Unicorns and the ToE

[Elká]

LIFE BEARS ALL THE HALLMARKS OF BEING A "MANUFACTURED PRODUCT."

Assertion without evidence, dismissed.

Elká

[Elká]

Martin ... you are a smart guy. I can tell that. Don't let the brainwashers destroy that good mind of yours. Come out of the dark while you still can.

Wow davey, you have a lot of ex-Martin on your nose, can I get you a sanitary wipe?

Elká, whew you might want a breath mint too davey.

[Elká]

Tree roots are supernatural?

no they're just unable to be seen or verified.

Why are your quotes misattributed?

How are roots that are unseen or unverified not supernatural?

Elká

[RAFH]

Was that a train I hear? Way off in the distance? Why yes, you can just hear the whistle blowing, Woooooooooo woooooooo.

I didn't know they had trains in Hawaii. It must be a very long way off.

They used to have lots of them. Now there are only the relics of such, a few miles of track, a couple of old engines, a few old cars, a bogie here and there. Unfortunately, none running. We even had a secret railway, built by the army, to hide and move about the two coastal guns the island relied upon for protection from an invasion.

Used to be the only way to get to much of the island was by train (or coastal schooner). To get to much of the North Shore and the northen part of Windward, one took a train out to Barbers Point, then up the Leeward Coast and around point Kaena and then east along the North Shore. The secret hidden railway went from Schofield Barracks to Haleiwa in the gorge cut by Kaukonahua Stream. They mounted the guns on rail cars and built embrasures at various locals around the island the guns could be set into for action. Unfortunately, since there was but the single railroad and much of it was clearly exposed along the coast, with lots of bridges over the numerous streams, it would take just one good shot to prevent the guns from getting to nearly anywhere. Plus it left the entire southernly Windward coast unprotected, including the very useful harbor of Kaneohe bay.

Meanwhile, most of the railways were for transporting cane. They ran up into the 60s and even 70s in some locales. It was a means of getting into town for many youths on the weekend. Hop a ride on the sugar train. Unfortunately they were extremely slow, it took 4 to 6 hours to get from Kahuku to town and that was the express train.

But you are right, the trains are just a faint memory.

[Dave Hawkins]

Martin B ...

Something you said is very interesting ... You wrote

Quote:
He wrote a book entitled Theory of Self-reproducing Automata in which he argued that once we developed machines that could self-reproduce, then they could evolve.

I highlighted two very important words there. WE DEVELOPED. Do you see why this is important? Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution).

I've taken the liberty to emphasize the important point there as well: "Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution)". So now you concede that your own analogy was flawed?

Of course it's about whether or not WE produce these machines. That's what we were talking about: why don't OUR machines evolve?

[Autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process. You need to do one thing: make a copy of yourself. In fact, the simpler you are, the easier it is to do it.]

But even that's a further digression. Let's not get too far away from why I posted that. We were talking about similarities among living things as analogous to similarities among living things. The reason why we know the similarities among human-made machines has nothing to do with common ancestry is because we already know that they didn't evolve and that they couldn't even do so in principle. It is an invalid contradiction of common ancestry, regardless of ones beliefs about evolution/creation.

With respect to living things, at least they reproduce and could, in principle, have ancestors and descendents. Even if Dave, or other creationists, believe there are some unseen absolute boundaries to this process that limit it to some ill-defined groupings known as "kinds", the question remains legitimate.

And yes, also, Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a good one!

Several points here ...

1) No, I don't concede that my analogy is flawed. I believe it is appropriate as I hope you will soon see.

2) You seem to contradict yourself when, on the one hand, you say that "autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process" yet on the other hand, you say 'that they couldn't even do so [evolve] in principle.' I ask you ... if you agree that "autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process" then what is so sophisticated about 'evolving' (microevolving that is) that human machines of the future couldn't do it? Microevolution (in both 'living' machines and 'non-living' machines* is nothing more than pre-programmed machine intelligence which allows the automaton to adapt to changing environments. Why would this be difficult to program into future man-made automatons? We're probably already doing it.

3) Just to reiterate an earlier point ... you are correct that the nested hierarchies could in principle be explained by Universal Common Ancestry. But we do not possess the evidence that this Universal Common Ancestry actually occurred. But we do have evidence that Universal Common Design occurred because of the valid analogy between manmade and biological machines. Also, as Denton (a non-creationist genetics professor) pointed out 20 years ago ... the nested hierarchies that we see in nature are very similar to artificial (that is, man made) nested hierarchies.

Combine all this and more and you have very powerful evidence for a Super Intelligence out there somewhere who designed it all. Possibly this explains why some really bright thinkers like Antony Flew are coming around to this conclusion. Here's what he said in October of this year ...

Anthony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

*NOTE: I hold the belief that there is truly no fundamental difference between 'living' and 'non-living' machines, for example, between a butterfly and a watch. Both are made of elements from the same periodic table and both obey the same laws of physics and chemistry. There is no special 'woo woo' in the butterfly. The essential difference is simply degree of hi-techiness. In support of my view, notice the recent accomplishment of building a real live polio virus artificially which is indistinguishable from the natural version. Now I do believe there is some special 'woo woo' in humans, but this is a separate topic.

[Lucretius II]

So Dave IF, as you say you believe ,there is no actual difference between a butterfly and a watch and they are both "machines" ,then what does that make human beings ?
Mere automata as well ?
If not what other "laws of physics and chemistry " do we follow ?

[Zadok001]

I'd question the notion that traits are selected for. Rather, they are or are not selected against, which is quite different. It's the old success works. Failure does not. Those traits which do not lead to failure survive. That's what explains the existence and persistence of 'neutral' mutations.

I respectfully disagree. Certainly, some traits are subject to such negative pressures, but it seems self-evident to me that some observable traits can only reasonably be explained through positive selective pressure. Conveniently, someone's already brought up peacocks on this thread. Explain those tails in terms of negative selective pressure - What, ugly tails were selected against? I should think not. Rather, the pretty tails create a positive selective pressure. (If you disagree, I think you end up arguing that "pretty" is the default state, and "ugly" is selected against until there ain't no ugly left to go around. Which seems crazy.)

But you're far more knowledgeable than I am on this subject, so here I stand, awaiting evisceration. Don't spare my feelings. :-)

[ericmurphy]

Martin B ...

Something you said is very interesting ... You wrote

Quote:
He wrote a book entitled Theory of Self-reproducing Automata in which he argued that once we developed machines that could self-reproduce, then they could evolve.

I highlighted two very important words there. WE DEVELOPED. Do you see why this is important? Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution).

Several points here ...

1) No, I don't concede that my analogy is flawed. I believe it is appropriate as I hope you will soon see.

You can not concede it all you want, Dave, but it's not just "flawed." It's completely wrong.

The whole reason evolution works in the first place is because reproduction is not perfect. Every organism (and especially sexually-reproducing organisms) is different from its parents. This is not true of manufactured objects like watches. My Polar S720 is exactly the same as every other Polar S720 ever made. And, worse, there's no feedback mechanism by which any slight deviation from one S720 to another can be inherited by all subsequent S720s.

This is why your analogy is not just "flawed," but is in fact completely wrong.

But I was really hoping you'd give us a creationist explanation for nested hierarchies, Dave. I'm sad that you're not even going to attempt it. I was really looking forward to the ensuing hilarity.

[Zadok001]

Martin B ...

Something you said is very interesting ... You wrote

Quote:
He wrote a book entitled Theory of Self-reproducing Automata in which he argued that once we developed machines that could self-reproduce, then they could evolve.

I highlighted two very important words there. WE DEVELOPED. Do you see why this is important? Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution).

NEAT. I'm conceding this point for the sake of argument, because it's about to walk you into a brick wall. Ok, Dave, you've got the ball, now run with it. These machines would evolve, da? Microevolve, you say? Now, what exactly would prevent these machines from MACROevolving, given sufficient time? Let's say we made some imperfect self-replicating machines, and left them alone for a billion years. How much variation do you think you would see among those machines when you returned? Would it be describable exclusively as "micro" evolution? What would stop the machines from changing DRAMATICALLY through selection and replication?

2) You seem to contradict yourself when, on the one hand, you say that "autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process" yet on the other hand, you say 'that they couldn't even do so [evolve] in principle.' I ask you ... if you agree that "autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process" then what is so sophisticated about 'evolving' (microevolving that is) that human machines of the future couldn't do it?

Nothing. Machines could evolve. All it takes for evolution (literally, ALL IT TAKES) is imperfect replication and competition. Put those two environmental factors into a box, and you get evolution. Competition is inherent in any environment with limited resources, and all resources are hypothetically finite, so all you REALLY need is an imperfect replicator. So -

1. Make a machine that imperfectly self-replicates.
2. ??? (Evolution)
3. Profit.

The problem for you, of course, is to show how the world as we know it either A) Does not contain imperfect self-replicators, or B) Does not require competition for limited resources. If you don't concede one of those two points, you're doomed - Evolution is reality.

Microevolution (in both 'living' machines and 'non-living' machines* is nothing more than pre-programmed machine intelligence which allows the automaton to adapt to changing environments. Why would this be difficult to program into future man-made automatons? We're probably already doing it.

Yes, yes we are. And it amply provides sufficient evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution can and does occur in reality.

Dave, when you hit rock bottom, stop digging.

[Occam's Aftershave]

What's your sign davey?

He's a Feces.

[RAFH]

I'd question the notion that traits are selected for. Rather, they are or are not selected against, which is quite different. It's the old success works. Failure does not. Those traits which do not lead to failure survive. That's what explains the existence and persistence of 'neutral' mutations.

I respectfully disagree. Certainly, some traits are subject to such negative pressures, but it seems self-evident to me that some observable traits can only reasonably be explained through positive selective pressure. Conveniently, someone's already brought up peacocks on this thread. Explain those tails in terms of negative selective pressure - What, ugly tails were selected against? I should think not. Rather, the pretty tails create a positive selective pressure. (If you disagree, I think you end up arguing that "pretty" is the default state, and "ugly" is selected against until there ain't no ugly left to go around. Which seems crazy.)

But you're far more knowledgeable than I am on this subject, so here I stand, awaiting evisceration. Don't spare my feelings. :-)

I wouldn't say 'pretty' is a default state. Indeed, I doubt there is such a characteristic as 'pretty' in the natural world. It is a human concept, and, as such, its application to the natural world is a result of the anthropomorphic tendencies humans have. That we find beauty in the tail feathers of peacock is a result of our evolutionarily developed sense of patterns. Patterns are beautiful to us, the more complicated in detail and rich in color, yet still simple in organization (as in symmetry, concentricism, repetition) the more beautiful we find such patterns. These are all characteristics we are fascinated by. Which, by your argument would either make everything in existence for our appreciation or make us like peahens (whom this display is intended for).

What you see as 'pretty' is actually a correlating signal of fitness. Research shows the offspring of peacocks that have large colorful trains with pronounced 'eyes' are generally stronger and healthier. What we see as 'pretty', the hens see as 'fitter'.

And, yes, I'd argue the hens ignore the plain cock. They are selected out. Though I suppose that can be looked at the other way.

My thought is that the hens will mate regardless, opting out isn't an option. It's not like the hens will decide, "Oh, none of these blokes quite suits me, I'll sit this one out." No, it's like musical chairs, losers get eliminated, the winners are simply those that are left. The cocks strut and show their stuff, and the hens ignore the losers. This is the whole point of the strutting, the shaking and spreading of the trains. If you ain't showy enough, you get eliminated.

Like I said, I can see the argument from the other side, I just don't hold to it. Mostly because it is so commonly a matter of elimination. In most cases, winner takes all, showing doesn't count. When second gets a chance it's because top dog can't manage his load. Second gets seconds, if they are available.

[RAFH]

Martin B ...

Something you said is very interesting ... You wrote

I highlighted two very important words there. WE DEVELOPED. Do you see why this is important? Yes! Of course if WE develop self-reproducing machines, then they would be able to evolve (that is, in the narrow sense ... i.e. microevolution).

NEAT. I'm conceding this point for the sake of argument, because it's about to walk you into a brick wall. Ok, Dave, you've got the ball, now run with it. These machines would evolve, da? Microevolve, you say? Now, what exactly would prevent these machines from MACROevolving, given sufficient time? Let's say we made some imperfect self-replicating machines, and left them alone for a billion years. How much variation do you think you would see among those machines when you returned? Would it be describable exclusively as "micro" evolution? What would stop the machines from changing DRAMATICALLY through selection and replication?

2) You seem to contradict yourself when, on the one hand, you say that "autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process" yet on the other hand, you say 'that they couldn't even do so [evolve] in principle.' I ask you ... if you agree that "autoreplication isn't a highly sophisticated process" then what is so sophisticated about 'evolving' (microevolving that is) that human machines of the future couldn't do it?

Nothing. Machines could evolve. All it takes for evolution (literally, ALL IT TAKES) is imperfect replication and competition. Put those two environmental factors into a box, and you get evolution. Competition is inherent in any environment with limited resources, and all resources are hypothetically finite, so all you REALLY need is an imperfect replicator. So -

1. Make a machine that imperfectly self-replicates.
2. ??? (Evolution)
3. Profit.

The problem for you, of course, is to show how the world as we know it either A) Does not contain imperfect self-replicators, or B) Does not require competition for limited resources. If you don't concede one of those two points, you're doomed - Evolution is reality.

Microevolution (in both 'living' machines and 'non-living' machines* is nothing more than pre-programmed machine intelligence which allows the automaton to adapt to changing environments. Why would this be difficult to program into future man-made automatons? We're probably already doing it.

Yes, yes we are. And it amply provides sufficient evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution can and does occur in reality.

Dave, when you hit rock bottom, stop digging.

Bravo Zadok.

[RAFH]

What's your sign davey?

He's a Feces.

It's that sort of dark, lumpy, gaseous formation in the nether regions of the zodiac,

[Pappy Jack]

.....we do have evidence that Universal Common Design occurred because of the valid analogy between manmade and biological machines......

Ummm, call me dumb or just a heckler, but since when has an analogy (valid or otherwise) been considered to constitute evidence of something? That a bat's wing may be analogous biologically to a bird's wing and a pterodactyl's wing, for example, does not provide any evidence beyond wishful thinking that the similarity of function amongst the three animals means that they must have been designed.

You can make many useful analogies amongst otherwise unrelated things to emphasize or illustrate something about those thing. The comparison of the structure of an atom to a miniature solar system may be a useful way of introducing atomic theory in a simple fashion, but it is in no way evidence that an atom really is like a solar system in any meaningful way.

[Occam's Aftershave]

.....we do have evidence that Universal Common Design occurred because of the valid analogy between manmade and biological machines......

Ummm, call me dumb or just a heckler, but since when has an analogy (valid or otherwise) been considered to constitute evidence of something? That a bat's wing may be analogous biologically to a bird's wing and a pterodactyl's wing, for example, does not provide any evidence beyond wishful thinking that the similarity of function amongst the three animals means that they must have been designed.

You can make many useful analogies amongst otherwise unrelated things to emphasize or illustrate something about those thing. The comparison of the structure of an atom to a miniature solar system may be a useful way of introducing atomic theory in a simple fashion, but it is in no way evidence that an atom really is like a solar system in any meaningful way.

You get a rep for bringing it up here, but the fact is that point has been made to "Jesus" Hawkins about a hundred times before on many other boards, in 48 point font and screaming fluorescent colors.

ANALOGIES AREN'T REALITY DAVE

[RAFH]

.....we do have evidence that Universal Common Design occurred because of the valid analogy between manmade and biological machines......

Ummm, call me dumb or just a heckler, but since when has an analogy (valid or otherwise) been considered to constitute evidence of something? That a bat's wing may be analogous biologically to a bird's wing and a pterodactyl's wing, for example, does not provide any evidence beyond wishful thinking that the similarity of function amongst the three animals means that they must have been designed.

You can make many useful analogies amongst otherwise unrelated things to emphasize or illustrate something about those thing. The comparison of the structure of an atom to a miniature solar system may be a useful way of introducing atomic theory in a simple fashion, but it is in no way evidence that an atom really is like a solar system in any meaningful way.

Exactly, Pappy, an analogy is a tool for teaching, for explaining something. It is not a form of evidence.

What a fucking buffoon you are davey.

[ericmurphy]

I wonder how long it will be before Dave thinks it's safe to claim "as I have clearly demonstrated, special creation is a better explanation for nested hierarchies than evolution is."

[Faid]

Also, as Denton (a non-creationist genetics professor) pointed out 20 years ago ...

Now WHY'd you go and say that, Honest Dave? You know better than most of us that, when Denton had said that 20 years ago, he WAS a creationist.

Are you trying to mislead people? Well I never!

the nested hierarchies that we see in nature are very similar to artificial (that is, man made) nested hierarchies.

Oh look, it's the Denton quote again. One of Honest Dave's favorites. He posts it, a dozen people demolish it immediately, pointing out how Denton's example is flawed, they ask Honest Dave to address their points, Honest Dave ignores them and changes the subject. Then, much later, in another thread and/or forum, Honest Dave mentions the Denton example again, as if it was never beaten down.

Repeat ad nauseum.

How predictable you have become, Honest Dave.

[ericmurphy]

Especially after it's been pointed out to Dave, time after time, that the subjective nested hierarchies man-made artifacts can be sorted into are very different from the objective nested hierarchies living organisms sort into. With manufactured objects, if you change the order of sorting, the nested hierarchies change. With living organisms, if you change the order of sorting, the nested hierarchies remain the same.

[RAFH]

... ...
Combine all this and more and you have very powerful evidence for a Super Intelligence out there somewhere who designed it all. Possibly this explains why some really bright thinkers like Antony Flew are coming around to this conclusion. Here's what he said in October of this year ...

Anthony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

You know, davey, quoting a confused old man who has clearly reversed his statements on the issues a number of times over the past 6 or 7 years, often at the urging and counsel of unethical theists seeking to bolster their views is perhaps one of the more contemptible things you've done recently. I didn't think it was possible for my appraisal of you to sink any further, but you have made it possible. I get there is no depths to which you will not sink.

You are a fucking contemptible buffoon.

Revised views

On several occasions, apparently starting in 2001, rumours circulated claiming that Flew had converted from atheism. Flew refuted these rumours on the Secular Web website.[5] In 2003, he signed the Humanist Manifesto III.

In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Flew's friend and philosophical adversary Gary Habermas was published in Biola University's Philosophia Christi, with the title Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew agreed to this title.[1] According to the introduction, Flew informed Habermas in January 2004 that he had become a deist,[1] and the interview took place shortly thereafter. Then the text was amended by both participants over the following months prior to publication. In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated ("While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings."). Flew states that certain philosophical and scientific considerations had caused him to rethink his lifelong support of atheism.

Flew's conception of God as explained in the interview is limited to the idea of God as a first cause. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact. He is particularly hostile to Islam, and says it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[1]

Journalist Mark Oppenheimer suggests that Flew, now 84 years of age, has been suffering from a mild form of senile dementia for at least three or four years.[6]

[edit] Reaction and response

Flew has subsequently changed his position given in the Habermas interview as justification for his endorsing of deism. In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), a letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.".[7] Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

In another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." wrote Flew. He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter". (Although Dawkins has written on the subject, it is unclear whether Flew is aware of it or what he thinks of it - in "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," published in the 21 May 1992 issue of Nature, with Laurence Hurst) The work of physicist Gerald Schroeder had been influential in Flew's new belief, but Flew admitted to Carrier that he had not read any of the scientific critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to.

When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god". When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with "Certainly not", stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had abandoned his atheism or converted to Christianity.[8]

A letter on Darwinism and Theology which Flew published in the August/September 2004 issue of Philosophy Now magazine left the world hanging when it closed with, "Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’."[9]

But in 2005, when God and Philosophy was republished by Prometheus Books, the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs. The preface says the publisher and Flew went through a total of four versions (each extensively peer-reviewed) before coming up with one that satisfied them both. The result is an introduction, written in a distinctly detached third-person context, which raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition. Flew refrains from personally commenting on these issues, and basically says that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God.

1. A novel definition of "God" by Richard Swinburne
2. The case for the existence of the Christian God by Swinburne in the book Is There a God?
3. The Church of England's change in doctrine on the eternal punishment of Hell
4. The question of whether there was only one big bang and if time began with it
5. The question of multiple universes
6. The fine-tuning argument
7. The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for the development of living matter from non-living matter
8. The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for non-reproducing living matter developing into a living creature capable of reproduction
9. The concept of an Intelligent Orderer as explained in the book The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese
10. An extension of an Aristotelian/Deist concept of God that can be reached through natural theology, which was developed by David Conway.

In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005, Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument, and retracted his earlier claims that the origins of DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions:[10]

Q And certainly in America where you've been to lecture...
A Oh America, this is a very real phenomenon - oh yes. Part of Bush's second election success is due to this. And the unbelievers are absolutely furious, not believing that anyone with any intelligence could be anything but a Democratic voter.
Q What view do you take of what is happening in America - where presumably you're being hailed now as ... one of them?
A Well, too bad. [laughs] I'm not 'one of them'.

In late 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach intelligent design in the public schools.[11]

In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article reporting Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book.[12] The article provoked a public outcry, in which PZ Myers called Varghese "a contemptible manipulator."[13] Varghese, however, defended his actions.

from wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

I would also refer others to PZ Meyers 'Pharnygula':
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._exploitat.php

Again, davey, you are fucking contemptible buffoon. It's one thing to argue your case, to conjure up pure fantasy in your support, to lie and quote-mine, but it is an entirely different matter to take advantage of the infirmity of an old man. Then again, you lie to children as well, so what else should I expect.

FCB. Fucking Contemptible Buffoon.

[Pappy Jack]

.....we do have evidence that Universal Common Design occurred because of the valid analogy between manmade and biological machines......

Ummm, call me dumb or just a heckler, but since when has an analogy (valid or otherwise) been considered to constitute evidence of something? .....

You get a rep for bringing it up here, but the fact is that point has been made to "Jesus" Hawkins about a hundred times before on many other boards, in 48 point font and screaming fluorescent colors....

Yes, and including by myself. I have myself asked Dave on a number of occasions to give some indication of what he understands to constitute 'evidence'. He has never answered my question, but continues to demonstrate by his posts that he has no idea what the word 'evidence' means at all.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Ummm, call me dumb or just a heckler, but since when has an analogy (valid or otherwise) been considered to constitute evidence of something? .....

You get a rep for bringing it up here, but the fact is that point has been made to "Jesus" Hawkins about a hundred times before on many other boards, in 48 point font and screaming fluorescent colors....

Yes, and including by myself. I have myself asked Dave on a number of occasions to give some indication of what he understands to constitute 'evidence'. He has never answered my question, but continues to demonstrate by his posts that he has no idea what the word 'evidence' means at all.

He has his own AFDavinition of course. Remember his prime directive:

Afdave's First Law: All evidences for evolution are speculative. All speculations for creationism are evidential.

[Dave Hawkins]

How do you know that there isn't some process in Nature that can permit or even cause this? If there is such a process, would you like to know about it?

OK Let's break this down. You ask Well ... I don't know as in absolute certainty. But scientists have been trying to find out if such a process exists for many decades now and the search becomes ever more discouraging, so I'm not holding out hope. But yes, I'm all ears. If someone finally figures out how biological machines can create themselves with no pre-existing plan, then I'm sure they will win a Nobel. And this discovery will make me seriously question my belief in the existence of God. No question about it.

Um, Dave. It's been done. That's what Darwin did.

And geneticists have been fleshing out the detail ever since. Didn't you know that?

But it needn't lead you to question your belief in God. Why is it any less marvellous that God should have figured out a system that would run itself, rather than one that needed perpetual tinkering with? Seems to me it's the other way round.

Listen, Dave. Tonight, you and I will, in our own ways, celebrate the mystery of the incarnation. For you, it's about a story that happened in Bethlehem a couple of thousand years ago. For me, not so much. I don't think that story is very likely to have much basis in an actual event. But that doesn't matter. Both you and I will celebrate what we understand as the immanence of God - Emmanuel - God-With-Us. The difference between us is that your faith seems to depend on scientists leaving an explanatory gap in the natural world into which God can slip. For me the incarnation is simply the transfiguration of the natural world by the goodness and wonder we theists like to call the grace of God.

Have a very merry Christmas, Dave!

Cheers

Lizzie

Darwin did not do this. Darwin proposed a non-ID hypothesis for the Origin of Species. I don't think even evolutionary biologists pretend to assert that Darwin came up with a mechanism for how this actually occurred. Geneticists have been trying to come up with a mechanism ever since Darwin, but they have failed. This is why MacNeill says the "modern synthesis is dead." It didn't work. He's not giving up, though, which is why he goes on to say "long live the evolving synthesis" but is that any better? It is not as you will see from my upcoming posts. (Don't know exactly when I will get around to this topic. I have many urgent topics I want to discuss.)

As for the Incarnation, I hope you will not give up your search for the truth about it. I believe I have found it. I believe that the evidence -- scientific, literary, historical and other -- indicates that the Incarnation was, in fact, the Creator of the Universe ... the Second Person of the Godhead ... entering a human body. Strange, yes. Why did He do it? I can't fully answer that. But I think the evidence indicates that this is actually what happened.

[Febble]

OK Let's break this down. You ask Well ... I don't know as in absolute certainty. But scientists have been trying to find out if such a process exists for many decades now and the search becomes ever more discouraging, so I'm not holding out hope. But yes, I'm all ears. If someone finally figures out how biological machines can create themselves with no pre-existing plan, then I'm sure they will win a Nobel. And this discovery will make me seriously question my belief in the existence of God. No question about it.

Um, Dave. It's been done. That's what Darwin did.

And geneticists have been fleshing out the detail ever since. Didn't you know that?

But it needn't lead you to question your belief in God. Why is it any less marvellous that God should have figured out a system that would run itself, rather than one that needed perpetual tinkering with? Seems to me it's the other way round.

Listen, Dave. Tonight, you and I will, in our own ways, celebrate the mystery of the incarnation. For you, it's about a story that happened in Bethlehem a couple of thousand years ago. For me, not so much. I don't think that story is very likely to have much basis in an actual event. But that doesn't matter. Both you and I will celebrate what we understand as the immanence of God - Emmanuel - God-With-Us. The difference between us is that your faith seems to depend on scientists leaving an explanatory gap in the natural world into which God can slip. For me the incarnation is simply the transfiguration of the natural world by the goodness and wonder we theists like to call the grace of God.

Have a very merry Christmas, Dave!

Cheers

Lizzie

Darwin did not do this. Darwin proposed a non-ID hypothesis for the Origin of Species. I don't think even evolutionary biologists pretend to assert that Darwin came up with a mechanism for how this actually occurred.

This is Darwin's proposed mechanism for the Origin of Species:

Organisms are replicated with modification; those modifications that happen to be able to replicate more are replicated more.

It's so simple, it fits into a single sentence. And it works. You can even set up toy systems on a computer, and see it in action - speciation occurring before your very eyes.

Geneticists have been trying to come up with a mechanism ever since Darwin, but they have failed.

The extraorinary thing is that Darwin proposed what was essentially the algorithm - geneticists discoved the code in which the algorithm is actualised. The replication with modification turned out to be the imperfect replication of an actual molecule that specified the characteristics of the organism that affected its chance of replication.

Saying black is white does not make it so. Darwin found the algorithm. geneticists found the code.

This is why MacNeill says the "modern synthesis is dead." It didn't work. He's not giving up, though, which is why he goes on to say "long live the evolving synthesis" but is that any better?

Dave, please read The Relativity of Wrong. I am not exactly sure what MacNeill meant (and he is not, as has been pointed out, even a practising scientist, but a lecturer in science education), but what is true is that the details are being constantly fleshed out. For example, we now know that genetic drift alone can result in evolutionary change. We also know the kinds of environmental factors that affect the rate of evolutionary change, the factors that drive things like mutation rate, the role of regulatory genes, the role of things like horizontal gene transfer. Nonetheless, Darwin's beautiful simple idea remains at the heart of biology.

It is not as you will see from my upcoming posts. (Don't know exactly when I will get around to this topic. I have many urgent topics I want to discuss.)

hmmm.

As for the Incarnation, I hope you will not give up your search for the truth about it. I believe I have found it. I believe that the evidence -- scientific, literary, historical and other -- indicates that the Incarnation was, in fact, the Creator of the Universe ... the Second Person of the Godhead ... entering a human body. Strange, yes. Why did He do it? I can't fully answer that. But I think the evidence indicates that this is actually what happened.

I never give up searching. That's why I don't run away from data.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Pappy Jack]

.... I believe that the evidence -- scientific, literary, historical and other -- indicates that the Incarnation was, in fact, the Creator of the Universe ... the Second Person of the Godhead ... entering a human body. Strange, yes. Why did He do it? I can't fully answer that. But I think the evidence indicates that this is actually what happened.

If you have evidence beyond the literary that a divine incarnation took place in the Middle East some 2k years ago, I am sure many here would be interested in evaluating it.