationist has fallen into. Your whole argument falls apart as you have yet to substantiate, in any way, how ET is a failure.

        I’m the one who is religious? You’re the one with a completely uncorroborated, untestable, belief in some wondrous unseen being that is the cause of life and maker of all lifeforms..a being that can ONLY be a supernatural being given parameters of your argument. Your belief is so absolute that you will not permit the slightest possibility you are wrong or that anyone else might be right…and that’s where we differ.

        Why can’t you just be honest about your theistic beliefs? You’ve openly admitted that you are neither an atheist or agnostic, so that pretty much narrows the scope. Just admit that all this is a pretense to trying to give your religious beliefs some veneer of credibility.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        My argument is simple: evolution is bullshit. That’s it. My philosophy is that there is an unknowable design source for nature. That’s it. Simple as can be. The philosophy is belief, and cannot be argued. I admit it is belief and not science. That evolution is bullshit is not belief, and is easily provable. Your “stevebee is religious” argument is tiresome, trite, all you have, repetitive, old, and not worth a moments argument.

      • Dane said,

        Steve, do you not get how religious that statement makes you sound?

        You believe wholeheartedly in some completely unknown, unseen, completely unprovable entity actually exists and is responsible for creating life and all lifeforms on this planet, an entity that by your own standards must be a supernatural entity. You readily admit that this pure belief and philosophy predicated by your own personal assessment that life is too complex to have sprung from and evolved along an unintelligent, natural process. You have not proven that evolution is impossible…you have inferred it is impossible due to how you perceive the complexity of organisms. This belief is so absolute and so total that not only do you contradict your own assertion that no one has any idea what the solution to the ‘puzzle’ is, but you adamantly refuse to permit the possibility you might be wrong.

        So, let’s review:
        1. You believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist; by your own admission, it’s existence is confined to pure belief and philosophy.
        2. This belief is total and absolute.
        3. You will not permit the possibility you might be wrong.
        4. You admit that you are neither an atheist nor an agnostic.

        And you really think you’re not working from a religious belief? Man, you are so deep in the religious hole that the Army Corps of Engineers couldn’t get you out.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Your god is time and NS and RM. It/they are a god, because you ascribe unimaginable talents to them that they cannot have ever performed. And you really think you’re not working from a religious belief? Man, you are so deep in the religious hole that the Army Corps of Engineers couldn’t get you out.

      • Dane said,

        That’s where you’re wrong, Steve. I don’t ascribe any kind of “talents” to time, NS or RM. I simply know that I don’t know it’s impossible for these mechanics to have produced particular life functions. See, I have the capacity to think that there’s a possibility that ET has it wrong. I haven’t seen any evidence yet to make that conclusion, but if someone was to provide credible, observable, testable and verifiable evidence that ET has it completely wrong, then, logically I’d have to shift my view…but I’d need that evidence…you know, something more than just unfounded belief, philosophy and an argument from incredulity. I find it amusing that you don’t reply to any of my points. I’m assuming this is because you’re choosing to let them stand.

        That’s our difference…I can allow for the possibility I’m wrong…you can’t. You’re incapable of doing so. Despite the fact that there is no way to prove the existence of this entity you insist exists and despite the fact that you simply give up and never try to advance your understanding of this entity, you believe with complete absolutism, one of the hallmarks of religious fundamentalists.

        What’s the difference between your “intelligent Source/Creator” and God, Steve? Why do you make no attempt to advance your knowledge or at least your philosophy regarding this being? If you are not an atheist or an agnostic, then what are you? What makes you think a philosophy can’t be argued? It happens all the time.

        Really, Steve…just come out in the open and declare yourself the religionist that you are. It’ll make this webpage make a lot more sense.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Here is your assignment for the day:
        (1) Open your eyes and think on your own. Question what your trainers told you and what your fellow groupthinkers believe.
        (2) wiki “religious”, then wiki “philosophy”. Compare and contrast the two.
        (3) Write a scenario for the evolution of consciousness and intelligence using NS, RM, and time.
        Report back. 🙂

      • Dane said,

        lol….is that the best you can do Steve? Really? Pure avoidance and evasion? That’s sad, man. Then again, I expect little else than hypocrisy. When you question ideas and methods you don’t agree with, you’re “thinking for yourself”…but if I question you, then I’m not thinking for myself. Boy, for somebody who so advises people to think for themselves, you sure do hate it when that ability is turned in your direction.

        And please, don’t try and sell me on the whole ‘my position is philosophical but not religious one’ crap. That’s pure avoidance of the issue. As I said before, you readily admit that you’re neither atheist nor agnostic, so that narrows the field, doesn’t it? Maybe you’ve invented some new classification for yourself. You certainly have no problem inventing what suits your needs.

        Now here’s your assignment Steve…provide for me a fully detailed mathematical progessive chart that demonstrates how ET is an impossible answer…don’t forget to include all parameters and variables, including your very own special ‘impossible does not necessarily equal impossible’ rule and where the emergence of your Go…I mean, Intelligent Designer comes into the equation. Get back to me when you’ve got that.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You are entertaining. Again, what on earth gives you the notion that I give a shit what you think about anything, or that I would try to “sell you”? You are brainlocked.

      • Dane said,

        LOL….damn Steve…you’re great at evasion, I’ll give you that. You consistently avoid all the questions and challenges directed at you, you know?

        You were obviously trying to “sell” me on the fact that your position isn’t a religious one but a philosophical one…but your philosophy incorporates an omnipotent intelligent designer that can only be of supernatural origin and you believe in this entity as a matter of faith, not fact…so explain…how is your position any different from a religious one?

        And why do you refuse to answer where you place yourself along the line of belief? You say you’re neither atheist or agnostic, so what are you? Have you invented some new term for yourself?

        I’m sure you’ll just keep evading these questions. I expect nothing more from a guy who thinks his garage is a state of the art research lab and makes up phony institutes and people.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        The garage “thing” was TIC. Can’t you figure that out? Of course not. You are an evolutionaut! 🙂

      • Dane said,

        Who would guess that, Steve? You’ve said so many incredulous things you believe in, who knows where the jokes start and end?

        By the way, I noticed you once again evaded my questions? Is evasion all you’re capable of? Of course not, you’re a devout Creationist!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You certainly don’t know. Your an evolutionaut, devoid of humor. Sorry. That went away when you became indoctrinated.

      • Dane said,

        I’d rather be an “evolutionaut” devoid of humor than a Creationist trying to hide under the veils of “rational” thinking and philosophical discourse. Guess you took a sip from communal incredulity wine and were never able to get sober.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You are right on. An astounding religion is all it is. The miracles are done by “nothing” instead of “something”. No diff. Their god is so weak….NS and RM and time.

      • Adrian said,

        Yea just reapet the same mantra “All who don’t agree with me are indoctrinated”

        Its not a religion because we change based on evidence. Your god is far more unplausible than evolution and you know it.
        Go pray and defend your faith of ID which is not based on evidence.

    • Adrian said,

      The only dark ages of science is were religion always stuck its nose in every scientific discovery and also condeming any discovery contrary to their stupid superstitions, Galileo anyone?
      The same with Evolution,just because it’s your precious yet false beliefs are contradicted by evolution you will deny any evidence in favor.

      ID is not science and not a single post here has proved any diferent, thats why steve doesn’t answet this challenge because he can’t and thats why he always deflect with stupid and evasive comments like “Your argument is evolution good ID bad”
      Thats the best argument steve has, ID theory breaks down by itself.
      No ID proponent has done anything significant for mankind and no religion as well.

  18. Adrian said,

    Yeah talking about dogma you just repeat your silly mantra evolution is impossible and NS and mutation can account to it without any actual prove or experiment, yet you blindy believe in a more unplausible explanation. That’s what makes you just as dogmatic and close-minded as the religious fundamentalists. You can’t even admit that you could be wrong.
    “Mankind doesn’t have the capacity to understand what happened but i know the absolute answer, ID did it”
    Grow up.

  19. Adrian said,

    Yeah talking about dogma you just repeat your silly mantra evolution is impossible and NS and mutation can account to it without any actual prove or experiment, yet you blindy believe in a more unplausible explanation. That’s what makes you just as dogmatic and close-minded as the religious fundamentalists. You can’t even admit that you could be wrong.
    “Mankind doesn’t have the capacity to understand what happened but i’m the exception because i know the absolute answer, ID did it”
    Please, grow up.

  20. Challagar said,

    University of Tits and Ass?

  21. Adrian said,

    “My argument is that evolution is bullshit” That’s also a belief because you haven’t done any experiment or propose a method that evolution is impossible, you just closed your mind to any possibility, yet you have a blind belief in something more unplausible.

    If by your standars evolution is bullshit, i don’t know what to call the more unplausible belief of ID…

  22. Adrian said,

    You must prove yourself that there was a measurable intelligence to begin with. There is no other method demonstrated that can account for all life on earth, yours is a silly belief nothing more. Refute what? there are only arguments of ignorance that in no way strenghten ID theory and not even weaken evolution. Evolution doesn’t have all the answers but over time it gets more and more. But what about ID? does it get stronger? do they refine their methodology? to they refine their theory? No, you haven’t refuted anything in your webpage. Why don’t you answer the questions of dane? you just deflect the subject that NS and mutations are the trinity and what not. ID doesn’t explain ANYTHING. Its useless and uninformative,and don’t give me the cheap evasive of “Evolution good ID bad” because it clearly seems that you don’t have any argument.

  23. Adrian said,

    “Your god is time and NS and RM. It/they are a god, because you ascribe unimaginable talents to them that they cannot have ever performed.”

    And besides your arguments of ignorance,where is the experiment that confirms that is impossible? or is it just your blind wish that is impossible so you can cling to your god?
    You’re not even a scientists so why would anyone would give a crap of what you say onthis page? It only serves for the IDiots who already believ their shit. It will hardly convince anyone on the middle.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      My gawd, don’t you get tired of being boring?

      • Adrian said,

        My gawd, don’t you get tired of deflecting both mine and dane’s comments?
        As seen from your history i guess not. Can you at least admit that you could be wrong? At least we could give you the credit that you’re not like the religious fundamentalists who think that god is the absolute answer to EVERYTHING.

        Come on Steve, thats a reasonable challenge (:

      • Dane said,

        He can’t admit he might be wrong, Adrian. If he did, then he’d be admitting that he doesn’t possess the absolute knowledge that he thinks he does.

  24. Adrian said,

    I know,he can’t admit that he could be wrong, but hey, what could you expect of someone who has no credibility and isn’t even a scientist or has acomplished anything in the name of science, thats why this page is a joke. I guess the same could be said about every other ID proponent.
    At least “evolutionauts” have contributed alot in many fields on the scientific community, what have ID proponents accomplished?
    I see your quote mines on this page but the truth is, Einstein wasn’t an ID proponent and even less of a proponent is Stephen Hawking.

  25. stevebee92653 said,

    Go directly to 1 a, b, c. Or go.

    • Dane said,

      So, in other words, you don’t have an answer because this person and this place do not exist. Thank you.

  26. Adriatik9211 said,

    Hey steve I really like ur website,You have done a great job and tribute to REAL Science and Truth for covering this Evo-BS up. You argue logical and intelligent. I’am shocked about these obvious conspiracy in our so called “modern science” today.
    I’ve also red the other genius comments of ppl like “Dane” and “Adrian”, who just ignore basic question like all Evolutionauts do and really just repeat the same over and over lol. And they wonder why they cmts get deleted … However it must have cost you a lot of time and energy to finally get there where you are and to cover all of this up. Thanks a lot for providing it to us.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the thanks! Notice two flies buzzing around your comment? Dane and Adrian? They are so hurtin’ for something to do, and so over-indoctrinated that they just can’t stop themselves. They hang around my blog and repeat the same stuff over and over like human CD’s. They act like they have read the blog, but have no idea what the questions I pose are, and haven’t made any attempts to answer any. Typical evo-indoctrination fare. Anyway, thanks for the visit!

      • Dane said,

        Adriatik, what Steve really meant to say what that Adrian and I HAVE been through his blog and see the same tired drivel at every turn: “see this thing? see how complex it is? there’s no way that a gradual series of modifications could have evolved this form nor could separate forms evolve into a co-dependent form! it’s just impossible! there’s no such thing as directional evolution! life forms don’t evolve…they were invented, assembled and designed just as they are right now and put in place by a designer! And not just lifeforms…all matter! anything made of atoms! everything in the universe was invented, designed and assembled by some intelligence! and we’ll never figure out the ‘Puzzle’ either! It’s a waste time to even discuss it scientifically or philosophically! it just totally is!”

        Now, if Steve would actually permit the possibility he’s wrong, he wouldn’t sound like a raving fundamentalist…but at the end of the day he’s exactly what all the other members of his groupthink are: religionists trying to dress up in a suit of science…too bad the suit doesn’t fit.

  27. Adrian said,

    Wow adriatik, before you write some more garbage in thos blog, could you please explain what is the “Real” science and “truth” that you talk about?
    Could you explain why is “real” science?
    Does it follow the scientific method?
    It’s amazing the ignorance that can be written by the pro-IDers

    • Dane said,

      Adriatik, you DO realize that Steve has made it clear that he has NO evidence whatsoever for either the fact that intelligent design actually exists or the fact that some intelligent designer exists? He has stated in his own words that his entire position flows from a philosophical belief, not a scientific belief…a philosophical belief that he states cannot be proven, but one that he has absolute belief in; in fact, his belief is so absolute, he will not in any way permit the possibility he could be wrong.

      If you have actually read through this site, you’d realize that he simply repeats the same argument over and over which is: “this is SO amazing and SO complex, that there is just no way evolution could be responsible!” He never says WHY it’s impossible, he simply insists that it IS impossible, as if he had a time machine and was able to see how life flourished on the planet. So get a grip, Adriatik and realize that Steve’s “arguments” exist purely as philosophical and metaphysical constructs that are base on his own internal perception of external articles.

  28. wee said,

    A refreshing site and great job for delivering a great challenge to those swearing in the name of evolution. Thks Steve.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks! And thanks for the visit….

    • Adrian said,

      Great challenge i agree, its a really hard challenge to make steve to be honest about his beliefs Wee

  29. RyanB said,

    Hi Steve,
    I’m reading a book right now called The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth. I’m only in the first chapter, a friend recommended it to me when she saw I was taking a sober look at various sacred texts in my hunt for the answers to the origins of life. Specifically the things that, at least to me make those texts questionable. Things like rape and genocide in the bible for example. The book’s argument I think, is that the very earliest known records we have, images of female figures show that the creator is the earth itself and that ‘it’ is a ‘she’. And that life begins female and then males evolved as a response. I don’t know that that is the conclusion of this book or not, that’s not the reason I’m writing. That made me think that evolution would be perfectly rational if it were guided. We’re used to the male God of the bible and the 6 day creation story. Which wouldn’t really fit with guided evolution. But what if evolution was guided by an intelligent designer? Would that cause the pieces to fall in to place?

    I don’t care about dogma, I only want the truth, whatever it is. I’m a tracker and I see the world in cause and effect. Everything can be tracked in my opinion. And as such I diverge from your opinion that the origin of life can not be answered. At least if we don’t try, we’ll never know, that is for sure. I know that you are all about hard science, and that is great, but to me that sets limitations. I think if there is a designer then there is also a good chance that the designer(s) would want to let us get at the answer if we seek it. That is my only objective, to find the truth and know the designer.

    I know you’re pretty wary of talking about religion at all because you don’t like giving ‘evolutionauts’ even a grain of ammunition to call you a religious fundy, so is there any way we could discuss this off site, by email? There are so few people out there actually seeking the unadulterated truth, that which ‘is’ without human agenda. I believe you’re one of them, that is how I found your site, because I’m looking for objectivity. But I also draw on my tracking background heavily because it literally changes the way you think, when you use that much of your brain to form a picture of your quarry it starts to activate or rewire your brain together instead of compartmentalizing everything.

    Anyway, I’m not religious in any way as of the last couple months, but this is the direction my desire for the truth is taking me and it would be nice to have someone with better knowledge of the mechanics of science to bounce some ideas off of. If you prefer to discuss it here, that’s great too, but please don’t reject my questions, I’m after the truth, whatever it is, nothing more, no allegiances whatsoever to any school of thought, except thought and sense. I see design, and so I find a designer to be almost certain, but if that’s the case, then as a tracker, trying to get inside the designer’s head and combining that with my real world experiences I think the truth should be ascertainable. I know, stepping outside of science, but it’s only speculation, there is no harm there, so long as we’re clear that speculations are just that, and nothing more.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Sure, feel free to email me. Interesting that you were religious a few months ago? What happened. How old are you? I would like to know because I was religious as a kid until I began wondering and questioning in my teens. And when I hit college and evolution, religion was done….form me. But I sure still wonder. And the deeper I get into this subject, the more there is to wonder about. I feel farther from an answer than I did when I was evolution. Evolution doesn’t fit any type of model, even one guided by an intelligence. There is something much more to the story. MUCH more. The fossil record doesn’t match evolution’s story at all. The appearance of bio-systems that can be observed in the fossil record appear suddenly, and don’t match evolution at all. Eyes are an example. No gradual growth of eye sockets. Or hearing (ear canals). The appearance of flight, both in insects and birds is again sudden. Not gradual as would be expected. The growth of legs and arms is missing as well. The start of life, abiogenesis, doesn’t fit evolution, and they want it removed from their science because they have no answer for it. Evolution is a dead science believed by many. And there is no scientific answer. Unless you can REALLY believe fables that others tell you. Anyway, thanks for the note
      Steve

      • Adrian said,

        Right steve an infinetely more complex being existing witgout explanation makes more sense…..

      • RyanB said,

        Hey Steve, thanks for the prompt reply.

        I’m 24, raised fundamental baptist, literal biblical interpretation. Though I haven’t actually renounced it in word, I have all but abandoned it.

        There is a long list of occurrences over my lifetime, but especially in the last 6 years that led up in this point, too much to list here now, but they’ve led me to drop organized religion and lean towards a creator/designer. But that’s as far as I’ve gotten. I’m hoping this book will have some meat in it, or at least add some more definition to the fuzzy big picture I’m beginning to see and experience.

        I also stopped believing in coincidence the other day because as I’ve daily asked for truth (the plea directed at noone in particular, except perhaps the designer(s)) it has happened so often and in such a manner that I feel I would be a fool to call it that any longer. Call it fate, or destiny or synchronicity or whatever you like, but ‘coincidence’ it is not. I’ve resisted this because I’m trying to empty my cup so I can see things as they are, and not add my own color to the mix. Also, at this point in my life I’m happier and more fulfilled than I’ve ever been, and all I do is to daily ask for happiness and truth, defined as that which ‘is’ without human agenda.

        I do not know where to locate your email on here, if it’s not posted or you aren’t comfortable posting it, feel free to email me. I check it daily, and though very busy with life, this is at the top of my priority list. If your email is posted, or if it’s just your blog’s name at wordpress dot co m then let me know and I’ll respond promptly. Thanks for your time and your work.

        PS, maybe you could write a post about why evolution could not be guided? I’m competent to think for myself (though it took years to learn how, we are taught ‘what’ to think instead of how to think, that’s why the state of affairs is as such, and something as unlikely as darwininan evolution can dominate mainstream thought.

        And Adrian, I’m sorry that you are driven to such anger. But I’m not your enemy, my only religion is unadulterated truth, and what I can perceive with my own senses. I would not think the way I do if I did not feel I had good reason. Without any guile or malice, I’ve to ask, if we are the product of such incredible improbability and we’ve no purpose here other than the anthropic principle then why is it so important to you to spend your time here on this website? Surely if life is without reason then you should be out making the absolute most of the short time you have, experiencing and enjoying all the wonderful things there are to experience. Regardless of what the truth is, this life is a beautiful, incredible gift, in the sense that, at least as far as we know we’re the only planet in this galaxy and indeed perhaps the uni(multi)verse. Even your brothers and sisters who made it in to the womb but not to an egg were lucky for the short while they were here. Surely your time is better spent elsewhere. Again, not a spiteful question, I’m just trying to empathize with your position, as a tracker it’s my reflex to do so.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Actually, don’t worry about Adrian. These guys become like flies after a while. They hang around and somehow think if they can catch an error on my part, or somehow discredit me, that will prove evolution. . Can you imagine how important that makes me in their minds? They say the same boring stuff, and never answer questions I pose on this blog. They cannot discuss this subject at all, they CAN demean. That is their universal MO. Since they can’t prove NS and RM didit, demean is all they have. I leave Adrian’s stuff because it’s such a great example of how evolutionauts react to people who like to think this Puzzle out on their own. They cannot. You can, so stick with that MO. It’s far more interesting than going with stuff that people with an agenda and who have already been indoctrinated tell you. Religious or evo. No one knows the answer to this riddle, and the more people say the DO know, the more you need to be very leery. You are right on. Use your own thoughts and logic. See what there is in the way of evidence, and work it out yourself.
        Feel free to keep your comments here. You can say all you want, and open dialogue is best anyway. And Dane and Adrian can read them and add their “intelligent” comments!

      • RyanB said,

        Woops, that’s what happens when you try to articulate complex thoughts on sleep dep…. what I meant to say was….

        PS, maybe you could write a post about why evolution could not be guided? I’m competent to think for myself (though it took years to learn how, we are taught ‘what’ to think instead of how to think, that’s why the state of affairs is as such, and something as unlikely as darwinian evolution can dominate mainstream thought.) but I do not have the background in science that you do, and you’ve obviously been considering this a lot longer than I have.

      • Dane said,

        Well, Ryan. before you get too deep in with Steve, you should really know a few things.

        Steve claims that no one knows the answer to the “Puzzle”. Scientist and non-scientist alike have no idea. However, he claims that he DOES know, as an absolute fact, that not only living organisms, but that the universe itself is intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. This is, as far as he is concerned, an absolute truth and he will never permit the possibility that he could be wrong.

        And from where does this absolute truth stem? From his personal observations. That’s it. He’s acknowledged more than once that he has absolutely no proof that design is real or that a designer exists. He has stated he has absolutely no process or methodology one could employ to prove design or designer. All he has is “it’s obvious”; in other words, all he has is his own internal perception of an external article…which he is convinced is an absolutely true perception.

        At last we come to the fact that the crux of his position exists solely as a philosophical belief…a philosophical belief he refuses to discuss. Oh, he’s very vocal about wanting to speak out against evolutionary theory, but if you try and engage him in discussion of anything else…well, you can forget that. He claims this is because philosophy is too ‘boring’ and unimportant to discuss and he insists beliefs cannot be argued about..which is an odd thing for him to say since his philosophical belief is vital to his argument concerning intelligent design. It’s even more important than his various objections to evolutionary theory.

        All in all, you have a fellow who insists that people need to think for themselves, research for themselves, think outside their box and get out of their ‘groupthink’. If you do all those things in questioning evolution, then you’re doing the right thing…but if you do all those things in questioning HIS position, then it’s bad. In other words, Steve wants you to think the way he thinks and see things the way he sees things. If you employ your powers of intelligence, observation and critical thinking in regards to challenging or even just critically examining his position, then you are just another ‘indoctrinated evilutionaut’. It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Gee, new “fascinating” stuff from Dane! You are an evo-machine. Same stuff, over and over……… Push the button, out it comes. Fascinating character study. Keep it up, please!

      • Dane said,

        Same old reply from Steve! Typical, though. He’s unable to dispute what I have to say, so the thinks mocking it somehow invalidates it. Better try again, Steve.

    • Adrian said,

      “I see design, and so I find a designer to be almost certain,”

      I liked the part “almost certain” because it means that you’re more open minded and more willing to admit you’re wrong not unlike steve who claims to have the absolute knowledge of the nature of the universe. If only Steve could learn more of you….

  30. Adrian said,

    “It looks intelligent designed to me” It’s completely subjective.
    ID is more like a crime scene where instead of finding a natural explanation you result to unicorns and demons.

    “Why can’t we as humans just observe something that is so complex and just give a head nod and say damn we, it ,or that is brilliantly made. Whatever designed it it sure is a hell of a lot smarter than me. ”

    So you’re basically saying, “this stuff is so complex that i can’t understand how it formed therefore god exists”
    Big logical fallacy

    “Nothing has ever been invented, designed, assembled, and improved by an entity with an IQ of exactly zero. No man who ever existed can show that has or can happen.”

    You do realise that that stamente also disproves your god?

  31. Adrian said,

    Wel steve don’t you contradict yourself? You say you don’t know the answer and yet you claim that ID is responsible for everything, you assume a priori that everything is designed. Why be such and arrogant person that can’t even admit that you could be wrong? All you have is a belief which has no more validity than any belief in the supernatural.

  32. Adrian said,

    “They say the same boring stuff, and never answer questions I pose on this blog”
    And by boring stuff you mean unproven assertions made by you on the nature of the universe, and about the questions not answered i guess a couple of guys would disagree at RS and even if they didn’t have any answer, does that prove ID?
    Something so complex that you can’t understand how it formed automatically proves ID?

    And steve, you say that because NS and M haven’t been able to produce bio-systems in a lab, so that disproves evolution? So, from using your same logic, can we conclude that because no evidence of an intelligent designer at work is obsrved, then ID is disproven?

    Your logic really astounds me…

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I will give you a hint to redirect you a bit. My point is evolution is bullshit. Period. I don’t give a shit about ID except for the fact that evolution is a major fail, which means there is some other answer. Now that I have clarified for you, I am sure you will go back to your god/ID rant like a spring, as you are a springbrain. All you need to do is prove evolution can invent, design, and assemble bio-systems. That’s it! Do that and I will personally crown you the victor and erase this whole blog. I promise.

      • Dane said,

        If you don’t give a shit about ID, then why is so much of your argument centered around ID, Steve?

        Here’s a clue for you….all YOU have to do is prove that biological forms are products of invention, design and assembly. Do that and I guarantee that you’ll get a Nobel Prize. Hell, people will be building universities bearing your name if you can pull this off.

      • Adrian said,

        Oh so because you can’t reproduce a byosystem formed trough millions of years in a lab in ahuman lifetime, then evolution is bullshit.
        So if you can’t see the murderer killing the victim in a crime scene, then he didn’t commit the crime? Is it more likely that a leprechaun did the assasination? A leprechaun which would be a more unparsimonious explanation and wouldn’t explain how did a leprechaun appeared in the first place? Way to go!

  33. Charlie said,

    I’m glad to see some open-minded people for a change. It seems like it’s been a while, Steve, since you’ve had some actual contributions to thought on your site. I’m speaking here, actually, about Ken and RyanB.

    I had gotten quite bored of some of the regulars here, but this latest spate of comments called me to share something that I recently wrote:

    Dueling Philosophies and the Unavoidability of Faith
    by Charlie F, 3/2011

    What I have found while discussing philosophies with Atheists is that Atheism (neo-Darwinism primarily) is essentially Materialistic Pantheism. It is a direct denial of Theism despite its denial that it is a direct denial of anything. The dueling philosophies end up boiling down to two counter claims surrounding the only honest agnostic default position:

    The Honest Agnostic Position(s):

    Agn1) ‘A Creator Exists’ is an Unknown fact. It may be True or it may be False.
    Agn2) ‘Existence is Material Only’ is an Unknown fact. It may be True or it may be False.

    Both of those are Unknown because there is truly no objectively conclusive evidence that is available for any concrete determination.

    The atheist, then usually holds to this conclusion:

    Ath1) the ‘default position’ is that Agn1 is False and Agn2 is True. (Arbitrarily and without evidence.)
    Ath2) that in the absence of conclusive evidence (he will judge what is conclusive), the default position holds.

    This, to me is an inordinate amount of conviction for an extraordinarily minute level of evidence. And though he will deny it with every fiber… it requires a strong faith.

    The theist, can be said to hold the alternative position- and on an equally strong faith. But…

    What if he begins with the default honest agnostic position? And then, with an open mind, performs an earnest search? Examining the True and False of both Agn1 and Agn2?

    What if, when contemplating if Agn1 is false and if Agn2 is true, he simply finds that conclusion to be empty and haphazard? That it seems more like a denial than an affirmation of anything. That it requires far more apathy about his origins and destiny than it does offer knowledge.

    What if, on the other hand, when contemplating if Agn1 is true and if Agn2 is false, he discovers that perhaps evidence DOES exist in another form that was previously disqualified by the opposing conclusion. That ‘Existence is Material Only’ doesn’t hold water when the reality of our existence is held up for close inspection. That ‘A Creator Exists’ is not only a possibility, but is perhaps a necessity.

    Once honest inspection is over, a decision must be made. And Faith is indeed required. But it is required of both the Theist and of the Atheist positions. And of the two possibilities, neither has an objective conclusive advantage. One does, however end up having a rational advantage. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which is more rational…

    The question really ends up being: which faith is more cohesively self-integrating and parsimonious? Where will you lay YOUR faith?

    “31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
    John 8:31-32

    Seek Truth, my friends, and seek it earnestly. I think that you’ll find eventually that there is only one thing that remains after the test of fire. Test everything with fire. (1 Peter 1:7) And realize that no matter what you believe in… you will not avoid the requirement that Faith must support it.

    • RyanB said,

      Hi Charlie,

      I’d like you to consider, does it make more sense for a creator to allow sin and hell to exist, and condone genocide, and in fact condone it? Or for that creator to send you to hell for lying (10 commandments)? This question is rhetorical and for you consideration only, I was raised on a very scripture based diet, so I’m aware of the justifications for hell and our alleged chance at salvation.

      Or is it more likely that sin does not exist, and there is no hell, and that the creator is made of infinite love? Consider your parents and the harms they’ve probably done to you, and yet you still love them, and yet how much more feeble are you than an omnipotent creator? Again, this is for your consideration, I have sought and found the truth, though I’m always open to new thoughts to chew on.

      If you are seeking to prove the bible, then you may not use the bible as proof. It must be matched against what we can witness with our eyes. The bible says people are inherently wicked and separate from god. But in all of my travels to the 15+ countries I’ve visited around the world and some 30 states I have been struck time and time again at the inherent goodness in the vast majority of people. Think of how many murderers and rapists you know.

      Try letting go of the bible for a while and each morning, asking for happiness and to experience and radiate infinite love (as in unconditional love, as opposed to human emotional love) and say thanks for everything, the pleasant and unpleasant alike. And truly mean all of it. Then go about your business and do your best to accomplish your goals. Repeat each day and see what happens. Then reassess your belief that you must fall back on faith. Also you will have to truly empty your cup of alllllll assumptions about the nature of reality (ie limiting beliefs)

      Try this and see what happens.

      • RyanB said,

        haha woops I mean ‘and in fact command it’ [genocide]. including the slaughter of infants and animals that you would likely say lack reason and souls and therefore can’t sin.

      • Charlie said,

        RyanB, I believe you to have an open mind. I pray it is not shut around anything that is empty. I do in fact come to the knowledge that I have from an open minded standpoint. I have already done what you described and did not take anything for granted. However, I am satisfied now in knowing that I can embrace the Truth that I do know. I recognize that it is faith that I walk by and am not ashamed of it. But more importantly, I recognize that this was more God’s Will than my own- for I recognize that this faith in Christ is not attainable by Man on his own. It is by God’s Grace and His Mercy alone that I can find this joy.

        (1 Tim 1:8-9 comes to mind)

        My point had less to do with Christ, however, than it did with the rational argument for A Creator. From the truly honest and open-minded position, one cannot know that a Creator does NOT exist… and neither that a Creator DOES exist. But only an irrational person can claim to KNOW that God is Unnecessary and then claim to have evidence and reason to excuse him from standing on Faith to support that knowledge.

        In other words, the very question of whether God is Necessary is the question being asked and answered by the Denier. He begins with an apriori assumption that God is Unnecessary and then uses all manner of evidence and reasoning that DEPEND UPON that assumption to provide SUPPORT FOR the conclusion- which was the initial assumption- that God is Unnecessary. And somehow he claims that it is fact, evidence, and objective reasoning… not FAITH… that he is using. It is all circular reasoning and nothing but bunk.

        At least the Theist will admit that he must rely on Faith albeit not any more than the Atheist.

        If Steve would not mind releasing my email to you privately, RyanB, I wouldn’t mind taking things from that step and moving forward. You and I may have much to discuss- if you truly are as open-minded as you claim. I don’t want to clutter Steve’s site with religious discussion when it is clear that he is attempting to deal with a more focused argument. (Which, btw, I agree with whole-heartedly, Steve… the ToE is so full of inconsistencies and flaws that it is an embarrassment to science.)

      • RyanB said,

        absolutely charlie, agreed, let’s take it off site, my email is mullikencc@yahoo.com, I’m not sure if it’s against the rules to post emails but I have no idea how else to discuss this without, as you said, cluttering Steve’s site with theism.

        I work 3 jobs, and one of them could be enough to fill all day everyday alone, so it may take some time for the back and forth, but I’ll make the effort!

        Thanks!

      • Dane said,

        Unfortunately, there is no apriori assumption or faith involved in atheism.

        As I’ve said before, and it continues to be ignored, you cannot believe in something if you have reason, rationale or basis from which to have that belief. Even if that basis, reason or rationale is predicated by completely internal and personal perception, that would be enough. It doesn’t mean the perception is right…it just gives a ‘why’.

        An atheist requires more than simple subjective and completely personal experiences and accounts. Those things cannot rationally be counted as any kind of evidence because they were only available to one person: the viewer. Without external, objective evidence to complement this, personal perception and experiences fall short of the task.

        However, if you insist these internalized experiences are absolutely valid as evidence and truth, that means ALL of them are equally true. That means everyone has a “reasonable faith”. So every Muslim is right. Every Christian is right. Every Buddhist is right. Every Jew is right. Every Hindu is right. Right? Wrong. Logically, this cannot be true, especially since so many of these internalized experiences convey supposed knowledge that is in opposition to one another. So what you’re left with is a lot of people saying: “My internal perceptions and experiences are right and yours are wrong because my faith in them says so.”

        What a very reasonable stance.

        I also find it rather humorous that you’ve adopted the ‘I know a supreme being exists via reason and observation of the natural world’ stance of deism, but have discounted everything else about in favor of Christian theology. You have, by method of reason, adopted a position that depends entirely on faith…but the so-called ‘reasonable’ approach you’ve taken isn’t reasonable at all. Your faith is predicated by personal, internal experience, inferences and suppositions that are not demonstrably true outside of yourself.

        It’s also somewhat humorous since Christian theology is big on the fact that one comes to belief by faith and not by reason. I’m sure you’ve come up with some solution to that conundrum that you’ve made work for you…after all, that’s what the ‘science’ of ID is all about…cloaking religious faith with the veneer of rationality and reason.

      • Dane said,

        The first line in the second paragraph above should actually say “if you have no reason, rationale, etc.”

        That’s what I get for typing fast. I wish WordPress had an edit feature.

    • Dane said,

      This is actually pretty poor reasoning as this is not how one acquires religious faith.

      A theist is a theist because there has been some event, experience or phenomenon that he has beheld and has interpreted what he’s seen as being possible for only one reason: some type of god or deity is responsible as there is no explanation that otherwise fits. For one to be a theist, there MUST exist some foundation from which that theism springs and in every case that foundation is the internal perception of external reality. This is why theism requires faith.

      An atheist, on the other hand, is someone for whom this interpretation does not exist. The atheist sees possibilities in which no deity/god/intelligent creator is necessary. Atheism is simply an acknowledgement of one lacking any kind of theistic belief. Atheism is a position that requires no faith…one does not need faith to recognize that one is not in possession of any kind of theistic-or deistic-belief.

      Ath1 and Ath2 are false premises…the vast majority of atheists do not think that way. The real truth is that most atheists concern themselves with material existence because there has been no adequate demonstration that there is anything but material existence. Atheists don’t deal in the absolutes of theism; rather, they deal with what is demonstrable and what is not.

      If you state that the honest thing to do is contemplate the necessity of some creator, then the converse is also the honest thing to do. If one perceives the necessity of a creator and thus states that one exists, the onus is on him to demonstrate it’s existence. If one does not perceive the necessity of a creator, there is no onus on him, as he is not stating anything in the affirmative; rather, he is stating “I don’t see the necessity for this thing, so I lack belief in it”.

      • Charlie said,

        Dane, how are you? I hope you find yourself well in health and mind today.

        Let’s see, let me get right to the point if you don’t mind:

        Dane: “A theist is a theist because there has been some event, experience or phenomenon that he has beheld and has interpreted what he’s seen as being possible for only one reason: some type of god or deity is responsible as there is no explanation that otherwise fits. For one to be a theist, there MUST exist some foundation from which that theism springs and in every case that foundation is the internal perception of external reality. This is why theism requires faith.”

        This entire argument begins from a presupposition that a Creator does not in fact exist, does it not? Would you agree that IF A CREATOR DOES EXIST, then… a) the theist is a theist because he happens to believe in the truth, experience phenomenon that in fact demonstrates His existence (regardless of the availability of other more skeptical interpretations for that phenomenon), and the foundation you describe is that the Creator does support the theist’s reality. IF A CREATOR DOES EXIST, then all of this would be true and nullify your argument, don’t you agree?

        That being the case, that entire argument RELIES UPON the initial assumption being true- and is therefore null and void for use to provide SUPPORT FOR the conclusion- which is in essence that ‘A Creator Exists is Unnecessary’.

        Dane: “The atheist sees possibilities in which no deity/god/intelligent creator is necessary. Atheism is simply an acknowledgement of one lacking any kind of theistic belief. Atheism is a position that requires no faith…one does not need faith to recognize that one is not in possession of any kind of theistic-or deistic-belief.”

        Dane: “sees possibilities in which no deity/god/intelligent creator is necessary”. Exactly my point. The initial assumption is that a Creator is Unnecessary. (Which is fine to contemplate… as long as the opposing statement is likewise contemplated… HONESTLY) If one is NOT WILLING to honestly contemplate the opposing view, then he is the one being closed-minded and faithful to dogma. To begin with an A-Priori assumption (with no conclusively objective evidence to support it) and abide by it as a foundation of knowledge- and NOT admit that it is Faith Alone- is disingenuous and/or naive. One MUST have justification for holding fast to that A-Priori assumption- otherwise it is nothing more than blind faith.

        Dane: “Atheism is a position that requires no faith”
        Untrue. Atheism requires faith in the non-Essential nature of a Creator; most likely supported by a faith in the Completeness of the Material to explain the entirety of Existence; and often a faith in Man’s ability to discern all knowledge without the assistance of something ‘more’ than is available to the senses. It does, however, require great faith to believe all of these things while denying the essential nature of a Creator. The question at hand is most certainly whether or not ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’. And that question cannot be answered objectively without the use of circular logic. It is therefore faith alone that is used by the Atheist and Theist alike. It just isn’t an attractive word to one that claims objective reasoning to be the heart of his superiority.

        Dane: “Ath1 and Ath2 are false premises…the vast majority of atheists do not think that way. The real truth is that most atheists concern themselves with material existence because there has been no adequate demonstration that there is anything but material existence. Atheists don’t deal in the absolutes of theism; rather, they deal with what is demonstrable and what is not.”
        How are they false? Are the statements themselves false- or is my assertion that atheists abide by these statements false? I can assure you that I have yet to meet one atheist who will concede on these points. They may not BEGIN with them in mind- but they certainly do not readily admit to the possibility that they might be wrong on these points. That assurance is not reason, however, unless it is backed by evidence. So the question should always be fired back: Faith or Evidence? Which is it that the atheist has that causes his position to be ‘superior’ in reasoning?

        Dane: “no adequate demonstration that there is anything but material existence”
        You won’t ever have any. Period. Book closed. A Creator, in my opinion, is not limited in his use of the Material existence. Once his presence inpinges upon the Material existence- it IS Material in nature. And once it is Material in nature, science can examine it. But science will ONLY ever explain the HOW and the mechanism in which the Material phenomenon can be observed. It will never diminish the possibility that A Creator is actively involved in those phenomenon. No matter how mundane or extraordinary.

        Dane: “Atheists don’t deal in the absolutes of theism; rather, they deal with what is demonstrable and what is not.”
        IMHO, Atheists never deal with the Why in philosophical matters. There is an innate apathy toward asking such questions. That apathy is not a source of knowledge, however. It is simply an avoidance mechanism which will manifest in even the youngest child when he is unwilling to accept the truth. By not asking such questions, they feel that they are off the hook for actually facing the really deep issues. If this does not describe you, Dane, I do apologize. But I have been through these debates at great length- and some personality patterns are just altogether frustrating to witness.

        Dane: “If you state that the honest thing to do is contemplate the necessity of some creator, then the converse is also the honest thing to do.”
        Absolutely. Do you believe that I have NOT contemplated everything that the Theory of Evolution implies if it were TRUE- IF A CREATOR IS UNNECESSARY? I have indeed contemplated this. In fact, I could not proceed into my faith with such assurance without having done so. But have you? Truly? Do you REALLY ask all the questions that are significant- or do you sidestep the ones that make you uncomfortable? Do you REALLY hold science to task and demand that it use objectively conclusive evidence to support its foundation? Or do you let science have a free lunch when it comes to some hard questions that it clearly cannot answer intelligently? I’ve dug in pretty deep into the evidence for the ToE- and all that I find at the bottom of this rabbit hole is Nothing- and more Nothing. Sorry- it is sort of like hacking away at the only thread that suspends me over a cliff. Sort of dumb when you’re done looking at it.

        Dane: “If one perceives the necessity of a creator and thus states that one exists, the onus is on him to demonstrate it’s existence.”
        Well, first of all, I contemplate both- and I do so honestly with all available knowledge. For the ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’, that means holding science to task for those things that BEG for some Extra-Material explanation. For the ‘A Creator is Necessary’, that means honestly admitting that some evidence may certainly BE Immaterial- if in fact A Creator is defined as BEING Immaterial in essence.

        So yes, the onus is UPON EACH branch of that question. For the atheist- the onus for his conclusion- ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’ is upon him to choose Faith or Evidence- and provide the latter if it is chosen. And for the theist- the onus for his conclusion- ‘A Creator is Necessary’ is upon him to choose Faith or Evidence- and provide the latter if it is chosen.

        Recognizing full well that any evidence that RELIES UPON the initial assumption is inadmissable for use in providing SUPPORT FOR the conclusion. You should know that this DOES render pretty much ALL knowledge inadmissable. It is faith that we must ALL use in drawing our conclusions about life and reality. Descartes had it right when he claimed that the only thing that CAN be known is that one exists. “Dubito ergo Cognito ergo Sum”. Everything else requires faith to some degree or another.

        Dane: “If one does not perceive the necessity of a creator, there is no onus on him, as he is not stating anything in the affirmative”
        Untrue. By holding fast to the dogma that ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’ (regardless of WHY he paints himself into that corner), then the atheist IS stating something in the affirmative. Here are at least three affirmative positions that the atheist tends to hold dear to:
        a) ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’
        b) ‘Existence is Material ONLY’
        c) ‘Knowledge is attainable from the 5 senses ONLY’

        There is NO objectively conclusive evidence, however, that ANY of those statements are rational or factual. These are plainly all affirmative positions. And I have yet to see or conceive of any evidence that could ever be brought forth to support them. (Thereby- I approach them with an open mind- neither True nor False)

        (And before we go ON and ON and ON about how these statements do not make any sense- or that you don’t actually hold fast to them- or whatever… ask yourself this question: Are you prepared to CONCEDE on any of these points- and what observable would it take to do so? The answer to that question- the strict impossibility of the existence of that observaable- THAT will be an indicator of whether or not you truly DO hold fast to these statements. You can either provide evidence to negate them- or you must admit that you truly do have a faith in the a-priori ‘truth’ value of these statements. … or … you must relent to actually and honestly contemplating the ENTIRETY of the opposing claim- with no cross-concessions.)

        Faith or Evidence?

      • Dane said,

        “This entire argument begins from a presupposition that a Creator does not in fact exist, does it not? Would you agree that IF A CREATOR DOES EXIST, then… a) the theist is a theist because he happens to believe in the truth, experience phenomenon that in fact demonstrates His existence (regardless of the availability of other more skeptical interpretations for that phenomenon), and the foundation you describe is that the Creator does support the theist’s reality. IF A CREATOR DOES EXIST, then all of this would be true and nullify your argument, don’t you agree?”

        This does not proceed from any pre-supposition. The soon to be theist has no pre-suppostion at all…he may lack belief, he may not be sure…but it does not proceed from the idea that no creator exists. YOU are making the assumption the experience/event/phenomenon that initializes his theistic faiyh is, in fact, exactly what the theist thinks it is. As I said before, your internal perception of an external article does not reality make.

        “Exactly my point. The initial assumption is that a Creator is Unnecessary. (Which is fine to contemplate… as long as the opposing statement is likewise contemplated… HONESTLY) If one is NOT WILLING to honestly contemplate the opposing view, then he is the one being closed-minded and faithful to dogma. To begin with an A-Priori assumption (with no conclusively objective evidence to support it) and abide by it as a foundation of knowledge- and NOT admit that it is Faith Alone- is disingenuous and/or naive. One MUST have justification for holding fast to that A-Priori assumption- otherwise it is nothing more than blind faith.”

        There is no apriori assumption. There is what is observed, what is verifiable, what is testable, what is rationally objective. The existence of any kind of deity/god/creator exists purely ideology. There is not even any marginal rational evidence that supports the existence of any such entity. One does not need to provide evidence for the non-existence of something. You can only take ‘honest contemplation’ so far before you have to reach a conclusion. If someone states earnestly that there is no evidence, physical, metaphysical or philosophical, that convinces some kind of god/deity/creator exists, THAT’S honesty. There is no faith in this…that would be like saying that if you have no belief in dragons, then your non-belief is a matter of faith.

        “Untrue. Atheism requires faith in the non-Essential nature of a Creator; most likely supported by a faith in the Completeness of the Material to explain the entirety of Existence; and often a faith in Man’s ability to discern all knowledge without the assistance of something ‘more’ than is available to the senses. It does, however, require great faith to believe all of these things while denying the essential nature of a Creator. The question at hand is most certainly whether or not ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’. And that question cannot be answered objectively without the use of circular logic. It is therefore faith alone that is used by the Atheist and Theist alike. It just isn’t an attractive word to one that claims objective reasoning to be the heart of his superiority.”

        Umm…no. You’re not getting it. If someone lacks belief in something because he has found no justification for that belief, there is NO FAITH involved in that decision. In addition, there is no faith involved in the pursuit of scientific truth. There is only the accumulation of as much information as possible and disseminating that information. Science is all about this: ‘Humanity doesn’t know everything about this thing, so we’re going to investigate. Are we going to figure it out? We don’t know, but we’re going to try.’ Science builds on what has come before and as new discoveries are made and science advances, it predicts what may come. Sometimes those predictions are wrong, sometimes they are right. Faith works against science, not for it, so it has no inclusion in it’s works.

        “How are they false? Are the statements themselves false- or is my assertion that atheists abide by these statements false? I can assure you that I have yet to meet one atheist who will concede on these points. They may not BEGIN with them in mind- but they certainly do not readily admit to the possibility that they might be wrong on these points. That assurance is not reason, however, unless it is backed by evidence. So the question should always be fired back: Faith or Evidence? Which is it that the atheist has that causes his position to be ‘superior’ in reasoning?”

        They are false, as I explained, because the vast majority of atheists do not think in such absolutes. I presume you’ve heard of Hard Atheism and Soft Atheism. If not, look it up. What you are describing is Hard Athesim and that does NOT speak for the majority of atheists.

        “You won’t ever have any. Period. Book closed. A Creator, in my opinion, is not limited in his use of the Material existence. Once his presence inpinges upon the Material existence- it IS Material in nature. And once it is Material in nature, science can examine it. But science will ONLY ever explain the HOW and the mechanism in which the Material phenomenon can be observed. It will never diminish the possibility that A Creator is actively involved in those phenomenon. No matter how mundane or extraordinary.”

        If that’s true, then your argument is entirely circular. The creator is real because it can impinge itself on material existence and material existence proves a creator is real. Once again, that is nothing more than trying to say that your internal perception of an external article is the absolute truth. Sorry, but that just doesn’t work. Until this creator is revealed in a way that does depend entirely on supposition and inference, then there is no point in even trying to prove it exists.

        “IMHO, Atheists never deal with the Why in philosophical matters. There is an innate apathy toward asking such questions. That apathy is not a source of knowledge, however. It is simply an avoidance mechanism which will manifest in even the youngest child when he is unwilling to accept the truth. By not asking such questions, they feel that they are off the hook for actually facing the really deep issues. If this does not describe you, Dane, I do apologize. But I have been through these debates at great length- and some personality patterns are just altogether frustrating to witness.”

        Then I would submit that you have been picking and choosing atheists whom you know beforehand already have that stance. Most of the atheists I know are well versed in philosophical discourse and do ask the “why” question frequently. Just because they haven’t arrived at the answer you’d like them to doesn’t mean they are incapable of philosophical conversation.

        “Absolutely. Do you believe that I have NOT contemplated everything that the Theory of Evolution implies if it were TRUE- IF A CREATOR IS UNNECESSARY? I have indeed contemplated this. In fact, I could not proceed into my faith with such assurance without having done so. But have you? Truly? Do you REALLY ask all the questions that are significant- or do you sidestep the ones that make you uncomfortable? Do you REALLY hold science to task and demand that it use objectively conclusive evidence to support its foundation? Or do you let science have a free lunch when it comes to some hard questions that it clearly cannot answer intelligently? I’ve dug in pretty deep into the evidence for the ToE- and all that I find at the bottom of this rabbit hole is Nothing- and more Nothing. Sorry- it is sort of like hacking away at the only thread that suspends me over a cliff. Sort of dumb when you’re done looking at it.”

        Do you really ask questions are you just looking for where science doesn’t have an absolute answer and simply using that as tool to try and diminish it? In my experience, most theists usually lack a fundamental understanding of science and it’s mechanics and simply regurgitate old arguments that were debunked long ago. If you are looking for an answer and you find that science currently has no answer to that question, do you just insert a deity as the answer? The ToE is one of the most well developed scientific theories that has ever been employed. Does it have absolute answers to absolutely all questions? No it doesn’t. Will it ever? I don’t know. What I do know is that constantly advances itself and always taking it as far as science can go. Theism is simply the quick and easy way to get answers…the answers aren’t too difficult to understand, they are readily available and they serve to placate one’s desires of being ‘special’.

        “Well, first of all, I contemplate both- and I do so honestly with all available knowledge. For the ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’, that means holding science to task for those things that BEG for some Extra-Material explanation. For the ‘A Creator is Necessary’, that means honestly admitting that some evidence may certainly BE Immaterial- if in fact A Creator is defined as BEING Immaterial in essence.

        So yes, the onus is UPON EACH branch of that question. For the atheist- the onus for his conclusion- ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’ is upon him to choose Faith or Evidence- and provide the latter if it is chosen. And for the theist- the onus for his conclusion- ‘A Creator is Necessary’ is upon him to choose Faith or Evidence- and provide the latter if it is chosen.

        Recognizing full well that any evidence that RELIES UPON the initial assumption is inadmissable for use in providing SUPPORT FOR the conclusion. You should know that this DOES render pretty much ALL knowledge inadmissable. It is faith that we must ALL use in drawing our conclusions about life and reality. Descartes had it right when he claimed that the only thing that CAN be known is that one exists. “Dubito ergo Cognito ergo Sum”. Everything else requires faith to some degree or another.”

        What, exactly, begs for extra-material explanation? How do you know for a fact that it requires such explanation? You are making the same mistake you have been making all along…you believe that your internal perception of an external article is THE truth and don’t consider otherwise.

        If one holds to the idea that ‘No creator is necessary’, that is not an admission that some evidence MUST be immaterial; rather, it is a statement that nothing has yet been beheld for which a supernatural creator is necessary. For the converse to be considered, the onus IS ON YOU to prove WHY a creator is necessary and so far no adequate demonstration of this exists. The argument for a creator has not escaped beyond mere thought constructs. If you believe in a creator because of your personal epiphanies and spiritual experiences, that’s fine…but your internal experiences do not external reality make.

        “Untrue. By holding fast to the dogma that ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’ (regardless of WHY he paints himself into that corner), then the atheist IS stating something in the affirmative. Here are at least three affirmative positions that the atheist tends to hold dear to:
        a) ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’
        b) ‘Existence is Material ONLY’
        c) ‘Knowledge is attainable from the 5 senses ONLY’

        There is NO objectively conclusive evidence, however, that ANY of those statements are rational or factual. These are plainly all affirmative positions. And I have yet to see or conceive of any evidence that could ever be brought forth to support them. (Thereby- I approach them with an open mind- neither True nor False)”

        That is entirely untrue. If an atheist states ‘I lack belief because I have no logical or rational foundation from which to have belief’, that is not an affirmative statement…it is only statement that answers ‘why’. If an atheist was to state ‘It is an absolute truth that no such thing as a god or deity exists’, I would grill him as hard as I would a theist, mainly since any affirmative statement of absolute knowledge is illogical, since no one has absolute knowledge. As to your other points:

        A) You have evidence otherwise?
        B) Nonsense. You can be an atheist and believe otherwise…just ask Taoists and Buddhists. In addition, you don’t have to be a theist to believe that existence can only be material, especially if you consider that some hold that the ultimate evolution of an organism is to reach a state of pure energy, an IMMATERIAL form.
        C)Nonsense again. Atheists readily recognize that that the human brain is capable of making connections and employing thought processes that spring from intuitive contemplation. Whether or not the knowledge gained has any value, use or truth is another story.

        “And before we go ON and ON and ON about how these statements do not make any sense- or that you don’t actually hold fast to them- or whatever… ask yourself this question: Are you prepared to CONCEDE on any of these points- and what observable would it take to do so? The answer to that question- the strict impossibility of the existence of that observaable- THAT will be an indicator of whether or not you truly DO hold fast to these statements. You can either provide evidence to negate them- or you must admit that you truly do have a faith in the a-priori ‘truth’ value of these statements. … or … you must relent to actually and honestly contemplating the ENTIRETY of the opposing claim- with no cross-concessions”

        Unfortunately for you, since I am not dealing with anything here that is based on apriori assumptions, that renders the point irrelevant. What I concede to is that there is always possibility. Could there be some creator? It’s possible, but for the possibility to be seriously considered, there has to be something more than inferences, suppositions and pure philosophy. There has to be something to examine, observe and verify. The universe is a pretty big thing and we’re really just beginning to understand it, but humanity has done pretty well so far in advancing it’s understanding. I do not know what humanity will know or discover tomorrow, but based on what has gone before, I see us continuing to advance our understanding to a greater degree.

        What are you willing to concede….if anything?

      • Charlie said,

        Dane: “YOU are making the assumption the experience/event/phenomenon that initializes his theistic faiyh is, in fact, exactly what the theist thinks it is.”
        Well, yes, that was the point. If INDEED the Creator IS Necessary- and it turns out to be the Truth that a Creator does Exist… (You do concede at the end of your response that “Could there be some creator? It’s possible…”) If indeed it IS the Truth… then the *assumption* that you claim that I make is not an assumption at all but a cold hard fact. And regardless of WHY/WHETHER the theist believes in that truth, any experiences/events/phenomenons COULD BE in fact demonstrations of that Creator’s presence. It is honest contemplation. Once you commit to the ‘IF’, then all logic must derive from that as if it were a given. (Yes- of course- they depend initially upon the ‘IF’ being true. Just as the opposing view depend initially upon the ‘IF’ being false.)

        Dane: “There is what is observed, what is verifiable, what is testable, what is rationally objective.”
        Sure. And has anyone ever observed, verified, or tested that a Creator does NOT exist? Or that the Material is ALL that exists? There has never been material evidence provided that verifies that the Material is all there is that exists.

        Dane: “If someone states earnestly that there is no evidence, physical, metaphysical or philosophical, that convinces some kind of god/deity/creator exists, THAT’S honesty.”
        Likewise, if someone states earnestly that there is no evidence, physical, metaphysical or philosophical, that convinces that the 5 senses are self-sufficient for determining whether the 5 senses are self-sufficient, then that is also honesty.

        Dane: “You’re not getting it. If someone lacks belief in something because he has found no justification for that belief, there is NO FAITH involved in that decision.”
        I lack belief in A, B, and C because I have found no justification for those beliefs. By your logic, then there is NO FAITH involved in my decision.
        A: A Creator is Unnecessary
        B: Existence is Material ONLY
        C: Knowledge is attainable from the 5 senses ONLY

        If you agree, then I must disagree with you. Because I believe that this takes a reasonable faith. No extraordinary level- but at least some faith to accept them as true or to accept them as false.

        If you disagree, then I must ask you to recognize that your decision to accept them as false requires a reasonable faith. Again- no extraordinary level- but at least a nominal level of faith.

        Dane: “Until this creator is revealed in a way that does depend entirely on supposition and inference, then there is no point in even trying to prove it exists.”
        Until this creator is revealed… Well, this all depends upon what you choose to interpret as a revelation, doesn’t it? What if our paths have crossed as part of this Creator’s direct intention? What if the Bible is an evidence of this revelation to mankind? What if Christ’s resurrection is God’s personal message to you? You get to choose what qualifies as evidence. But you must recognize that any decision here regarding the interpretation of evidence is already resting upon a foundational faith.

        Dane: “Does it have absolute answers to absolutely all questions? No it doesn’t. Will it ever? I don’t know.”
        It’s science, Dane. Be honest. Science will NEVER have all the answers… because new information can ALWAYS be added to the system. Science will NEVER know whether ALL of the information has been attained.

        Dane: “What, exactly, begs for extra-material explanation? How do you know for a fact that it requires such explanation?”
        The Universe came from the Big Bang which came from X (Singularity or Colliding Membranes or whatever- you name your preference). As far as Science can tell us at this time, ALL Time, Matter, and Energy ceases to exist behind the origin of the Big Bang some 13.5 million years ago. Science can NOT tell us what existed before/outside then. It therefore can NOT tell us whether a Creator was in fact responsible. If all that is Material ceases to exist behind that origin… what DID exist? It was apparently not Material. This question does beg for an Extra-Material explanation. The only objections that I have heard are not based on reasoning but instead are based upon an a-priori demand that there MUST be some Material explanation. All explanations back to origins end up devolving into circular logic. All of them.

        Dane: “You are making the same mistake you have been making all along…you believe that your internal perception of an external article is THE truth and don’t consider otherwise.”
        Untrue. I posit them for examination. IF TRUE… {all items here take the TRUE as a given}… IF FALSE… {all items here take the FALSE as a given}. I can posit them honestly. Can you?

        Dane:

        A) You have evidence otherwise?
        B) Nonsense. You can be an atheist and believe otherwise…just ask Taoists and Buddhists. In addition, you don’t have to be a theist to believe that existence can only be material, especially if you consider that some hold that the ultimate evolution of an organism is to reach a state of pure energy, an IMMATERIAL form.
        C)Nonsense again. Atheists readily recognize that that the human brain is capable of making connections and employing thought processes that spring from intuitive contemplation. Whether or not the knowledge gained has any value, use or truth is another story.

        A- Any claim brought forth without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence. (One of my favorite atheist objections)
        B- Perhaps it does not apply to you, then. Do you demand that all Existence MUST be Material? Do you concede that perhaps there IS something outside of the Material?
        C- “Whether the knowledge gained has any value” Interesting. Do you concede, then, that perhaps SOME knowledge that DOES have value and truth CAN be attained outside of the 5 senses?

        Dane: “It’s possible, but for the possibility to be seriously considered, there has to be something more than inferences, suppositions and pure philosophy. There has to be something to examine, observe and verify.”
        There is something to examine, observe, and verify. But only if you let go of the restrictions that are imposed by any faith-based assumption that A, B, and C are all false. Examine them honestly as though they were all true. After all- you have plainly already ‘examined’ them honestly as though they were all false, right? To decide blanketly that they are all false without attempting to view the alternative is nothing but dogmatic.

        A reasonable level of Faith will still be required no matter what, however, once a decision is made to accept them as true or accept them as false.

        Dane: “What are you willing to concede….if anything?”
        In order to contemplate it honestly? Anything. I’m wide open. The thing is- I’ve examined both sides quite clearly and have a solid grasp of science. And I have looked at the internal evidence within each scenario ({A, B, C} = true; = false). And in all regards, the internal evidences for one is much more parsimonious and integral than the other. That is where I choose to lay my faith. You are free to lay yours where you like.

      • Dane said,

        Charlie, your latest response is nothing more than a long diatribe that can be summed in one sentence:

        “I want to believe there is more than material existence, so I’ve decided to do so.”

        You have locked yourself into a system whereby ANY internal perception of an external article is equal to any other. So whose internal perception is right? Christianity? Islam? Taoism? Wiccan? If you’re really honest, then you have to honestly state they can’t all be right…so whose lot are you going to throw in with? Are you just going to hedge your bets until one seems more right than the other? What if you’re wrong?

        Apparently, you’re not really as open minded or as honest as you claim, since you’ve already decided that having faith in some sort of supernatural creator is much more logical than any other explanation…and that is fueled by your very own apriori assumption that knowledge of this creator has been revealed to you via your own internal perceptions of external reality. Can you concede you might be wrong?

        As far as science goes, it’s not for you or me to say that it will never do anything. When did you come into possession of absolute knowledge? it wasn’t so long ago that we thought we’d never be able to cure disease, we’d never be able to fly, we’d never be able to cross oceans. Science has a pretty outstanding track record so far. It’s ignorant to claim that scientific endeavor will never be able to figure this thing or that thing out.

        Once again I see you are trying to insist there is faith where there is none. Lacking belief in something because you have no cause or justification is NOT a matter of faith…it’s a matter of the fact that this is the way humans work. I am sure there are many things you lack belief in…is your lack of belief fueled by faith? So not believing in faeries is a matter of faith?

        And I see that you insist on applying absolutist thinking to atheism. As I’ve explained before and I’ll explain again, the vast majority of atheists do not think that way. I hate to say it, but that is typical theist rhetoric.

        As far as it qualifies as evidence, you can certainly believe in whatever you think is evidence, but if you present that as evidence, you better be able to present it in such way that makes it irrefutable FOR ANYONE WHO OBSERVES IT. You can believe some divine being named Christ died on a cross for your sins, but your belief does not reality make. Personal anecdotes, epiphanies and spiritual experiences mean nothing outside of the individual who experiences them. In the court of objectivity, they mean nothing. You cannot observe, test, verify or apply rational objectivity.

        I believe this discourse has reached an impasse. We’re starting to go in circles and that doesn’t do anything but make the two of us waste our time. We’ll simply have to leave it at you have your ideas, I have mine.

      • Charlie said,

        Dane: “Charlie, your latest response is nothing more than a long diatribe that can be summed in one sentence:
        “I want to believe there is more than material existence, so I’ve decided to do so.””

        Which differs how, exactly, from your belief, which is essentially the following?:
        “I want to believe there is NOTHING more than material existence, so I’ve decided to do so.””

        Dane: “You have locked yourself into a system whereby ANY internal perception of an external article is equal to any other.”
        Well, locked in or not- that is the extent of what CAN be known at all. There are basic foundational decisions that must be made. If one is honest and requires reason, they examine them all fairly and consistently. If one does not require reason and is satisfied with faith alone, then they can decide without further examination. But in order to make a decision one way or another, one must lay a reasonable faith upon one or the other and then proceed with conviction. But make no mistake- it is faith one way or another.

        Dane: “So whose internal perception is right? Christianity? Islam? Taoism? Wiccan? If you’re really honest, then you have to honestly state they can’t all be right…so whose lot are you going to throw in with? Are you just going to hedge your bets until one seems more right than the other? What if you’re wrong?”
        Exactly. If one requires reason and purports honesty, then he MUST examine all claims. Myself- I am a Deist by Reason. I am a Christian by Faith. In other words- I lay a reasonable faith in A Creator because the evidence, IMHO, favors the existence of a Creator over the non-existence of one (You may disagree- that is acceptable- because truth be told, objective evidence does not exist either for or against the existence of a Creator.) Once laying faith in Deism, however, though I have examined the truth claims made by other religions, I have experienced enough to know for MYSELF that Christ is my Lord. This, I admit, I am only able to do on Faith. Whether or not other religions MAY be the ‘right one’ (and mine false) is a rational possibility. But I personally do not believe that to be true. I can continue to examine them- and I plan to. But I fully anticipate that they will fail to support themselves internally and cohesively. I believe that the Truth will withstand all level of scrutiny and have no problem testing my faith against other truth-claims.

        Dane: Apparently, you’re not really as open minded or as honest as you claim, since you’ve already decided that having faith in some sort of supernatural creator is much more logical than any other explanation…”
        Well, it is at the very least equally logical as the alternative- that there is no Creator.

        Dane: “and that is fueled by your very own apriori assumption that knowledge of this creator has been revealed to you via your own internal perceptions of external reality. Can you concede you might be wrong?”
        Absolutely. I could be wrong. I could also be right. Do you agree that I could be right? My apriori assumption is exactly this: The ONLY thing that we can know for certain is that we are capable of doubting our own existence. Period. Everything from there on out requires a reasonable faith in the things we experience. My point is simply that the atheist professes to deny God based upon reason alone- sans faith. When in all actuality, he MUST lay faith to hold fast to the apriori assumption that God is Unnecessary.

        I have no problem with the atheist that admits that this is where he lays his faith- after contemplating the alternative honestly. But I do have a problem with the atheist that claims that he requires no foundation that rests upon faith. Again- I am a Deist by Reason (a reasonable faith). And upon examining the internal evidence within each framework, I find it to be more reasonable to be a Deist than an Atheist. My faith in Christ is something that flows reasonably from my faith in Deism. But for that I do not claim to have evidence that should convince you (not, at least, until you are able to entertain a faith in Deism.)

        Dane: “As far as science goes, it’s not for you or me to say that it will never do anything. When did you come into possession of absolute knowledge?”
        Likewise. Do you honestly believe that Man will ever be able to declare that all information has been attained from the Universe? That all phenomena will have been observed, examined, and catalogued? How could Man ever definitively claim to know that this pinnacle has been reached? Ludicrous. The only thing that Science CAN ‘know’ is that it can always be open for the arrival of new information and new knowledge. Anything else that is more rigid detracts from the definition of science, doesn’t it?

        Dane: “it wasn’t so long ago that we thought we’d never be able to cure disease, we’d never be able to fly, we’d never be able to cross oceans. Science has a pretty outstanding track record so far. It’s ignorant to claim that scientific endeavor will never be able to figure this thing or that thing out.”
        You equate terminal finite achievements with something that is infinite. That is apples and oranges. How can science ever ‘know’ that no new advancements in science will ever be encountered?

        Dane: “Once again I see you are trying to insist there is faith where there is none. Lacking belief in something because you have no cause or justification is NOT a matter of faith…”
        I lack belief in the supposition that ‘All Existence is Material ONLY’ because I have no cause or justification. You appear to say that this is not a matter of faith?

        Dane: “So not believing in faeries is a matter of faith?”
        I suppose so- but I do believe it is abundantly reasonable to believe them to not exist. Fairies and a Creator are two very distinctively different entities qualitatively, however. If you would like them to be more similar, you should at least define a new fairy- one that is NECESSARY and IMMATERIAL. Then, perhaps it might make sense to discuss the existence of such a fairy. (Hmmm- but that would be more of a God than a fairy methinks)

        Dane: “And I see that you insist on applying absolutist thinking to atheism. As I’ve explained before and I’ll explain again, the vast majority of atheists do not think that way. I hate to say it, but that is typical theist rhetoric.”
        We can deal specifically with your objections. We do not have to deal with my generalities. Please don’t mistake my generalizations with an attempt to pigeon-hole you carelessly. It simply is a tool for zeroing in quickly upon what it is that you DO and DO NOT believe- so that we can discuss things intelligently.

        Dane: “As far as it qualifies as evidence, you can certainly believe in whatever you think is evidence, but if you present that as evidence, you better be able to present it in such way that makes it irrefutable FOR ANYONE WHO OBSERVES IT.”
        Don’t you mean- ‘irrefutable for anyone who observes it- that agrees with Dane that it does not qualify as observable?’ After all, if I brought forth a series of qualified scientists who made intelligent arguments as to why the evidence favors the existence of a Creator more than it favors the non-existence of a Creator… would you consider their material based upon the content? Or would you simply disagree with this material because it does not agree with your view?

        Dane: “You can believe some divine being named Christ died on a cross for your sins, but your belief does not reality make.”
        And you can believe that Christ did not die on a cross, but your non-belief does not reality make.

        Dane: “Personal anecdotes, epiphanies and spiritual experiences mean nothing outside of the individual who experiences them. In the court of objectivity, they mean nothing. You cannot observe, test, verify or apply rational objectivity.”
        This appears to answer my question above. It is clear that you will only accept evidence that fits your initial a-priori decision to not accept such evidence. But as you have stated previously- ‘belief/non-belief does not reality make’

        Dane: “I believe this discourse has reached an impasse. We’re starting to go in circles and that doesn’t do anything but make the two of us waste our time. We’ll simply have to leave it at you have your ideas, I have mine.”
        Think about that for a bit, Dane. Why are they circles? I am simply echoing your ideas back to you, wrapped in your logic. Is it perhaps that there is no sense to be made? That indeed it is as I say- that none of us has any choice but to lay a foundation upon a reasonable faith? And that the only ‘evidence’ that exists to support such a faith comes from internal evidence- circular reasoning- regardless of which path you take?

        Which circle will you choose- that is the question.

        For what it’s worth, I did enjoy this conversation with you, Dane. I believe it to be your best work yet on Steve’s site. Keep on digging, Dane. If you are truly interested in knowledge, then keep on digging.

        And realize this- that if one is determined to do so, they can object even to their own existence and NO ONE can EVER convince them otherwise.

      • Charlie said,

        Dane: “Unfortunately, there is no apriori assumption or faith involved in atheism.”
        Blanketly false. It is a misunderstanding and/or abuse of logic to accept this as true. I hope that my answers below can help you to understand why.

        Dane: “As I’ve said before, and it continues to be ignored, you cannot believe in something if you have [no] reason, rationale or basis from which to have that belief. Even if that basis, reason or rationale is predicated by completely internal and personal perception, that would be enough. It doesn’t mean the perception is right…it just gives a ‘why’.”
        Beliefs aside, I am sure that you will agree that a belief doesn’t produce reality. A belief that accurately represents reality is what we are attempting to discover. But the belief/unbelief itself will not cause that reality to be or not to be. I hope that you agree with me here?

        Dane: “An atheist requires more than simple subjective and completely personal experiences and accounts. Those things cannot rationally be counted as any kind of evidence because they were only available to one person: the viewer. Without external, objective evidence to complement this, personal perception and experiences fall short of the task.”
        Understood. This all deals with belief, however, and belief can be tainted by personal predispositions. And I think that you will acknowledge that the atheist’s unbelief in A Creator cannot cause A Creator to cease existing. (For that matter, a theist’s belief in A Creator cannot cause A Creator to come into existence.) Agreed?

        Dane: “However, if you insist these internalized experiences are absolutely valid as evidence and truth, that means ALL of them are equally true.”
        Not quite. What I propose is something similar to the simplified logic table below. The internal evidences can be used to support the initial assumption… but their reasonableness will depend on the parsimony, integrity, and cohesiveness of the entire package taken as a whole. But faith is required regardless when making a personal decision to accept the initial assumption as truth. (After all- none of the internal evidence is valid until the initial assumption is accepted- and none of the internal evidence is valid unless the initial assumption is true.)

        Dane: “That means everyone has a “reasonable faith”. So every Muslim is right. Every Christian is right. Every Buddhist is right. Every Jew is right. Every Hindu is right. Right?”
        No. (You are right to say ‘Wrong’) They all can be said- including the atheist- to have reasonable faith in accepting or rejecting ‘A Creator Exists’. The Atheist cannot, however, examine ‘A Creator Exists’ until he accepts that ‘A Creator Exists’ is a valid conjecture. Failing that, he is locked into his own conjecture, on reasonable faith. (Mind you- I find the parsimony/integrity/cohesiveness of that conjecture to be at a substantial disadvantage.)

        Dane: “Logically, this cannot be true, especially since so many of these internalized experiences convey supposed knowledge that is in opposition to one another. So what you’re left with is a lot of people saying: “My internal perceptions and experiences are right and yours are wrong because my faith in them says so.””
        Exactly. I believe that we can ALL be wrong. But that does not mean that we ARE all wrong. Restating that: If the Christian is right, then the Muslim, the Atheist, and the rest are wrong. If the Muslim is right, then the Christian, the Atheist, and the rest are wrong. If the Atheist is right, then the Christian and the rest are wrong. Again- we can ALL be wrong. But that does NOT mean that we all ARE wrong.

        Dane: “I also find it rather humorous that you’ve adopted the ‘I know a supreme being exists via reason and observation of the natural world’ stance of deism, but have discounted everything else about in favor of Christian theology.”
        Humorous? Ok. But honest. A person can ‘know’ certain things and be certain of them, can he not? And then by extension he can then make reasonable assumptions- essentially on faith- about things that he cannot really ‘know’ and still be reasonably certain of them, can he not? Laughable if you like, but I am at least being honest with you. Deism is easy to justify rationally. With a reasonable faith. Christianity is more difficult and I admit that I must take it on faith.

        Dane: “You have, by method of reason, adopted a position that depends entirely on faith…”
        The alternative position- your position- also depends entirely on faith. Perhaps a reasonable faith. Nonetheless it is still a faith.

        Dane: “Your faith is predicated by personal, internal experience, inferences and suppositions that are not demonstrably true outside of yourself.”
        And yours are likewise predicated by personal, internal experience, inferences, and suppositions… They all depend upon an apriori assumption that ‘Existence is Material ONLY’. And you perceive and interpret all tangible, objective evidence in a subordinate way such that it will never refute your initial presuppositions. You have no objective conclusive evidence that ‘Existence is Material ONLY’ is the truth- yet you will not allow yourself to question otherwise. To hold onto this view is not reasonable- it is dogmatic. And I hope that I am wrong when I assume these things about you.

        Dane: “It’s also somewhat humorous since Christian theology is big on the fact that one comes to belief by faith and not by reason.”
        I believe that the God of the Bible has given us all of our faculties and the ability to reason. I do believe that he did this for a good reason. And though I do believe that some people are unwilling or unable to use reason to justify their faith, I do not believe that it is impossible to use reason to support my faith. I do not deny that I DO use faith. (More specifically- that I have been gifted with faith.) After all- if it IS indeed the Truth (I say ‘if’ for your benefit)- then all the evidence lines up with the Truth for a good reason.

        Dane: “I’m sure you’ve come up with some solution to that conundrum that you’ve made work for you…after all, that’s what the ‘science’ of ID is all about…cloaking religious faith with the veneer of rationality and reason.”
        Intelligent Design is simply the antithesis to the Theory of Evolution. Both work with an initial supposition which cannot be proven and attempt to build scientific explanations for their initial supposition. (Most of the research work done within the umbrella of the ToE is completely acceptable and compatible within the umbrella of ID.)

        Here is the table that I referred to above, Dane. I hope you have a wonderful day!

        Simplified logic table:

        Conjecture 1: IF a Creator (as defined) DOES exist:
        THEN
        – This Creator simply does exist in fact and in truth regardless of anyone’s subjective experiences that support or refute this existence.
        – Assuming this Creator is defined as eternal, immaterial, and necessary, then this Creator is simply exactly those things
        – This Creator, being an example in and of himself of something immaterial, is proof positive that ‘Existence is NOT Material ONLY’
        – This Creator could certainly interact with both the material and the immaterial in order to communicate both material and immaterial knowledge to Man.
        – The man who believes that the immaterial (and material) evidences that declare the Creator’s existence has a belief that lines up with the truth.
        – The man who believes that the immaterial simply does not exist and demands material evidence that supports his unbelief in a Creator is locked into a belief that does not line up with the truth.
        – Both of these men believe their evidence to be compelling and have faith that their belief lines up with truth.
        – The extremely faithful that believe ‘A Creator Exists’ with zero evidence and the faithful that believe with an abundance of evidence are all believing in the truth regardless of the amount of evidence they required for their faith.
        – All of the internal evidences will yield a certain level of parsimony, integrity, and cohesiveness.

        ALTERNATIVELY:

        Conjecture 2: IF a Creator (as defined) DOES NOT exist:
        THEN
        – This Creator simply does not exist in fact and in truth regardless of anyone’s subjective experiences that support or refute this existence.
        – Assuming this Creator is defined as eternal, immaterial, and necessary, then this Creator’s absence neglects the existence of these qualities.
        – This Creator, since he does not exist or provide an example of something eternal, immaterial, or necessary.
        – The man who believes that the immaterial (and material) evidences that declare the Creator’s existence is locked into a belief that does not line up with the truth.
        – The man who believes that the immaterial simply does not exist and demands material evidence that supports his unbelief in a Creator has a belief that lines up with the truth.
        – Both of these men believe their evidence to be compelling and have faith that their belief lines up with truth.
        – The extremely faithful that believe ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’ with zero evidence and the faithful that believe with an abundance of evidence are all believing in the truth regardless of the amount of evidence they required for their faith.
        – All of the internal evidences will yield a certain level of parsimony, integrity, and cohesiveness.

      • Dane said,

        This is not going to go any further while you continue to insist that atheism is a position of faith. How many times do I have to explain this to you before you give up on theistic rhetoric?

        It is NOT A MATTER OF FAITH TO NOT HAVE A BELIEF IN SOMETHING. In order to believe in something, that HAS to be a reason you possess that belief. Whether it’s predicated by physical evidence or personal perception, that basis has to exist. If it doesn’t, the belief CANNOT exist. You cannot force yourself to believe in something for no reason.

        You are rather dishonestly trying to define atheism as something it isn’t. It is NOT a positive affirmation of the absolute non-existence of gods or deities. It is individual statement of lack of a belief predicated by the lack of any reason, rationale or basis from which that belief can spring. You DO NOT have to have faith to realize that you have no belief in something. If ‘lack of belief’ is a matter of faith, then everything you lack belief in is done as a matter of faith…and that is an entirely unreasonable conclusion.

        “And yours are likewise predicated by personal, internal experience, inferences, and suppositions… They all depend upon an apriori assumption that ‘Existence is Material ONLY’. And you perceive and interpret all tangible, objective evidence in a subordinate way such that it will never refute your initial presuppositions. You have no objective conclusive evidence that ‘Existence is Material ONLY’ is the truth- yet you will not allow yourself to question otherwise. To hold onto this view is not reasonable- it is dogmatic. And I hope that I am wrong when I assume these things about you.”

        Wrong. An atheist’s position is predicated by the fact there is NO objective external evidence of any kind of god or deity. Show me one instance of external evidence that does not rely on the viewer drawing some inference or supposition or applying subjective ideology that permits theistic faith. There IS none.

        “No. (You are right to say ‘Wrong’) They all can be said- including the atheist- to have reasonable faith in accepting or rejecting ‘A Creator Exists’. The Atheist cannot, however, examine ‘A Creator Exists’ until he accepts that ‘A Creator Exists’ is a valid conjecture. Failing that, he is locked into his own conjecture, on reasonable faith. (Mind you- I find the parsimony/integrity/cohesiveness of that conjecture to be at a substantial disadvantage.”

        Since ‘A Creator Exists’ cannot be examined beyond thought constructs and all thought constructs are subjective and not objective, it exists in the realm of the irrelevant. When objective evidence comes along, let me know.

        “Humorous? Ok. But honest. A person can ‘know’ certain things and be certain of them, can he not? And then by extension he can then make reasonable assumptions- essentially on faith- about things that he cannot really ‘know’ and still be reasonably certain of them, can he not? Laughable if you like, but I am at least being honest with you. Deism is easy to justify rationally. With a reasonable faith. Christianity is more difficult and I admit that I must take it on faith.”

        If what you believe was predicated by reason, you might have a point. However, your ‘reason’, is nothing more than “hey, I made this inference/supposition based on my own subjective view, so it must be reasonable.” Fail. And before you hit me up with that atheism is dependent on subjective view, it isn’t…it discards purely subjective perception for rational objectivity.

        “And yours are likewise predicated by personal, internal experience, inferences, and suppositions… They all depend upon an apriori assumption that ‘Existence is Material ONLY’. And you perceive and interpret all tangible, objective evidence in a subordinate way such that it will never refute your initial presuppositions. You have no objective conclusive evidence that ‘Existence is Material ONLY’ is the truth- yet you will not allow yourself to question otherwise. To hold onto this view is not reasonable- it is dogmatic. And I hope that I am wrong when I assume these things about you.”

        False premise. Atheism does not state that material existence is the only existence…as a matter of fact, it doesn’t comment on that at all. Stop trying to define the term using your own prejudices. Atheists have consistently questioned whether or not life/consciousness is capable of existing in a state of pure energy. The science of artificial intelligence has been asking this for years…the work being done by a plethora of atheist scientists.

        “Humorous? Ok. But honest. A person can ‘know’ certain things and be certain of them, can he not? And then by extension he can then make reasonable assumptions- essentially on faith- about things that he cannot really ‘know’ and still be reasonably certain of them, can he not? Laughable if you like, but I am at least being honest with you. Deism is easy to justify rationally. With a reasonable faith. Christianity is more difficult and I admit that I must take it on faith.”

        That’s the problem with deism. It purports itself to be rational, but it isn’t. Since there is no rationally objective evidence for any kind of god or deity, deism pretends that any absolute belief concerning internal perception of external articles is rational…and it isn’t. And you are still not answering the question…if your Christian faith is so right because it’s predicated by reason-the so called reasonable faith-then anyone of any religion who claims the same is as right as you. Are you going to accept that all religious faith is as potentially equally true as yours?

        ” believe that the God of the Bible has given us all of our faculties and the ability to reason. I do believe that he did this for a good reason. And though I do believe that some people are unwilling or unable to use reason to justify their faith, I do not believe that it is impossible to use reason to support my faith. I do not deny that I DO use faith. (More specifically- that I have been gifted with faith.) After all- if it IS indeed the Truth (I say ‘if’ for your benefit)- then all the evidence lines up with the Truth for a good reason”

        If that’s the case, why would this god so consistently prove itself unreasonable? And why would it set aside for punishing those whose employ their reason and don’t come up with the answers that this god wants?

        Do me a favor…if you are going to reply with just another litany of theistic rhetoric, then please don’t. I am weary of having to correct you about atheism.

      • Charlie said,

        Hello, Dane,

        I am hoping that you’re enjoying a great week!

        Here are my responses to your last note, which I enjoyed- thank you.

        Dane: “It is NOT A MATTER OF FAITH TO NOT HAVE A BELIEF IN SOMETHING.”
        Ahh, but you DO believe in something. And very strongly. Otherwise you would not be demonstrating such conviction on Steve’s site. By simply adding a ‘Not’ in an assertion you think that you can escape logic? By your reasoning, it is NOT a matter of faith for *me* to NOT have a belief in (and insistently object that) ‘Existence is Material ONLY’. This line of reasoning makes no sense when applied to me nor when applied to you. Sorry- it IS faith that each of us must use to move forward trusting on those foundational objections.

        Dane: “You are rather dishonestly trying to define atheism as something it isn’t…”
        The ‘NOT’ is only a valid excuse for those people that have not even given any thought to the ‘something’. It no longer applies to those people that HAVE given some thought to the ‘something’ and decided- with conviction- that ‘something’ can be ruled out because of some counter-argument. At that point, the counter-argument (in your case perhaps: ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’) becomes something that you DO believe in. (Otherwise, your counter-argument is not a defense to rule out the ‘something’)

        Dane: “You cannot force yourself to believe in something for no reason.”
        Understood. I don’t expect to force anyone. I am merely pointing out that belief and truth are two separate things. And that the existence of A Creator has nothing to do with whether or not you or I believe. It either is or is not the truth.

        Dane: “Wrong. An atheist’s position is predicated by the fact there is NO objective external evidence of any kind of god or deity. Show me one instance of external evidence that does not rely on the viewer drawing some inference or supposition or applying subjective ideology that permits theistic faith. There IS none.”
        I am sure that you mean ‘No objective external evidence that Dane will accept as objective external evidence’. After all, we ARE here. We ARE engaging each other’s consciousness. We DO exist. This is all evidence in and of itself. It is objective, it is both Material and Extra-Material, it is undeniable. Your interpretation of the evidence is what differs. Simply put- if God is Necessary, then he exists. If God is Unnecessary, then there may indeed be another explanation for why we are here. But the question of whether or not A Creator is necessary is what must be addressed head on. An a-priori decision that ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’ is true until proven false is biased and not reasonable.

        Dane: “Since ‘A Creator Exists’ cannot be examined beyond thought constructs and all thought constructs are subjective and not objective, it exists in the realm of the irrelevant. When objective evidence comes along, let me know.”
        Wrong. It IS relevant. (Only if you consider yourself to be a reasonable person.) It is relevant because the atheist proclaims proudly that he uses ‘Reason’ to consider that statement ‘A Creator Exists’ false until proven true- and that he does not use faith to do so. If I were to proudly proclaim ‘A Creator is Unnecessary’ is false until proven true- you would certainly cry foul- especially if I claimed I did not use faith to do so.

        Dane: “If what you believe was predicated by reason, you might have a point. However, your ‘reason’, is nothing more than “hey, I made this inference/supposition based on my own subjective view, so it must be reasonable.” Fail. And before you hit me up with that atheism is dependent on subjective view, it isn’t…it discards purely subjective perception for rational objectivity.”
        Yes, you are right, atheism tends to discard purely subjective perception. But this discard IS based upon an apriori decision to disqualify all that is Extra-Material. That apriori decision DOES rest faith upon the conviction that the dogma ‘Existence is Material ONLY’ is true and factual. This is what makes your point of view equally as subjective. Alternatively, remember- I do not deny that faith underpins my belief. The trouble is that you do- and that is disingenuous. (And again- neither your belief nor my belief changes the truth of whether or not A Creator Exists)

        Dane: “[to my note: ‘You have no objective conclusive evidence that ‘Existence is Material ONLY’ is the truth- yet you will not allow yourself to question otherwise. To hold onto this view is not reasonable- it is dogmatic.’] False premise. Atheism does not state that material existence is the only existence…as a matter of fact, it doesn’t comment on that at all. Stop trying to define the term using your own prejudices.”
        Sorry if I binned you inappropriately, Dane. Are you conceding that perhaps something DOES exist beyond the Material? That perhaps Man’s 5 senses are NOT self-sufficient for determining all knowledge- even whether they are self-sufficient…? That perhaps a Creator IS indeed Necessary? If so, then we can move on from this supposed hard-fast stance. I may be wrong about Atheism in general. But do YOU hold fast to such dogma (or do you concede these dogma may be wrong)?

        Dane: “That’s the problem with deism. It purports itself to be rational, but it isn’t.”
        I said that it is a reasonable faith. At least as reasonable a faith as atheism, if not moreso.

        Dane: “Since there is no rationally objective evidence for any kind of god or deity,…”
        This begs the question and leaves the rest of your reasoning in this paragraph in disarray. What is ‘rational and objective’ depends entirely on whether or not a deity actually exists. (Circular reasoning alert) Since that cannot be known, the only fair thing to do is to examine the scenario in which one DOES exist and the scenario in which one does NOT exist. (Nevermind the fact that in order for something to be ‘objective’, an objective observer must be defined.)

        Dane: “if your Christian faith is so right because it’s predicated by reason-the so called reasonable faith-then anyone of any religion who claims the same is as right as you. Are you going to accept that all religious faith is as potentially equally true as yours?”
        Am I willing to accept that ALL religious faith is as potentially equally true… Yes- from a purely rational perspective. I consider even your faith to be potentially true. That would be closed-minded of me to believe otherwise. But when I begin to measure each one within its own system, I am not satisfied by the parsimony, integrity, and cohesiveness of any when compared to the Cross. And ultimately, I lay my faith where I find it to be most reasonable. And I thank God for the faith that saves me in Him. He gave me the ability to reason- and the reason to accept his Truth on faith.

        Dane: “If that’s the case, why would this god so consistently prove itself unreasonable? And why would it set aside for punishing those whose employ their reason and don’t come up with the answers that this god wants?”
        Those are finally some good questions. But in order to examine them, one must at least be willing to honestly contemplate His existence without compromise. Let me know if you’re willing to do so.

        Dane: “Do me a favor…if you are going to reply with just another litany of theistic rhetoric, then please don’t. I am weary of having to correct you about atheism.”
        It isn’t rhetoric, Dane. It is truth and logic. What I volley back to you is your own concepts, replacing your ‘beliefs’ with mine and vice versa. In order to have an intelligent discussion we HAVE to get past the dogma and admit that it is ALL faith. To claim otherwise- to object to faith- is proof positive that your faith is indeed great, because it means that you claim to ‘know’- objectively, conclusively, and with evidence. And if so, I demand your evidence. Faith… or Evidence? Which is it that you have?

        Thank you for your thoughts, Dane, I am hopeful that you just might be a reasonable man after all.

  34. ndog37 said,

    Hi stevebee92653

    Wow, I see you are totally objective and open minded about your philosophical belief and yet you are getting hammered by evolutionists. Talk about dogmatic, narrow minded bigots! I think evolutionauts should self inflect. Also I feel sorry for you for being labelled as a IDiot, when you have stated clearly your belief in the 4.5 billion year old earth and disagree with Creation Science as stated by the bible and a literal 6 days over a timespan of 6000-10000 years ago.

    I would like to say that I am a so called IDiot and a few reasons why I personally gravitate toward that way is because the lack of real evidence for evolution. I think one has to really be objective here, and I was also raised in a secular schooling system, studied biology, learned evolution and understood it as fact. However if one is objective enough, evolution does not provide a neccessary enough observed scientific proof to back it up. It is indeed a theory which came about in the 1800’s and reflects the thinking of that time. Indeed it is time to move forward.

    My biggest problems in accepting Biblical Creation as taught in a literal 6 day span, was 1) the age of the earth and 2) the minimum age of the universe as put at 13 billion years by scientists measuring the light from the furtherest star. 3) I also wanted to know how could God come about in the first place? There should be a start shouldn’t there?

    So I will try to explain here my 3 questions and 3 answers I got

    1) The earth cant be more than 10000 years old
    The killer for me was how far the moon moves away from earth every year 4cm. If you calculate this over 4.5billion years you have a problem. Also the population of humans is only 6 billion at present, if you calculate birth rates, it points very convincingly at a 6000 year estimate start time. Other things are the magnetic field which is getting weaker etc.. see http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/young_earth_evidence.htm for a balanced opinion with views from both toddler camps..
    Also http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth, which lists all the evidences they have, good read…

    2) The speed of light is decreasing
    There is a theory and is observed fact that the speed of light is decreasing, however, this is still one thing that still I dont fully claim to have the answers for, I cant say whether I believe in a young Universe, also the bible fails to mention when the Universe was made of how long it took, The creation of this planet is mentioned being in a void universe, which everything else seems to be made after the planet, eg the sun made on day 4.

    3) God is eternal (was not created or formed) This requires something called faith, a strange concept which also mentioned in the bible. Sorry for getting all religious on you but I trust you will try to see my point.

    John 20:29 – “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
    2 Corinthians 5:7 “We live by faith, not by sight. ”

    God (biblical) describes himself as being – Exodus 3:14 “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”
    This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability

    So I have what I describe a simple faith in God, and I gave you my reasons for it. I also get a lot of crap from evolutionauts and give them a lot of my reasons for my faith, but usually nothing changes much. All I can do is trust they will be like you and have their own “self-realisation” that evolution has no real evidence and maybe they will open their minds to the possiblity they could be wrong. BIG EGO HIT.

    Anyway, I have written enough, now its up to you philosophical truth seeker! it may be closer than you thought.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the note. This is such a nebulous science and search, with no real answers. I find it difficult to believe that a personage responsible for the formation of the universe would communicate with humanity with a book. Most of the populations of the earth have been illiterate for most of the existence humanity. Which means the Bible could only be read by a very few. Wouldn’t you expect communication would come as something a bit more universal and spectacular? The fact that light has been coming from distant galaxies for billions of years is also pretty hard for YEC to deal with. Since there are no real answers, and we are stuck with that fact, many different notions philosophies and opinions will remain in our psyche’s. For me, the best I can come up with is “we just don’t know”, and humanity most likely never will.

  35. Joel Wheeler said,

    Whoa.

    All I know is this: anyone who says, in all seriousness, “Bio-systems are designed in a far more intelligent way than any intelligent man who ever existed has the capability of designing. That fact doesn’t need testing. It is just pure fact.” is not, in fact, serious.

    Here’s my incredulous face-palming question: Everything that we know for sure to be designed (because humans designed it) was designed with a purpose in mind. What, then, is the proposed purpose of designed “bio-systems”?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Woa! How about to see. How about to hear. To get blood to all the cells of your body so you can live. A brain so you can think, which you aren’t doing with this comment.

      • Charlie said,

        Steve! I hadn’t seen any updates from your site in a while. I had been wondering about you and am glad to see you’re still mulling about somewhere. Glad to see your Bio-systems are still doing what they were designed to do. 🙂

        Adrian… if you’re interested- and ONLY if you’re interested… the Biblical response to your blind salamanders, smallpox and VIH is essentially that they are consequences of the Fall and the groaning of the creation.

      • Dane said,

        Really? The result of Adam and Eve making a mistake that “God” could have easily forgiven them for at that instant was to toss them into a world full of deadly diseases and incurable conditions? I suppose Down’s Syndrome, color blindness, neurofibromatosis and the plethora of purely genetic defects are a consequence of the Fall as well? Pretty big dick move by ‘God’.

        Or are you referring to the Fall of Lucifer and the rebel angels? Again, another dick move by ‘God’…after all, he had to have known that this Fall would result in such horrors, so instead of a “Fall”, why not simply will them into non-existence? Would that have just screwed up his plan? Is that it?

        Answering with responses from ‘scared texts’, while ludicrous enough in that zero proof exists, is actually bad for the religion business because it just shows what monsters these deities were written to be.

      • Charlie said,

        Dane, how have you been?

        Are you really claiming to have an answer- or just knowledge that my answer is absolutely wrong just because it comes from a book that you reject on baseless grounds.

        Dane: “Really? The result of Adam and Eve making a mistake that “God” could have easily forgiven them for at that instant was to toss them into a world full of deadly diseases and incurable conditions?”

        Yes, Dane. Take it or leave it. It is the human condition. At that moment, Adam and Eve did die as God told them they would. They died spiritually to their righteous and blameless selves and God could no longer have them in His Holy presence. You either believe the Bible and accept that God that is described therein, or you don’t. But if you do not, and you bring ‘logical’ arguments against a God that you reduce to be something other than what He describes in that book (including denying that He Himself tells us in that book that it is He that speaks through that book to us), then you are attacking a strawman. And the only defense that I will offer there is that I have no need to defend a strawman. (If you want to ask questions that are within the framework of the Bible, I can field those- online or offline from this forum. If you cannot stay within the framework of the Bible, then I will only deal with the philosophy of creation or about the science of creation but not about the God of the Bible.)

        Dane: “I suppose Down’s Syndrome, color blindness, neurofibromatosis and the plethora of purely genetic defects are a consequence of the Fall as well? Pretty big dick move by ‘God’.”

        God created our design to be highly flexible so that it could adapt and flourish. The forms of evolution that we DO observe are constrained within their like kinds- but they do occur. Within that mechanism of flexibility, we continuously ‘devolve’ from the physically perfect Adam. The Fall was the initial domino falling… the rest of the ‘bad design’ that you complain about is the ongoing collapse of dominoes.

        We inherit the consequences that our forefathers brought on for themselves. It is indeed a pretty big load of crap that we inherit from those before us- but they were not God’s original and are not His overall intention for us.

        Dane: “Or are you referring to the Fall of Lucifer and the rebel angels? Again, another dick move by ‘God’…after all, he had to have known that this Fall would result in such horrors, so instead of a “Fall”, why not simply will them into non-existence? Would that have just screwed up his plan? Is that it?”

        Yes, God knew this would all happen. NOTHING is an accident. It ALL has infinite purpose- including our pain and suffering. Why God does things is a great question that we can ponder- and honestly so. But to object to His existence simply because we are not capable of understanding His infinite imagination and often unknowable mysteries is just childish. It is what it is. We either have to trust Him, or choose not to trust Him (and this manifests in a desire to hate and even reject His existence outright).

        Dane: “Answering with responses from ‘scared texts’, while ludicrous enough in that zero proof exists, is actually bad for the religion business because it just shows what monsters these deities were written to be.”
        Zero proof exists only when you deny all proof that you choose to deny arbitrarily, Dane. I have seen proof. You will not accept it or understand it because you arbitrarily decide that all proof must be Material.

        But I’ll challenge you that you indeed believe (with ZERO evidence) that “Existence is Abolutely Material”, and that nothing which is Extramaterial even exists. Yet, even though you have NO PROOF- no conclusive objective evidence that our entire existence is Material Only and that there does not exist anything that is NOT Material… you believe it. That, my friend, is ALSO Faith. Failing evidence, it is Faith. You lay your faith on something which is unsubstantiated yet deny that it is faith that you use to support your conviction. I lay my faith in Christ- realizing that He IS that which substantiates EVERYTHING (but I am at least honest enough to admit that this requires some reasonable level of Faith).

        Your arguments against my explanation are not reasonable- they are emotional pleas and arguments of personal incredulity. Science and Materialism have no use of such arguments, so it is strange that you would attempt to use them.

        But let’s please try to keep this discussion from becoming a baseless denial of Christianity, Dane. Let’s try to respect Steve’s desire that this not become a place where we discuss non-science issues.

        The challenge on the table, I believe, is how and where Evolution has EVER been known to demonstrate ANY evidence whatsoEVER (that is not subject to confirmation bias by way of sifting out any evidence that might fit an explanation from an Essential, Eternal, Extramaterial Creator more reasonably than an explanation from Material phenomenon only.)

      • Dane said,

        Charlie, I see once again that, like most religious fanatics, you attempt to pull the person who opposes down to the same ‘faith is everything’ level that you exist at.

        Your responses are little more than suppositions born out of completely unsubstantiated beliefs. You do possess one shred of observable, testable, empirical, rationally objective data that would support your supernatural explanations. This is why, as I said, using so-called ‘sacred texts’ and religious dialogue is useless in providing real answers. When you can corroborate your answers with irrefutable evidence and data, then let me know.

        As to your assumption that I believe that all evidence MUST be material and would accept nothing else, I challenge you to show me immaterial evidence that is acceptable. Do me the courtesy of not wasting my time with faith, personal anecdotes, ‘spiritual experiences’ and the like. Such articles are purely internalized perceptions of external articles and do not form a basis for reasonable, credible evidence. You know this as well a I do.

        As for my ‘faith’ that existence is absolutely material, I have never postulated anything of the kind. I’ve simply pointed out the so-called ‘evidence’ for immaterial existence is sorely lacking. It is not a matter of faith to not believe in something because you have no rational basis from which to form that belief. You cannot force yourself to believe in something…something must predicate that belief. Even if that belief is substantiated by things such as personal epiphanies and ‘spiritual experiences’, those at least could form the basis of belief. Of course, such articles are unreasonable in as far as trying to convince others, as these are purely personal internalizations and have no bearing on outside reality. Just because you believe it due to whatever happened to you does not mean that what you believe in is actually real.

        As with any other critical thinker, I reserve the right to modify my positions as new data and evidence become known. I have no ‘faith’ in material existence…it simply is, whether I believe in it or not. As far as immaterial existence goes, I have no objective reason to believe in such thing.If you can provide rationally objective, observable, empirical evidence for such a thing, let me know.

        As far as the ToE goes, simply insisting that it include an intelligent designer/entity/source because you personally “see” design is ludicrous. There is no bias or prejudice in the ToE. Science has only reported what is has observed and catalogued, via pure observation and the results of experimentation. While the ToE is not absolutely, 100% certain of every single mechanic, it certainly has not, at any time observed any design, designer or supernatural entity involved.

        Perhaps you could help the scientific community out and give them a methodology of design. How do you test for design? How do you establish the existence of a designer? How do you observe the designer? How do you falsify design? How do you avoid infinite regression of designers?

      • Charlie said,

        Dane: “I challenge you to show me immaterial evidence that is acceptable. Do me the courtesy of not wasting my time with faith, personal anecdotes, ‘spiritual experiences’ and the like.”

        What he grants with one hand, he takes with the other. You are a funny man, Dane. Don’t you know that some Extramaterial evidence would certainly come from those very things that you disqualify?

        What about the best evidence that there is a Creator… the fact that we exist and are designed intentionally? Oh- that’s right- you’ve already decided that there is no intelligent design anywhere (it’s all just our imagination), and that we exist without any need for a Creator.

        Hmmm… seems to me like you’ve got your logic horse back behind the cart.

        Don’t you think that if a Creator is NOT Unessential… that maybe that means He MUST have made us because guess what- by definition he IS Essential? And so there we are again- you presupposing everything MUST be Material (without any evidence for that restriction- and thereby convinced by a strong Faith in that conviction), and thereby arriving at your preferred conclusion by way of confirmation bias. Brilliant!

        Dane: “It is not a matter of faith to not believe in something because you have no rational basis from which to form that belief. You cannot force yourself to believe in something…something must predicate that belief.”
        Well, I suppose then, you’ll accept that by your conclusion above (not mine, by the way), mine is not a matter of faith to not believe in something (that a Creator is Unessential) because I have no rational basis from which to form that belief. What predicates YOUR belief in that, Dane?

        Dane: “I reserve the right to modify my positions as new data and evidence become known. I have no ‘faith’ in material existence…it simply is, whether I believe in it or not. As far as immaterial existence goes, I have no objective reason to believe in such thing.If you can provide rationally objective, observable, empirical evidence for such a thing, let me know.”
        I appreciate that. You should be aware, Dane, that Extramaterial (Immaterial) evidences will NOT be observable, or evidenced empirically. That’s just not the way that they work. (They’re… guess what? Extramaterial!)

        Dane: “simply insisting that it include an intelligent designer/entity/source because you personally “see” design is ludicrous.”
        Dane, the design is there. Our engineers today are recognizing this more and more each day. Take a look at Biomimetrics and see the new advances that are being made because of that acknowledgment. Your irrational denial of design is predicated upon your insistence that such an I.D. canNOT exist in anything but a Material form of some sort. Seems ridiculous to me.

        Dane: “Perhaps you could help the scientific community out and give them a methodology of design. How do you test for design? How do you establish the existence of a designer? How do you observe the designer? How do you falsify design? How do you avoid infinite regression of designers?”
        NOW, you’re on to something. This is what you need to spend some time on, Dane. I won’t answer that question for you. You wouldn’t believe my answer if I gave it. But give it some serious thought. And then get a look at what molecular biology is discovering newly each and every day.

        Enjoy your day!

      • Dane said,

        Well Charlie, I have to admit…you do keep me in stitches.

        I see you keep insisting that I keep insisting all explanations exist within the material. Of course, that’s totally inaccurate as I’ve never said that. All I’ve asked for is credible evidence for the immaterial.

        Oh wait…by your own admission, you’re totally unable to give an observable, empirical example of data supporting the existence of the immaterial…because guess what! The immaterial is immaterial! I hsould just believe in it because you believe in it and you KNOW, as an irrefutable fact, that it’s real…you just can’t prove it. For a man who calls himself reasonable, your belief certainly doesn’t stem from anything reasonable. Of course, you’ll insist you’re being perfectly reasonable.

        Tell you what…let’s see if you can do what Steve refuses to do. See, in the past, I’ve been perfectly upfront and admitted that yes, science may have it all wrong. It is possible that there is some essential mechanic or process that has escaped scientific examination that, when realized, would demonstrate irrefutably that all is the product of design and a designer. I don’t recognize this as having a very good probability, but could it happen? Sure. Our knowledge of phenomenal and universal reality, so who knows what we might know one day?

        Now…can you admit the same? Can you admit the possibility that you’re wrong? If you can, you have, at least, some notion of reason. If you can’t, then there is nothing at all reasonable about your belief or your position.

        Design is only there if you WANT to see it. Just because it’s something your perception sees doesn’t mean that your perception is reality. For all I know, this insistence on design and the supernatural may be nothing more than a product of YOUR denial of purely natural, unguided processes. How do I know you simply aren’t motivated by the fear of your own mortality and the fear that there is no existence beyond this one? Biomimetrics is the science of imitating mechanically and not replicating organically natural processes. If anything, it hurts, not supports ID. Further, molecular biology has never extrapolated any irrefutable evidence for design. While fanatics will insist that DNA is THE thing that proves ID, experiments showing that RNA sequencing happens as a natural, unguided process have put that to bed.

        There are no answers to the questions I posed you about ID…at least, no credible answers. As I said before, ID exists solely as supposition, philosophy and hope.

        But hey…you’re free to believe whatever you like. You’re not going to convince me, I’m not going convince you. Once again, this is a futile dialogue. Say whatever is you want to say if you want to get the last word in.

      • Charlie said,

        Dane, I’m glad that I am at least keeping you in good spirits. That makes me happy.

        Dane: ”
        [I’ve in the past…] admitted that yes, science may have it all wrong. It is possible that there is some essential mechanic or process that has escaped scientific examination that, when realized, would demonstrate irrefutably that all is the product of design and a designer. […] but could it happen? Sure. […]

        Now…can you admit the same? Can you admit the possibility that you’re wrong? If you can, you have, at least, some notion of reason. If you can’t, then there is nothing at all reasonable about your belief or your position.

        Wrong about what, Dane? I could be wrong about so many things. But the biggest question that I personally keep bumping up against is this: “How can we *KNOW* ANYTHING?” And the only solid foundation that I have ever found in all my years of skepticism is in Christ- without whom all other explanations fail to sustain a coherent reasonable reason for why we can *KNOW* anything at all.

        Here is where I’ll concede-
        a) that it is NOT more reasonable to believe that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True than it is to believe that it is False. (At the outset, one may consider them to be equally reasonable based upon the unavailability of external independent evidence- evidence that is not circular.)
        b) that I must step out on faith to believe that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is False. (And that you are burdened with the same requirement- to step out on faith to believe that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True.)
        c) that I certainly could be wrong- if my initial ‘leap of faith’ is wrong (that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True, then I will have rested my faith on the wrong of two pillars and all knowledge that depends upon the truth of that pillar (everything) means nothing. (This applies, also however, to he whose initial ‘leap of faith’ in wrong in believing that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True. If he is wrong, then all HIS dependent knowledge means nothing.)

        So absolutely, Dane, I COULD be wrong based solely upon reason and cold calculation. But I HAVE stood on both pillars in order to fairly see which one would hold more weight. When taking all things into consideration- and accepting the reality of what is possible and reasonable on the pillar ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is False, all reasonable knowledge points to “I AM WHO I AM” being the eternal Creator and Sustainer of our existence- and even of that pillar of knowledge.

        And I can promise you only this… that if you will dare to stand on my pillar, you will find that the whole time that you thought you were ‘standing’ on yours, it was actually mine that was holding your weight.

        There is only ONE way that ANYONE can *KNOW* ANYTHING. I COULD be wrong and not KNOW (affirmed by Faith in Christ). But I tell you this- you will be hard-pressed to find anything else that will affirm ANY knowledge so securely as a knowledge of the salvation that comes from faith in our Lord Christ Jesus.

        Just keep on seeking out knowledge and never stop, Dane. But do not forget to ask “How can I *KNOW*” as you come across each piece of knowledge. Dig deep- you just might find that what you think is your bedrock is really just a realization that your entire universe has been suspended over a void- upheld by and within something else that you have been denying this entire time.

        “33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been his counselor? 35 Or who has first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”
        Romans 11:33-36

        (Sorry, Steve… This verse just jumped out at me and seemed relevant enough.)

      • Charlie said,

        P.S.

        Dane: “For all I know, this insistence on design and the supernatural may be nothing more than a product of YOUR denial of purely natural, unguided processes.”
        This postulation would ONLY be right if in fact ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True. Therefore, if your postulation DEPENDS UPON that conclusion, it hardly makes for a sound reason for why it provides SUPPORT FOR that conclusion. It is circular and not independent external evidence to the question of whether ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True.

        Dane: “How do I know you simply aren’t motivated by the fear of your own mortality and the fear that there is no existence beyond this one?”
        If ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True, and the ToE is True, there is no currently viable explanation for why a lump of cells that just happen to go through patterns of what we call life and death and recycling should EVER have CAUSE to care about their own mortality- and even if they had some phenomenal self-realization, why should that realization matter to ANY of those lumps of cells- be they the one that denies the fear and the one that creates hope in the figment of their imagination? It all means nothing anyhow- because after all- they are just lumps of cells.

        Dane: “Biomimetrics is the science of imitating mechanically and not replicating organically natural processes.”
        Look again, Dane. I think one example is that software engineers are looking to tap into harnessing the power of DNA to be the future goalpost of internal computation. The big hurdle will be how to get from genetic gel circuitry to electronic circuitry. But most definitely you are dismissing Biomimetrics a tad to hastily.

        Dane: “Further, molecular biology has never extrapolated any irrefutable evidence for design.”
        The gaps are closing on this irrefutability, Dane. Read a wide variety of scientific articles- including those from http://www.crev.info- which does a good job of re-interpreting the facts. Same facts- more reasonable/skeptical conclusions. Don’t seclude yourself within only those scientific interpretations that reaffirm your initial presupposition.

        Dane: “While fanatics will insist that DNA is THE thing that proves ID”
        If they’re right, then could it be the Darwinist that is the ‘fanatic’ insisting that the DNA is the thing that proves Evolution?

        Dane: “experiments showing that RNA sequencing happens as a natural, unguided process have put that to bed.”
        Yeah- think again, Dane. Not an unguided natural process, but a HIGHLY babysat process that involves a number of guided, INTELLIGENT, designed processes that are coordinated toward a predetermined end. Evolution does not work that way. And though one could argue that such experiments at least prove the concept is ‘viable’, a reasonable person should then follow up by asking what the likelihood of all of these conditions should be. (Here’s a hint… These scientists (e.g. Dr. Jack Szostak) are EXTREMELY careful to situate these conditions and are STILL only BARELY able to get their work off the ground. No- the issue has been far from ‘put to rest’. (And please be careful when you claim to ‘know’ something scientifically unless you really know- it only makes the repetitious ‘wave off’ of ‘established answers’ grind on people’s teeth.)

      • Dane said,

        “Here is where I’ll concede-
        a) that it is NOT more reasonable to believe that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True than it is to believe that it is False. (At the outset, one may consider them to be equally reasonable based upon the unavailability of external independent evidence- evidence that is not circular.)
        b) that I must step out on faith to believe that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is False. (And that you are burdened with the same requirement- to step out on faith to believe that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True.)
        c) that I certainly could be wrong- if my initial ‘leap of faith’ is wrong (that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True, then I will have rested my faith on the wrong of two pillars and all knowledge that depends upon the truth of that pillar (everything) means nothing. (This applies, also however, to he whose initial ‘leap of faith’ in wrong in believing that ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is True. If he is wrong, then all HIS dependent knowledge means nothing.)

        So absolutely, Dane, I COULD be wrong based solely upon reason and cold calculation. But I HAVE stood on both pillars in order to fairly see which one would hold more weight. When taking all things into consideration- and accepting the reality of what is possible and reasonable on the pillar ‘A Creator is Unessential’ is False, all reasonable knowledge points to “I AM WHO I AM” being the eternal Creator and Sustainer of our existence- and even of that pillar of knowledge.”

        So in other words, you can’t concede you might be wrong. If you could, you’d just say:

        “Yes, I could be wrong about everything I believe in. I could be wrong about a Creator, about Christ and how I perceive things.”

        But you just won’t do that. Like all other religious fanatics, you are far too indoctrinated into religious belief to even consider anything else. Your post that follows the above is simply more evidence that you’ll say ANYTHING, no matter how trite or illogical, just to keep your belief cemented in your mind.

        You obviously have no understanding of human psychology or scientific methodology. Ally you do is read into the perception that you personally want to be there. You can pat yourself on the back all you like for being ‘a reasonable person’, but there really isn’t anything reasonable about you and this is how I can tell…by your own admission, everything you know is predicated by an unfailing belief in Jesus Christ…yet at at the same time, you continually make the point of ‘how can we know anything’, yet you insist you ‘know’ that Christ is real and all that flows from him is real, so the reality around must be in harmony with this, by your standard, unknowable belief.

        This always happens when I get into dialogues with religious fanatics. I should know better by now. Oh well…at least you may live in an interesting if hopelessly skewed reality.

        Have fun, Charlie.

      • Charlie said,

        Dane: “So in other words, you can’t concede you might be wrong. If you could, you’d just say: “Yes, I could be wrong about everything I believe in. I could be wrong about a Creator, about Christ and how I perceive things.” But you just won’t do that.”
        That IS basically what I did say, Dane. Read again. I COULD be wrong about everything I believe in- a Creator, Christ, and how I perceive things. But then I could never *KNOW* ANYTHING.

        Dane, I think that like all other religious fanatics, you are far too indoctrinated into religious belief to even consider anything else. Your post that follows the above is simply more evidence that you’ll say ANYTHING, no matter how trite or illogical, just to keep your belief cemented in your mind.

        Dane, You obviously have no understanding of human psychology or scientific methodology. All you do is read into the perception that you personally want to be there. You can pat yourself on the back all you like for being ‘a reasonable person’, but there really isn’t anything reasonable about you and this is how I can tell…by your own admission, everything you know is predicated by an unfailing belief in [ANYTHING GOES- JUST DON’T INSIST ON] Jesus Christ…

        Dane, I DO continually make the point of ‘how can we know anything’. How do YOU *KNOW* anything? How do you know that you even exist? That you do a Creator is Unessential? That your life does NOT have a purpose and is just some cosmic accident in space?

        I DO insist that I ‘know’ all of these things now… because it is through Christ that all reality flows from and is founded upon. And I do NOT deny that it is Faith that I must rely upon in order TO know. And THAT is why I KNOW that it is the only true path to significant knowledge.

        How do YOU know anything? If a Creator is Unessential and Evolution is true… then all processes are mindless and purposeless- nature and material are all there is. So how can your jumble of accidental brain cells produce a thought that is ‘more reasonable’ than my jumble of accidental brain cells? They are both as mindless and purposeless as a blob of coffee spilled on the floor and immediately wiped back up. That, my friend, is NOT a basis for ANY knowledge. It is a recipe for irrational denial in ALL things rational.

    • Dane said,

      Actually, he can’t answer this question Joel. I’ve posed it to him before and all he answers with is complete mockery. I mean, we’re talking about a guy who thinks all matter, organic and inorganic, was ‘intelligently designed’. You’re not going to get much of an answer.

      I mean, if you were to ask him “what is the purpose of human existence?”, he’d probably rattle of something like ‘humans are a part of the Earth’s ecology, duh!’ or ‘The purpose of human existence is to fit the biological niche it currently fits’ or some other totally non-committal answer. There is no way you could ask him something like ‘what’s the meaning of life’ and not get some trite answer. I tried to discuss this with him before, but he refused as he doesn’t discuss philosophy because it’s “too boring”. That’s strange statement coming from someone whose entire belief system is predicated by a ‘philosophical belief’…or so he claims.

  36. Adrian said,

    How bout blind salamanders, how bout smallpox, and VIH, whats the purpose of those? (:

  37. Adrian said,

    Of course i know about the biblical explanation about the fall etc.
    That’s why i asked steve because he is not a biblical creationist (At least not a confessed one)

  38. Adrian said,

    So charly, how can you ever know ANYTHING with faith? science, all of this marvelous discoveries have never been a product of “faith”. Not even the letters and pages that are written in the bible are a product of “faith”

    So what evidence do you have of the inmaterial?
    Why is it any more plausible than all other religions if your beliefs rely on faith not on evidence?

    There is no evidence of a creator or the necessity of a creator so thats why we don’t delieve in a creator. as simple as that.

  39. Erin Carter said,

    Bitterness can be blinding. And it comes through very clearly in many posts here. How can you continue to champion an unfounded, unproven, unsubstantiated theory? There’s not one spot of evidence. You don’t have to be a Creationist to reject Evolution. You don’t have to do that anymore than you have to like a Mustang to hate a Station Wagon. What sense does that make that to reject one thing you must automatically, simultaneously embrace another??? That’s a sad sentiment of bad science. That’s a big part of where Evolutionists lose their respectability. They act like children fighting for attention and when it’s lost, not just to something else but to that something that seems the strongest threat (i.e. the equally popular cheerleader running for prom queen) they lose all integrity in how they try to shift the debate. They begin to do and say things out of desperation. And they forget what good science is. Good science is not forming an idea and then following clues infinitely in every direction hoping one will give you evidence but following WHATEVER clues you have that lead to the TRUTH, WHATEVER it may be. Science and Truth go hand in hand and NO ONE should be afraid of either.

    • ginxyz said,

      Can you explain to me exactly what it is about evolutionary theory that is unfounded, unproven and unsubstantiated? I’d really like to know because I’m fairly certain that your objections are either related to a lack of understanding evolutionary theory or bad data concerning evolutionary theory.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I have a great idea for you. I have spent the last five years writing this blog, and answering your question. There are almost forty pages worth. Try reading, and your question will be answered.

      • Dane said,

        I have a better idea. When those forty pages that I’ve looked through actually have worthwhile answers, I’ll acknowledge them as such. When that happens let me know, until then, why don’t you let this person answer for herself? She’s made a claim that I’m asking that she back up. I don’t think she needs you to answer for her…and if she does, than obviously doesn’t understand what she’s attempting to criticize.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You don’t have any ideas. Indoctrinates don’t think. They spout what they have been told to spout. How about you have a better “spout”?

      • Dane said,

        Oh yes…that’s a good argument. Wow, you really got me.

        Tell you what…when your blog is more than a regurgitation of every ID and creationist “argument” against evolution, then you might have something…but I doubt that’ll happen. Heck you can’t even admit that you’re a theist out of some fear that it’ll hurt your position.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Every time you write here you prove my point. Thanks.

      • Dane said,

        You’re welcome. I’m always glad to help prove the point that your arguments are the same tired, useless rhetoric that you’ve been taught to spit out.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi Erin.
      Thanks for the great and well thought out comment. So rare. Yours goes on my favorite comments page. Bottom of p.29.
      Regards
      Steve

  40. Melvinvines said,

    Steve, you are clearly a very well read guy who knows what you are talking about (unlike Dane). Something I would find useful (and maybe others as well) – if you could create a separate page here on your site listing your top 10 (or 20, etc) books and those you are currently reading, which you would recommend to us who are learning about this topic and anything relevant to it. Thanks.

    • Dane said,

      Melvin, clearly you are not very well read in evolutionary science. If you were, you’d recognize Steve’s “arguments” as the same blather that ID proponents and creationists have been spouting for a while now, not to mention that they’ve either been refuted or exposed as not really being arguments at all.

      Perhaps if you actually delve more deeply into the sciences, you’ll see that ID has no scientific basis in truth and is really theism in disguise, something that Steve is loathe to admit.

    • Dane said,

      Ah, I see you are a Watchtower follower. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness too? How’s all that working out for you?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi Melvinvines. Thanks for the comment.
      My most recent reads on this subject:
      The Genius Within, (Vertosick)
      The Symbiotic Universe, (Greenstein)
      The Blind Watchmaker, (Dawkins)
      What is Life?: The Eternal Enigma ( L Margulis)
      The Selfish Gene, (Dawkins)
      The Canon (Angier)
      I really like Symbiotic Universe. Pretty much my philosophy. Greenstein blows it in the end with his conclusion. The Selfish Gene was difficult to get through. Boring. All of the rest are written by avid evolutionauts and are good reads. All prove intelligence must be in the mix beyond a shadow of a doubt. The writers have absolutely no idea they are proving what they think they are disproving, and disproving what they think they are proving. They all should be titled “Why Intelligence was Needed”. I like books by evolutionauts over most anti-evo books. I like to see what they are thinking, and how their thinking can be challenged. I hope this is helpful.

  41. Melvinvines said,

    As one can see,  Dane, is very emotional and a bit angry.

    • Dane said,

      As one can see, Melvin must resort to baseless claims in order to divert attention away from the failure of his position.

  42. Adrian Calderon said,

    Amazing how people can be so skeptic about evolution, yet don’t doubt even a bit his own religion. Skepticism has to be impartial otherwise it’s useless.

  43. Melvinvines said,

    Many atheist biologists are sceptical about evolution and the grand claims bestowed upon it. The fear of persecution from dogmatic darwinists and the very real threat to someone’s career is usually enough to keep the majority silent (especially in these difficult economic times) with only a few brave ones actually speaking out. Try reading some articles on the site.

    “This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create…. [N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” – National Academy of Sciences member biologist Lynn Margulis.

    • Dane said,

      That’s a rather deceptive way of putting it.

      They are some non-religious and atheist biologists, biochemists and such that are skeptical about certain accepted mechanics of evolution, but they are NOT skeptical about evolution in general.

      • melvinvines said,

        The fact that there are so many disagreements amongst biologists (and others) regarding evolution, clearly shows that it is a theory is in crisis.

        Selling Stupid

        http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/selling-stupid/

        Granville Sewell’s sin is pointing out the obvious that anyone can understand. This represents a tremendous threat. As David Berlinski has observed, Darwinists – who have invested their worldview and even their careers in Darwinian storytelling – react with understandable hostility when told that their “theory” is simply not credible.

        It’s really easy to figure out that the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection cannot possibly do that with which it is credited. Life is fundamentally based on information and information processing – a software computer program and its associated, highly functionally integrated execution hardware. Computer programs don’t write themselves, and they especially don’t write themselves when random errors are thrown into the code. The fact that biological computer programs can survive random errors with remarkable robustness is evidence of tremendously sophisticated fault-tolerance engineering. The same goes for the hardware machinery of life.

        One of my specialties in aerospace R&D engineering is guidance, navigation and control software. The task of designing GN&C algorithms and the associated hardware that would permit an ornithopter to land on a swaying tree branch in gusting wind is so far ahead of our most sophisticated human technology that we can only dream about such a thing. Yet, birds do this with ease.

        Darwinists want us to believe that this all came about through a process of throwing monkey wrenches in working machinery and introducing random errors into highly sophisticated computer code.

        In addition, they argue that because the sun provides energy available to do work, all the obvious engineering hurdles can be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion.

        This is simply not credible.

        In fact, it’s downright stupid.

        Selling stupid is a tough assignment.

        No wonder Darwinists have their panties in a bunch.

      • Dane said,

        And that whole rant does is little more than an arguement from incredulity. It’s merely one long admission of “Wow, this process is so incredible that it’s beyond my understanding, so that means some incredibly powerful entity greater than I must have done it!”

        Scientific inquiry is never as straightforward as you are attempting to lay out here. The fact that biologists, biochemists, paleontologists and other scientists are in constant discussion about the mechanics of evolution does nothing to invalidate it.

        Rather, it shows that not only is evolutionary theory accepted by the scientific establishment, but that same establishment is in constant motion to better understand and refine the theory.

        Religious zealots would have others believe that since evolutionary theory isn’t an utterly complete, 100% done and over scientific theory that it’s a ‘theory in crisis’. However, evolutionary theory NEVER makes the claim that it is an absolute, complete picture and that no further data, information or understanding is forthcoming. See, this is why it’s science…it’s always investigating and refining itself, unlike religion which remains static.

        As for a crisis…well, I wonder what the Christian establishment is doing to explain away the fact that there are over 30,000 different sects and many of them believe that THEY are the one, true Christian church. After all, that’s the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses…they’ve got it right and all other denominations have it wrong…and yet there’s thousands of other sects that disagree. A lack of unity, a lack of tolerance-many times for each other-and an abiding distrust of any other religious inclination….looks to me like Christianity is a religion in crisis.

  44. Adrian Calderon said,

    Oh no wonder, did you know that scientists who believe in ID tend to be engineers??? One thing that you notice on the organisms on earth is Redundancy, complexity, vestigial organs, blind spot, backward retina, blind salamanders. Etc. Designed is aimed for simplicity, not complexity. Imagine that the code for your control sofware was 99% useless??
    There has many documented cases that mutation has added or sustracted information.

    Theory in crisis? 99% of the relevant scientists accept evolution. And curiously those who dont have often political or religious motivations for opposing it.

  45. ultramediacorp said,

    argument from incredulity is better than anyone’s argument from gullibility DAME..

    You can’t be serious Stevebee? You are still going at it with these same butt hurt, emotional tampons, that just can’t get over it, OR YOU apparently. The same names, the same religious zealots spouting off the same dogmatic diatribe and double standards pushing the same pathetic pile of piltdown paleontology and faux fossil fraud, affectionately referred to by it’s public school indoctrinated dimwits for darwits as the Theory of evolution and natural selection by Alfred Russel Wallace and stolen by some seminary or cosmetology school drop out named Chuck Darwin who wrote the book the Origin of Feces. I see the same personal insults, ridicule and various typical Darwit debate tactics and the same excuses to cover its own ass as a Scientific Philosophy. Ironically, I still haven’t seen an iota of proof from this camp NOT a DAMN thing.

    Just the same colorful anecdotes and adjectives to describe the “size of the Bullshit pile they say is evidence when nothing they show us is evidence. Let me guess, do they still try to sell that idea that dinosaurs for the most part were “reptiles” that these were cold blooded animals or have they caught up with the latest on our Dino theory being turned UPSIDE DOWN, AGAIN! Yes yes,, evolution is a fact but only to those who believe it’s a fact and THAT is where our body politic with its funded public schools is also being used as a religion. Some said to Steve Quote:

    “Do you have any Idea how religious that sounds” |

    As if he didn’t come off looking likek every hell fire brimstone baptist preacher I have ever seen. Aye, but they’ll never know the personal joy a creationist gets out of saying things like “God HATES atheists” or “Goddidit” Ooops that’s right creationists never say that do they.. Nope I always see atheists and darwits saying they say it.” Even this idiotic idea they have, that the “argument from incredulity” is a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy itself.

    First one must PROVE that is where the argument is really coming from and this is presumptuous at best but you know those Darwits and their mind reading skills. Only when THEY do it, it’s logic but otherwise they waste there time like morons including James Randi making a big deal out of such dangerous frauds as Sylvia Brown, while they posthumously award some of science biggest hoaxers like the late never great ernsT Haekle.. Want to hear something I was privy to some research being done by some colleagues who used to be clients of mine. They are Teachers and Biologists at ASU. You might have heard this Steve but now they are saying that they have been wrong about dinosaurs being cold blooded creatures and that MOST of them this new research is showing, were WARM blooded creatures after all.

    I mean I was certainly disappointed when the Sinclair dinosaur the famous “Brontosaurus” turned out to be another LIE. (I’m sure Darwits have another more pleasing term for it) but now cold blooded to warm blooded? Do you have any idea the domino effect that would have on the entire evolutionary tree!

    As we have seen throughout the past century, the Evolutionary Priesthood will scramble to re-fit everything till it stretches nicely over the entire new theory of evolution. So elastic has this pitifully protected philosophical ideology become, I am want to wonder is it even falsifiable anymore? I mean it is starting to look more and more like creationism.

    Well keep em wasting their time on your blog Steve, that way they can’t do any REAL damage in the Science lab. Here are some things I likek to say that crack me up watching Darwits go gah gah over. Keep referring to it as “JUST” a theory, they really go bananas on that one LMAO even though it is true. Then ask “why are apes still around if we evolved from a monkey” HA HA THAT will get them writing a full hour or more about modern apes and shared ancestors they never mention.

    Never offer an alternative theory, you see since theirs is the only one that matters and the only one in science biology, and because it is incumbent on that same science to question, challenge, even topple a theory, just make debunking evolution, your special area of this particular science.. I mean SOMEONE has to keep these lying bastards honest . None of them actually do science anymore, all biology does anymore is gossip about creationists and try to prove that dumb ass dead as a doorknob theory Darwin stole when he was a stowaway on the HMS Beagle.. Oh one more thing love avoiding falsification by inventing a new science called “A-bio genesis ” and passing the buck to them. Don’t buy into it though, in fact DON’T BUY INTO any of their liberal commie crap scientism period.

    Hope I didn’t use to many cyber credits in my digital footprint here like Darwits used up all there carbon credits blowing all that hot air.

    Just came by to see how you were doing old friend and I see you are still having to keep slaying windmills from Rat shit septic.

    Warm Regards

    Kent Perry, Az

    • Dane said,

      “liberal commie crap scientism”

      You know, that’s classic. Now I’m not sure whether you are simply a demented Christian fanatic or an incredibly creative Poe.

      In any case, your crap about dinosaurs isn’t anything new or startling. The fact that some dinosaurs were warm-blooded has been discussed since at least the late 1960’s. The general consensus in the scientific community these days is that the smaller dinosaurs which exhibited mammalian behavior were, most likely, warm-blooded (or endothermic, as is the proper term) and that the very large dinosaurs were inertail homeotherms. This means that their bodies heated and cooled in rhythmic cycle. The very larges dinosaurs could not have been endothermic as they would have died from too much heat.

      Sorry to spoil your big dinosaur revelation but man…you should pick ideas that aren’t already accepted and decades old.

      • ultramediacorp said,

        Dame mutterd: “You know, that’s classic. Now I’m not sure whether you are simply a demented Christian fanatic or an incredibly creative Poe”

        Why not BOTH?

        “This means that their bodies heated and cooled in rhythmic cycle. ”

        Ya don’t say??? Isn’t that amazing ha ha ..You sure are a sharp cookie there Dame. You a biologist by any chance? PhD? Professor? Zoologist?

        “Sorry to spoil your big dinosaur revelation but man…you should pick ideas that aren’t already accepted and decades old’

        You shouldn’t assume so much Dame, you obviously have no idea what I am talking about . I get it you THINK you do, and you responded to that assumption you point out was 1960’s vintage academia but like I said in the beginning, you Darwits always assume you think you know so damn much. It must really be true what they say about evolutionists today
        always assume, you think you know so damn much. Not relevant really so I will refrain from elaborating as I am certain you’d disagree on the basis of your quickly erected profile of me and all I know or don’t know.

        Not a problem for me, I don’t seek the approval of knowitall’s. Especially when you know so little compared to me on this subject. One of us is right the other is wrong but I can live with that no matter who ends up being wrong. IT seems it’s the Darwits that have a problem letting people do that live and let live thing.. like how you all bashed Stevebee, that was comical,. You all acted like he had burned down Dick Dawkins home and killed his family. Yeah the template for what I see unfolding more and more and the Body Politic that funds it for votes which shapes our society etc,. Not interested in that counterfeit values and phoney intelligentsia. You go ahead though Dame, I’m sure transhumanism and eugenics is right on the cusp of getting it right this time huh?

      • Dane said,

        Well, you certainly can’t be both….a Christian fanatic who decides to Poe himself? You’ve defeated yourself before you’ve even started.

        And once again, I do apologize for pulling the rug from under you concerning dinosaurs and whether they are endothermic or exothermic. I know you thought you had yourself a real humdinger that was just going to stick it to all that crazy evolution talk, but like I said, you need to present better arguments. The debate of endothermic vs. exothermic has been going on since at least 1968 and the general consensus is as I described in my previous post.

        Now, i know that you either you have some real amazing inside information on this topic, so go ahead and share it. Elaborate, if you can, on what it is I think I ‘know so damn much’ about and show me where I’m wrong.

        I haven’t discounted the fact that you could be lying. After all, Steve has an imaginary brother who works at an imaginary think-tank and he loves to spin yarns about him and that place, so I don’t put it past you.

  46. ultramediacorp said,

    My impersonation of Dame.

    Prove it! I DARE YOU to try and prove God exists.

    That one slays me, I can’t explain it to him but Charlie knows why. Dame you act like every soul Satan owns and you bought his bullshit hook line and sinker. You think anyone gives a rats ass that YOU believe the way WE do?? HELL NO! If we did we would be invading YOUR blog at Rat shit septic calling everything you say an argument from incredulity” Dude, why do you ask someone a question about something you claim is “outside of the material world thus NOT within the finite scope of the scientific method and the get BUTT STUPID enough to blame Charlie for what you already know can not be tested on your very limited playing field. If the God of the Bible wanted you to know him, believe me, you would know him. He doesn’t want you. Get over it,

    • Dane said,

      I’m sorry, but did you have an actual argument in there somewhere…or is this just another typical religious diatribe?

      As far as Charlie goes, all I did was call him out on the premise that fuel his belief; namely, he is arguing not from a scientific position but from a philosophical position. He insist, as all other IDers do, that some intelligent designer exists merely because he perceives design. That and the argument from incredulity form the entire basis of the ID movement. If Charlie continues to insist that this is absolute evidence for the existence of a designer, then I will continue to point the fallacy of that claim. If you don’t like that, sorry, but I don’t care.

      As for your “God of the Bible”…if it is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity you claim it is, then all must be happening according to it’s plan…including the way I think and behave, which you despise. In your worldview, nothing…not a thing…can be happening WITHOUT the expressed consent of this deity. Thus, all that unfolds must absolutely be in accordance with it’s plan…which means people like myself are only doing what we’ve been made to do, just as you are doing only what you’ve been made to do. Free will, in Christian theology, is a pipedream. If your “god” knew, absolutely, all that was going to occur before it even started with creation, then all that has happened, is happening and will happen must be how your “God’s” divine plan is meant to unfold.

      So, don’t get pissed of at me or any other skeptics, man…we’re only doing what your “God” wants us to do.

      Oh wait…if “God” actually exists, then you getting pissed off as only a religious fanatic can is part of the plan too. Proceed. Just have fun with it!

      • ultramediacorp said,

        You’re sorry? Ha ha Ok Dame. Why are you asking me or is it wondering, whether I have an “argument for you”. Dame, arguing among Darwits, who like you, think they start the argument as if getting to the part where you say “you don;t understand evolution or that ridiculous idea their is such a thing as an argument from credulity I see you throw out there at Charlie without ever sharing with us how the hell YOU know, he disagrees merely because he can’t fathom something outside of his own worldview or that he just simply doesn’t care to for what ever the reason that under-girds the incredulous foundation for the argument in where Charlie may not have asked you but I certainly would have mentioned it. You know, “Foundation” ?

        “Dame muttered:” As far as Charlie goes, all I did was call him out on the premise that fuel his belief; namely, he is arguing not from a scientific position but from a philosophical position. ”

        yeah, so ? You got a problem with that? I mean it never stops you Darwits. Ill bet you can’t give me one, NOT ONE single argument for evolution that you can explain without getting metaphysical. Evolution is a Philosophy also Dame. Evolution is NOT science. Science is science and Evolution is merely, ONLY a theory, Nothing less and certainly nothing more. It doesn’t impress me it never has and it is extremely easy to see it for what it is and why. No problem, the Scriptures foretold of these days. Since you have no concept, no clue no frame of reference what so ever as to the kind and type of understanding I was appealing to regarding Charlie, and as you have made quite clear in your posts that you believe Charlie is somewhat silly, maybe even stupid to believe in things not merely of a philosophical nature but of a spiritual nature and experience one can not articulate in text boxes on blogs of this sort, but I know he understands what I am talking about and I know YOU do not. Not a problem for me, I agree with you, the idea that YOU, see absolutely NO evidence of such a being, entity, prime mover, etc,.

        I have seen what evolution has become and if that’s how you wanna roll, you’re perfectly within your rights to do so. Oh and by the way Dame,, ha ha I’m not “pissed” at anyone.. Don’t flatter yourself chum,, you ain’t THAT important, I should alter my mental health to any degree of anger merely because you and I are WORLDS apart on the way we see the world. You’re about average but getting pissed over someone at your level of understanding science,, ha ha Nope.

        Amused? yeah. Pissed off?

        not a chance.

        Kent Perry, Az.

      • Dane said,

        Wow. I mean wow.

        This is the best you can do? Eat up two posts to:

        A. Play the “if you’re gonna call what we’re talking about philosophy, then I’m gonna call your ‘evolution’ the same thing!” game.

        B. Make some vain attempt at insulting my masculinity.

        I must say, if you are a Poe, you’re one of the best I’ve ever seen, although I must admit I’m more leaning towards the ‘religious fanatic who actually doesn’t understand science or philosophy half as well as he thinks’ label for you.

        It seems to fit since you haven’t actually countered any point I’ve made nor presented any of your own. It’s quite typical theistic rhetoric. In my estimation only a full blown religious fanatic would call evolutionary science a philosophy. A Poe could cross into that territory, of course, but that’s so over the top it could give the game away.

        In any case, your insistence on this isn’t going to make it so. Sorry to have to burst your bubble on that. If evolutionary theory met the qualifications to be strictly categorized as a philosophy, I’d agree; however, since it qualifies as a science, I’m afraid I can’t agree.

        Please feel free to rant about this all you desire; then again, maybe you won’t. After all, I’m not all that important to you, remember?

  47. ultramediacorp said,

    I was just reading this when I got to THIS part. “Oh yes…that’s a good argument. Wow, you really got me.

    Tell you what…when your blog is more than a regurgitation of every ID and creationist “argument” against evolution, then you might have something…but I doubt that’ll happen. Heck you can’t even admit that you’re a theist out of some fear that it’ll hurt your position.”

    As I thought, you even carry yourself like a punk

    What a little hissy fit that was, Dane are you female?

    • Dane said,

      So you actually felt the need to come back an hour later from your last post just to engage in some half-witted name calling?

      For someone who isn’t that important to you, I’ve certainly become a focal point for you; of course, that could be due to the fact that I’m one of the only people around here that give you the time of day.

      Here I am easing the burden of your loneliness and all you do is insult me. For shame. Jesus wouldn’t be very proud of you.

  48. ultramediacorp said,

    Oh by the way Dane, you said you believed Christianity is a Religion in Crisis. Ha ha nothing could be further from the truth. In fact it is again the fastest growing religion in the world surpassing Muslims recently.

    Dane Garbled:” Wow. I mean wow.

    This is the best you can do? Eat up two posts to:”

    Best I can do? I don’t follow Dane, Best I can do at ?? Am I in some kind of contest? Is this a game and your the game show host? I don’t get it best I can do. Can you show yourself the champion and why you are the best ?

    Dane said:”Make some vain attempt at insulting my masculinity. I must say, if you are a Poe, you’re one of the best I’ve ever seen, although I must admit I’m more leaning towards the ‘religious fanatic who actually doesn’t understand science or philosophy half as well as he thinks’ label for you.”

    Up until just now, I did not know unequivocally what gender you are Dane. Perhaps you’ll remember I asked if you are a female. If I had wanted to insult your masculinity, I’d have first required some display of said Machismo to then insult. I did see a lot of feminine qualities in your online persona however and meant no ill will or insult to her if that was the case but now we know you are NOT a female and just a guy that comes off looking like a young girl, when their at that age where everyone they disagree with they tell the “You are SOOO Immachirr” (Immature).

    That is just how it cane off to me Dane, don’t take it personal I know you won’t anyway but it isn’t my fault and you are already starting to argue like a girl again,. I mean the “Is that the best you can do” kind of thing. That stuff sounds like a gaggle of whiny bitches at their last power lunch.

    Dane suggested:”I must say, if you are a Poe, you’re one of the best I’ve ever seen, although I must admit I’m more leaning towards the ‘religious fanatic who actually doesn’t understand science or philosophy half as well as he thinks’ label for you.”

    Mmmm I can definitely rule out the religious fanatic, I cuss far too much, I bitch at Christians for many of the same reasons atheists do I just leave the over embellished dark side out, you know all that Children of the corn stuff really gets old after ya hear the Salem witch trials ended up killing over 200,000 woman quoted by an impassioned and oppressed feeling atheist activist 60 times a year, it gets old correcting the number was only 22. I don’t go to Church I think they remind me of some dank dusky set for a lon Chaney revival medley and what with all those scary statues of a man bleeding from his brow the victim of a Crown apparel manufacturer obviously using child slave labor and stems from a rose garden as the undersized crown. That same plaster bust of said man has his sternum spread open wide enough to qualify for a “Jaws of Life” commercial to our civil servants and local constabulary. but I don’t see where ANY of that stuff is suggested or even hinted at anywhere in scriptures and looks rather pagan to me in many respects but no, not a fanatic of religion. I tend to agree with the guy that always calls Christians “Xians” ,, oh what his name,, dying of cancer I heard too,, Mmmm Oh yeah “Xtopher” his name is “Xtopher” Hitchens, “religion poisons everything” the title of the book but my favorite atheist is Pat Condell.

    I almost ALWAYS agree with him

    Now the suggestion I may not understand Science nearly as well as I think. I only think I know a lot more about it than YOU is all. Going by the many posts I have seen here and your refuge or sanctuary for the rest of the philosopher kings of science, the atheist imperialists at Ratskep of course. Now, that is an opinion of course and one I am well aware I could be dead wrong about.. 22 years debating some of the best atheists on the Internet and in person at universities etc,. I’ve become so jaded over the debate having heard possibly every argument, cookie cutter copy pasted quote and my opposing interlocutors conditioned response, by pulling the string the words “Quote MIne” come flowing from their rabid lips and were off to the races. I am an equal opportunity giver of my reprisals however and I believe Charlie can (with all due respect) can testify to the course and blunt written word he was once the target of my rebuke.

    Dane thrusts: “For someone who isn’t that important to you, I’ve certainly become a focal point for you; of course, that could be due to the fact that I’m one of the only people around here that give you the time of day.”

    Well I have a fine Patek Phillipe I was fortunate enough to inherit and it keeps excellent time if you have the resources, you must indulge in owning one. so the time of day is not a problem for me and being secure in my own skin I rarely require the attention of so many, in fact I prefer one on one dialogues rather than the Mob bashing I witnessed my Dentist getting over at Ratskep. Truly a shame too because if you met the man you would like him a lot. I should say “former” Dentist (Shhhh Retired)

    What I don’t quite understand is why you misrepresent me in your mis-quote saying I think you are not important to respond when responded to? I believe I said you are not important enough to be pissed off at or about. yes? Oh btw Dane, spare me the mundane platitudes by giving me the good christian reputation to live up to “Jesus wouldn’t be very proud of you.”. I may not be as smart a science minded guy as I would like to think but I can assure you, of the Christians you have debated, there is none you have ever debated or crossed paths with who are anything like me.

    Well time is fleeting and eyelids failing. G/nite Dane, perhaps in later in the AM I can avail myself again but to give your ploy its due attention Dane,,
    Jesus happens to think I am a very funny guy but he and I have this agreement when it comes to engaging the enemy

    That I only turn the other cheek

    ONCE

  49. Dane said,

    Actually, you’re pretty much like every other Christian I’ve “debated”…

    Long winded, evasive, self-important and without much of anything of substance to say.

    You only turn the other cheek….ONCE? Oh noes…I guess I better get out of Dodge before an Internet Christian tough guy gets me! That’s by far one of the most laughable things I’ve ever heard one of your ilk say.

    Still though…Poe or not, every time you respond to me, you do me the favor of letting the public see just how far gone Christian fanatics can be.

    Continue, please.

    • ultramediacorp said,

      Ha ha ha another hissy fit

      Damn man it must be hard to shake that shit eh? Like the way ya took my one cheek comment regarding your manipulation of context and are now manipulating that too casting me as a Macho man so insecure that I threatened you. HA HA HA

      “I guess I better get out of Dodge before an Internet Christian tough guy gets me!”

      Dude, you do know I am just as safe on the board as you are yes? Do you really think that was a threat Dane? Dude, ha ha you come off waaay to feminine for me to think I have to prove something to you HA HA

      You even called me a Christian Fanatic again yet you will not find a single time I have attempted to convert your ass, NOT ONCE! You will not find me thumping a bible here no not at all Dane. You will not find a single post where I am over stating my importance I have not bragged about my position, my station in life or my wealth and power. So ha ha IF THAT is the reason you have suggested I am “self-important” ha ha umm

      are you still upset because I said you are not important enough to be pissed off at PffffT!! Dude where do you get this stuff YOUR REALLY FUNNY!

      The idea you got throngs of people agreeing with ya too LMAO HA I see it likek this HA HA AH A sorry ,, I’m crying laughing at this shit HA HA AH A

      “every time you respond to me, you do me the favor of letting the public see just how far gone Christian fanatics can be.”

      OMG ah ha ha ha ah Dane PLEASE MAN HA HA yer killin me here HA AHA

      JUDGES BOOTH JUDGE 1 SAYS :” I SEE IT SEE TOO SETH, THE DAMN GUY IS ANOTHER ONE OF THEM XIAN FANATICKS I VOTE FOR DANE JUST TEXT MESSAGE THIS NUMBER TO ADD YOUR SUPPORT FOR PLAYER NAMED DANE THE ATHEIST,.”

      HA HA HA

      DANE,, ha ha too funny
      sure you ain’t a bitch ?

      • Dane said,

        Christian fanaticism at it’s finest. I should make a trophy for you.

        I thank you again for doing my work for me.

        Please continue.

      • Dane said,

        I should note that I do find some humorous content in your rants.

        For example, I find it especially humorous that you think I’m an atheist. I chalk that up to the fact that you haven’t read some of my posts, as some of them are not on this page of Steve’s site.

        Of course, I don’t expect you to track them down. I’m not that important. I’m only important enough to keep replying to. You play the mark well.

  50. dovhenis said,

    Origin And Nature Of Evolution/Natural Selection
    (updated beyond historical concepts)

    Natural Selection applies to ALL mass formats. Life, a self-replicating format, is just one of them. Natural Selection Defined:

    Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format. Period.

    Natural selection is a ubiquitous property of each and every and all cosmic mass, spin array, formats, from the biggest black hole to the smallest physical particle. Every mass strives to increase its constrained energy content in attempt to postpone its reconversion to energy, to thus postpone addition of its own constitutional energy to the totality of the cosmic energy that fuels the cosmic expansion that goes on since the Big Bang.

    The universe, and life within it, are not just conglomerations of mechanisms. The universe, and life within it, have come into being by the nature of energy-mass dualism, and their fate, their final outcome, is governed by this dualism. The genesis and, most probable cyclic, existence of the universe are governed by the energy-mass relationship.

    Energy-mass relationship governs also the routes, the mechanisms, of cosmic and life evolutions.

    Mechanisms do not set/determine the classical physics fate states. Mechanisms are routes of evolution between classical physics fate states. Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, probable, possible and actual mechanisms of getting from one to other classical physics states WITHIN the expanse from cosmic singularity to the maximum expanded universe and back to singularity states, from the all-mass to nearly-all-energy universe poles.

    The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics. This is the fractal oneness of the universe. Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behavior of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behavior WITHIN the galactic clusters.

    Life’s Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology. UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution/Natural Selection Backward To Genes/Genomes. BOTH ARE ORGANISMS. RNAs are Earth’s base primal organisms.

    The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically meaningless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth. Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.

    It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.

    Dov Henis
    (comments from 22nd century)
    http://universe-life.com/

    • ultramediacorp said,

      Yet you can not explain it without using a superfluous wordiness that suggest a metaphysical prime mover or intelligence guiding it. So I take it you are a Deist of sorts yes?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Of sorts, yes. I don’t really like labels, though. They tend to pinhole people into groups.

      • Dane said,

        Not of sorts…Steve is definitely a deist. He simply doesn’t want to admit it. It’s obvious that the only way Steve can be right is if there is a supernatural intelligence that is the “intelligent designer” he so adamantly believes in. He says he doesn’t want to be ‘labeled’, but that’s only because he doesn’t want association with religion.

      • Dane said,

        In addition, you can see that he is petrified of being part of a ‘group’. Why? Because, according to him, he despises ‘groupthink’, so he goes at it all alone…or so he thinks. He’s already part of the ‘groupthink’ of ID. Steve has this fear of being associated with ‘groups’ as he thinks HIS criticism of ‘groupthink’ will thrown back at him. The problem with Steve is that he doesn’t get that ‘groupthink’ is about consensus and the ‘group’ examining data and peer reviewing each other. Steve thinks such things are bad…and they are for that nonsense which is ID.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s