Our Websites

Oxymoron: “Evolutionary Thinking”

I have always gotten a kick out of oxymorons!  Webster defines oxymoron as “a combination of contradictory or incongruous words: something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.”

Words or phrases such as:

  • Act naturally
  • Found missing
  • Resident alien
  • Advanced basic
  • Think out loud
  • Genuine imitation
  • Same difference
  • Vegetarian meatball
  • Almost exactly
  • We’re alone
  • Thank God I’m an atheist
  • Whole piece
  • Microsoft works

Ok, I know that last one will offend some of you that haven’t made the transition to Mac yet, but it is amazing how many things we say every day that don’t really make sense.

One oxymoron that I hear on a regular basis is “Evolutionary Thinking.” You might not get it at first, but that is an oxymoron! If evolution were true, then we are nothing more than matter in motion. Ideas and thoughts are not really ideas or thoughts at all, they are simply chemical reactions that occur in our brain. Therefore, we do not really think, we simply react. The very idea of thought itself is contrary to the concept of evolution, but is consistent with a Creator who wants to have a relationship with His creation. Without thought, we would be robots unable to give praise and glory of our own free will to our creator.

,

Leave46 Responses to testOxymoron: “Evolutionary Thinking”

  1. Michael Fisher February 18, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    I truly pity your ontological and logical confusion.

    In five sentences you’ve managed to make so many epistemological, ontological and logical screw ups it would take a book to untangle.

    Thoughts are “just chemical reactions in our brain” in the same way that, oh, (and this is speaking of the logical form of the argument, so try not to get distracted) an airplane is “just a bunch of metal bits stuck together”.

    Or try this analogy which is even more apt:

    What is a computer program?

    It’s not the humanly readable representation of “instructions” displayed on a monitor or printed out in hard copy. That doesn’t get anything done.

    It can’t be the magnetic field changes on a hard drive, that’s just a bunch of microscopic magnetic field changes that just sit there.

    And inside the computer ALL you have is a bunch of transistors, and all most of THEM do is turn “on” or “off”, and then only one at a time, so no place for a “program” there.

    Yet we write programs and without out programs we couldn’t be having this conversation.

    So where is the program?

    If you can ever understand that question – a matter in some doubt – you will understand just how, yes, stupid, your “argument” is.

    I look forward to the inchoate, incoherent, poorly spelled and badly punctuated replies.

  2. Duane February 18, 2011 at 9:07 am #

    Not sure what this has to do with evolution. Thoughts and ideas ARE simply chemical reactions in our brains. Why does that not qualify as thinking? Are you under the impression that thoughts and ideas exist independently of your brain? What do you think the brain is for? Insulation? Why don’t we remove your brain, Eric, and see how well you think. Eric, just when I think you can’t possibly be more obtuse, you come up with another winner.

  3. Jay Liverstitch February 18, 2011 at 9:46 am #

    Eric said If evolution were true, then we are nothing more than matter in motion. Ideas and thoughts are not really ideas or thoughts at all, they are simply chemical reactions that occur in our brain.

    Exactly what, Eric, do you believe a “thought” to be?

    According to Meriam Webster’s, a “thought” is “an individual act or product of thinking”, and I doubt you would dispute that. I also doubt you would dispute that the act of “thinking” is performed in the brain, or even that the brain operates by the firing of electrical impulses in synapses between neurons. Electricity, I dare say you would agree, is the transfer of electrons and emission of photons which carry the electromagnetic force.

    What exactly, in the above scenario do you wish to dispute? If nothing, then what about the above would you consider not be be “matter in motion”?

    I simply don’t see the conflict. Thoughts, and ideas, don’t cease to be simply because they can be explained, even if that explanation is purely naturalistic. What you claim here is analogous to claiming that economies aren’t real, because they can be explained as simply “people interacting”. Economies, and thoughts, are emergent entities that arise out of the collaboration of many small parts, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    (You’ve touched on what philosophers call “the mind body problem”, and I’d like to take another post to address that)

    Jay

  4. andrew Ryan February 18, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    Friendly fire,
    Military intelligence,
    Fundamentalist thought,

    … And Christian science.

  5. Jay Liverstitch February 18, 2011 at 11:07 am #

    Eric,

    It seems in this post that you are essentially claiming that the “mind” is in some way separate from the physical “body” or the “brain”. I assume you attribute this separation to either the “soul” or “spirit” if you believe those to be distinct from one another, as some Christians do.

    I am, admittedly, reading into your words quite a bit, so if I’m trailing off into beliefs you don’t hold, I apologize. I’d still like to address these notions though, as I believe they are relevant to the conversation, whether you personally hold them or not.

    There are a few major problems with this notion that I can think of and I’ll try to address the two that are most obvious to me.

    1) What is the connection, the “interface” if you will, between the soul/spirit and the physical brain?

    I’m sure you will concede that the brain serves many (or perhaps even most?) functions in cognition, so I’m left asking “What function does the soul then serve?”. Is it responsible for our thoughts and ideas? If so, how and in what way is that idea then conveyed to our physical brains so that it can be expressed by our physical bodies? Is there a spiritual USB2.0 port somewhere in our cerebellum which receives some sort of signal from the spirit to guide our brains in what thoughts to manifest?

    This idea seems far more problematic to me than the explanation that thoughts, ideas and emotions are natural phenomenon that emerge from natural processes in and solely in the brain. In essence, the soul answers no questions, and only poses new, unanswered ones. Thoughts and emotions, or at least their physical manifestations in the brains, can be observed using brain imaging equipments. That is, thoughts can be seen to correlate with physical actions in an animal’s brain, relegating the soul to some nebulous and undefined role. It’s simply not necessary or useful in explaining cognition.

    2)What is the role of the soul in other, high functioning animals, if any.

    This might be best expressed with a real world example from this morning. My dog Penny (who is btw, adorable) came into my office a few hours ago carrying her frisbee, nudged open the door with her nose, sat in beside me and began to whine. I think we could all agree that my dog is “thinking” in some sense of the word. Her thought process must’ve gone something like this “Sometimes when I take this frisbee to him, he goes with me outside and throws it for me to catch. Maybe he’ll do it now”. Admittedly this may be much more detailed than the thought in her head, but that would pretty much be the human equivalent.

    So, now to the point, what was that process in my dog? Was that not a “thought”? I think we can agree that her brain affected her body to perform an action which she hoped would result in her desired outcome. She thought bringing me the frisbee might goad me into playing with her. So, assuming you believe don’t dogs possess souls or spirits, was her “thought” entirely “matter in motion”? And if so, why would you think ours are any different?

    The idea of a spirit or soul that drives our physical bodies is problematic in that it (assuming you believe humans are the only creatures that possess them) would only explain OUR thoughts. But other animals, many even more so than the example of my dog above, exhibit nearly identical thought processes to ourselves, and even exhibit the same physical brain actions we can see through MRI, EEG and other methods. Arbitrarily attributing only our thoughts and feelings to spirits raises the question of “then what in the world is occurring in chimps, macaques, and terriers?”. To claim it’s fundamentally different poses a whole new set of problems and unanswered questions.

    I think in order to make any sense of this notion of some separation between soul and brain, I think you would have to concede that lowland gorillas and my pet turtle also have souls/spirits. But I doubt you’d go that far.

    For some interesting discussion on a related topic, google “Dan Dennet free will” and watch some of his youtube videos. I don’t agree with everything he says in them, but he does give some thought provoking insights.

    P.S. Jennifer Preston, I assume you don’t think this post is as wonderful as my others and this is where you start disagreeing with me. But hey, every romance has it’s rocky stages. We’ll get through it, I promise. (sorry, couldn’t resist :-) )

  6. John Poe February 18, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    I can’t believe you evilutionist are missing the point. Intelligence didn’t evolve any more than a computer programed itself. Design implicates a designer.

  7. Michael Deas February 18, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    Most of these responses require thought, and quite alot of knee jerks, which totaly prove your point son! Good job Eric, hug yer Mama fer us!!!!!!!

  8. Rod Naugler February 18, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    I don’t think Eric’s comment is conveying that thought is independent of the chemical process but that in an environment created entirely by chance, thought lacks something essential, a purpose.

    To borrow from Michael’s post, what delineates the difference between random bits in a computer’s memory and a program? They both hold data, they both can create changes in the processor if used, they can both be represented in various display medium. The difference is purpose. In a program, the bits are organized toward a purpose. They each are part of a greater whole that eventually performs a task desired by the user.

    If life originated by chance, then there is no ultimate purpose. Much like random bits forming a program inside a computer, they would still be useless because they don’t serve a purpose. What if the bits inside your computer randomly formed themselves into the entirety of Microsoft Word. If you, the user, didn’t exist, it would still be useless and meaningless.

    Eric isn’t saying that thought is independent of the chemical reactions, just that without a purpose, it is merely (just) a chemical reaction.

    Rod

  9. James Williams February 19, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    Congratulations Eric! It appears you’ve succeeded in getting over 2800 supposed “atheists” to join your conversations. Hopefully, the more they read the more they will come to the same conclusion I did, evolutionism just doesn’t make sense. Keep up the Good work my Brother! Peace and love in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

  10. Jeff Brace February 19, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    You know you are winning the battle, at least in small ways, when you can get so many together to rage against God. Thanks for hanging in there guys. God is not mocked, and neither are His children. God Bless !!!

  11. Randy Miller February 19, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

    Good point john poe,
    “Intelligence didn’t evolve any more than a computer programed itself. Design implies a designer.”
    ====================
    Rod Naugler’s post really “capture’s the point of the whole discussion” and is also worth repeating,
    “If life originated by chance, then there is no ultimate purpose. Much like random bits forming a program inside a computer, they would still be useless because they don’t serve a purpose. What if the bits inside your computer randomly formed themselves into the entirety of Microsoft Word. If you, the user, didn’t exist, it would still be useless and meaningless.
    Eric isn’t saying that thought is independent of the chemical reactions, just that without a purpose, it is merely (just) a chemical reaction.”
    ====================
    Evolutionism cannot account for …
    -The origin of life
    or
    -The purpose of life
    ====================
    Thanks john & rod!!!

  12. Kenneth Tyner February 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

    I have another one.

    “constant speed” of light. How can light, which travels a varying speeds be called “constant speed”?

    Do your brilliant scientist not know how the discern the difference between constant speed and average speed of a round trip?

    Aren’t these the same geniuses that can’t figure out the “Unifying Field Theory”?

    Yet, they know that evolution, which they have never observed, happened. ROFL. Talk about being wise in your own conceit.

    By the way; I have empirically proven that the speed of light is not a constant, and answered the dilemma to the “unifying field theory”, if anyone is interested.

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=10150107749338577&id=1361589526

  13. Alex M February 19, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    @James Williams

    Oh the narrowsightedness to think that if something “just doesn’t make sense” then it’s wrong.
    I’m glad all the engineers, physicists and doctors don’t feel that way about nature, lest no progress ever be made

  14. Jack Napper February 19, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

    So rather than post an argument in support of your position you’d taken to simple provocation?

    The sad thing is that not very long ago you submitting a whiney rambling about the fictional childishness of “evolutionists” (Name Calling vs Fact). When I read stuff like this I don’t think “wow what an interesting read”. Instead I think “Eric, wow, what a tool”.

    One more thing…

    YOUTUBE: Noah’s Flood – a theory in crisis

  15. Jim Olson February 20, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    I would be interested to know why I can’t find any reference to the commercial and intellectual exploitation of the electro-magnetic spectrum in the bible, or any other religious texts which purport to teach the word of god?

  16. Carl M February 20, 2011 at 7:06 pm #

    @ Rod Naugler

    but that in an environment created entirely by chance,

    Strawman argument. The environment is both random and deterministic.

    thought lacks something essential, a purpose.

    Unsubstantiated assertion. Does day-dreaming have a purpose?

    If life originated by chance, then there is no ultimate purpose.

    It does not follow that the nature of the initiation of life is the only determination of its “ultimate purpose”. Lack of “ultimate purpose” does not prevent the existance of intermediary purposeful goals.

    Much like random bits forming a program inside a computer, they [thoughts] would still be useless because they don’t serve a purpose.

    Thoughts are very important daily operation of said organism. Personally, I think that is a very good purpose.

  17. Carl M February 20, 2011 at 7:10 pm #

    @ James Williams

    It appears you’ve succeeded in getting over 2800 supposed “atheists”

    2800? What is that number based upon?

  18. Carl M February 21, 2011 at 12:45 am #


    @ James Williams

    It appears you’ve succeeded in getting over 2800 supposed “atheists”

    2800? What is that number based upon?

    I’ll answer my own question, perhaps JW was talking about the site poll that somebody has just crashed. Word to the wise, never believe an internet poll.

  19. Carl M February 21, 2011 at 2:03 am #

    Hey Eric

    In a previous blog you said the question of origins couldn’t be studied scientifically (most respondent disagreed).

    As that is your position why didn’t you put the phrase Creation Science on the list?

  20. Stephen Holshouser February 21, 2011 at 9:02 am #

    Duane, (continued from They’re both religions thread)

    When asked to give your belief on the origin of life you said;
    “Go over to talkorigins or read a book by a non-apologist. Read something that YOU DISAGREE WITH. It would take far too long to explain 150 years of science to someone whose beliefs can be fully represented in a child’s storybook.”

    Translation; “I have no idea how life could have started without a Creator; I just believe it happened naturally by faith. I bet someone else has a good theory you can read. However, if I cut and paste a theory here for everyone to read, I’m afraid the obvious impossibilities will be pointed out.”

    Yes, I’ve seen the theories before; How that a planet made entirely of cooled-down, non-living rock somehow became “rich with organic and pre-biotic material” and somehow this “pre-biotic” material (that came from the rock, correct?) somehow formed into life even when testable science has proven that life cannot form with or without oxygen. The only scenario that they can even imagine that could have created life is highly controlled, protected and perfectly orchestrated to bring it about (using rock particles). Then, to top it all off, they still can’t even begin to do it in the most advanced lab in the world, with the best technological equipment in the world, with the smartest, most tax-funded evolutionists in the world! Yet, still… somehow, some way, long ago and far away, it MUST have happened. How can you even begin to think this is not the epitome of foolishness?

    Seriously, you can drone on for page after page with blasphemy, but can’t even come up with ONE paragraph to describe your belief? Maybe if you just take a few more shots at the Genesis account and Christianity you will be able to ease your mind and block out reality a bit longer.

  21. Stephen Holshouser February 21, 2011 at 9:38 am #

    Duane, (part 2 cont. from they’re both religions)

    “If your religion or its proponents can not accurately describe reality, why should I trust them to describe the “Great Beyond”? Tell me. If there really was a God that loved us and wanted us to know Him, why did He reveal it to 1 or 2 people and hope the word got out. Why did he use text, of which we have no original versions which survives in copies of copies of translations of copies, which show signs of redaction and alteration, in languages that died out? You can’t accept current reliable, testable science but I’m supposed to take the word of ancient accounts from a pre-scientific credulous age that believed in witches and accepted slavery and thought that rape victims are guilty if they don’t cry out loud enough? I’m supposed to take as literal Word of God stories that don’t even agree with itself?”

    Duane, the Lord God is working all things after the counsel of His own sovereign will. He has the might and right to do whatever He wills with what He has made. Who are you to question Him? He has the right to communicate or not to communicate with His creation. He can use whatever means He wishes to reveal Himself to us. The transmission process of the written Word is far above any other ancient document and is reliable and perfectly acceptable. It is truly amazing grace that He has chosen to reveal Himself and salvation to ANY rebel. He has chosen to reveal Himself more to some than others… He is good, just and has the right to do so. However, ALL of His creatures have been in immersed in His creation, which is one of the most powerful witnesses of His existence. You, especially, are without excuse before God because you have been told time and time again. The position you currently hold is to thumb your nose at the oncoming train as you stand in the middle of the tracks, when you are commanded to be onboard and enjoying the ride. You better be right about your rock-to-human religion which you’re unable to even describe!

    When you stand before Him on Judgment Day and say “I didn’t think you made me, God!” If He asks you, “Well, where did you think you came from?” You better have a better response than, “Go over to talkorigins…”

  22. Kenneth Tyner February 21, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    Jim Olson February 20th at 2:47 pm

    I would be interested to know why I can’t find any reference to the commercial and intellectual exploitation of the electro-magnetic spectrum in the bible, or any other religious texts which purport to teach the word of god?

    Jim, I don’t understand your reference to “exploitation”. The EM wave field is what we call “light”. In Genesis God said “let their be light”. Since we now know that all which exists is do to light. All things are formed by light. All things are held together by light. How did Moses know, 3500 years ago, that light had to come first? That sounds like Moses knew something, 3500 years ago, that took scientist the past 2500 years to finally figure out. The bible is indeed scientifically advanced.

  23. Jennifer Preston February 21, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    Randy Miller said:
    “Evolutionism cannot account for …
    -The origin of life
    or
    -The purpose of life”

    The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn’t try to. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on Earth. It explains why koalas are only present in Australia, why Kiwis (the bird not the fruit) are only present in New Zealand and why there are so many different types of butterflies and moths. Nowhere in the theory does it try to explain how life came from non-living material. Nowhere in the theory does it try to explain the purpose of life either. In fact absolutely nowhere in the theory does it mention whether or not there is a God. Nowhere in the theory does it mention anything about the Big Bang. Evolution by natural selection doesn’t care how the Earth got here, or how the life got here, only that it exists.

    Kenneth Tyner wrote:
    ““constant speed” of light. How can light, which travels a varying speeds be called “constant speed”? ”

    Nobody is saying that the speed of light is constant. Only that it has a maximum speed level. The speed of light can be slowed down. But I doubt you’d be able to make it go faster that 186,000 miles per second. Why does it have a maximum speed level? Because photons, particles of light, are massless so it has no option but to travel at the fastest speed possible. This is going into the realm of Quantumn Electrodynamics (QED) to which I shall point you to do some reading by Richard Feynman.
    I know you young Earth creationists like to use the argument that the maximum speed of light has not slowed down, but to cram a 13.73 billion year old universe into 6-10 thousand years, the maximum speed of light would still need to be slowing down now, and unfortunately the maximum speed of light has been at 186,000 miles per second for a good 60 years now. The reason it appeared faster 100 years ago is because our measuring equipement for the maximum speed of light is more accurate now than it was then. Nowadays all you need is a microwave. I’ll let you lot google that yourselves.

  24. andrew Ryan February 21, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    Stephen, an all knowing God should no exactly what evidence would be required and what method of delivery would be needed to convince Duanne. So why write it just in a book in a language few people speak? One must conclude he does not WANT Duanne to believe, in which case, who are you to question God’s will?

  25. andrew Ryan February 21, 2011 at 1:17 pm #

    Stephen: “When you stand before Him on Judgment Day and say “I didn’t think you made me, God!” If He asks you, “Well, where did you think you came from?” You better have a better response than, “Go over to talkorigins…”

    And if you’re in front of Allah, and he’s saying “I put it all so clearly in the Koran!”, are you just going to shrug and point to CSE?

  26. Mindy Newell February 21, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    Wow, a lot of chemical reactions going on here. “Come let us reason together”. Is reason a chemical reaction or is that a unique by-product of the chemical process?

  27. Carl M February 21, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    “pre-biotic” material (that came from the rock, correct?)

    No

  28. Duane February 22, 2011 at 3:05 am #

    @Stephen Holshouser February 21st at 9:02 am

    Duane, (continued from They’re both religions thread)

    When asked to give your belief on the origin of life you said;
    “Go over to talkorigins or read a book by a non-apologist. Read something that YOU DISAGREE WITH. It would take far too long to explain 150 years of science to someone whose beliefs can be fully represented in a child’s storybook.”

    Translation; “I have no idea how life could have started without a Creator; I just believe it happened naturally by faith. I bet someone else has a good theory you can read. However, if I cut and paste a theory here for everyone to read, I’m afraid the obvious impossibilities will be pointed out.”

    Yes, that’s it. I’m afraid the guy who believes that the rib woman with the talking snake and the tree with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is actual history will pwn me. You are a grown man. You were taught a fairy tale as a child and you still believe it. Do you also believe babies came from storks, or in Santa Claus? I ask you again, can you objectively see why we find the story so ludicrous? But, no. I’m not going to cut and paste whole websites that are easy to find. I’ll leave you to tilt at windmills of your own making. It amuses me to watch you guys get so indignant at a concept you basically invented yourself.

    Yes, I’ve seen the theories before; How that a planet made entirely of cooled-down, non-living rock somehow became “rich with organic and pre-biotic material” and somehow this “pre-biotic” material (that came from the rock, correct?) somehow formed into life even when testable science has proven that life cannot form with or without oxygen. The only scenario that they can even imagine that could have created life is highly controlled, protected and perfectly orchestrated to bring it about (using rock particles). Then, to top it all off, they still can’t even begin to do it in the most advanced lab in the world, with the best technological equipment in the world, with the smartest, most tax-funded evolutionists in the world! Yet, still… somehow, some way, long ago and far away, it MUST have happened. How can you even begin to think this is not the epitome of foolishness?

    What is it with you people and rocks? Especially when you preach that we were made from (pixie?) dust, it’s disingenuous to ridicule evolution as saying we came from rocks. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. None of these are living materials, nor are they rocks. Also, what is this obsession with origins? Science is looking into it. We’re talking about something that happened over 3,000,000,000 years ago. It’s only been 150 years or so since we accepted it wasn’t poofed into existence, so give it some time. Regardless, we know it wasn’t your storm god, nor was it Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, or any of the millions of gods mankind has invented in the infancy of the species.

    Seriously, you can drone on for page after page with blasphemy, but can’t even come up with ONE paragraph to describe your belief? Maybe if you just take a few more shots at the Genesis account and Christianity you will be able to ease your mind and block out reality a bit longer.

    Blasphemy? Did I hurt your God’s feelings? Blasphemy? Some random dude on the internet who has the nerve to question this nonsense is blasphemy while Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn and their ilk are still on television defrauding thousands (of those who can least afford it) in the name of Jesus, while priests are raping children while their superiors just move them from parish to parish, while regular everyday Christian folks (not some dictator) burned 1000s over the centuries (and are still doing it in Christian influenced Africa) for being witches is NOT blasphemy? Did you know that YOU are committing Blasphemy against the Old Testament Yahveh and Allah by claiming a human being is God? But I digress. I’m not going to get into a cut and paste war. If you object so strenuously to a concept, it is up to you to actually find out what that concept truly is (and I told you where to look), rather than rail against a strawman version of it. What I see you rail against (rocks and so forth) proves to me that you haven’t seen the theories before, only what Kent Hovind has presented as the theories (“grandpa rock”). Check out Youtube. There’s dozens of videos that refute Hovind line by line. But the Hovinds can’t handle criticism so they try to remove it. Ever do an archive search on the Hovind site? They got so tired of having to revise their lies that they removed this site from the internet archival sites. If they offer the truth, what do they have to hide?

    “If your religion or its proponents can not accurately describe reality, why should I trust them to describe the “Great Beyond”? Tell me. If there really was a God that loved us and wanted us to know Him, why did He reveal it to 1 or 2 people and hope the word got out. Why did he use text, of which we have no original versions which survives in copies of copies of translations of copies, which show signs of redaction and alteration, in languages that died out? You can’t accept current reliable, testable science but I’m supposed to take the word of ancient accounts from a pre-scientific credulous age that believed in witches and accepted slavery and thought that rape victims are guilty if they don’t cry out loud enough? I’m supposed to take as literal Word of God stories that don’t even agree with itself?”

    Duane, the Lord God is working all things after the counsel of His own sovereign will. He has the might and right to do whatever He wills with what He has made. Who are you to question Him? He has the right to communicate or not to communicate with His creation. He can use whatever means He wishes to reveal Himself to us. The transmission process of the written Word is far above any other ancient document and is reliable and perfectly acceptable. It is truly amazing grace that He has chosen to reveal Himself and salvation to ANY rebel. He has chosen to reveal Himself more to some than others… He is good, just and has the right to do so. However, ALL of His creatures have been in immersed in His creation, which is one of the most powerful witnesses of His existence. You, especially, are without excuse before God because you have been told time and time again. The position you currently hold is to thumb your nose at the oncoming train as you stand in the middle of the tracks, when you are commanded to be onboard and enjoying the ride. You better be right about your rock-to-human religion which you’re unable to even describe!

    When you stand before Him on Judgment Day and say “I didn’t think you made me, God!” If He asks you, “Well, where did you think you came from?” You better have a better response than, “Go over to talkorigins…”

    Um. No. This God of yours has an outright DUTY communicate with us directly if He is going to hold us to an eternal punishment for finite crimes (or those of some ancestor). If your God is going to send me to Hell for not believing, then He has the DUTY to tell me this Himself and not rely on 2500 year old folklore written in ancient languages that died out, that only survives in copies of copies by anonymous authors, in a form that is just as conducive to outright fiction. Am I supposed to care that the copies are more ubiquitous than other ancient documents? I’m not expected to bow down and genuflect to those other documents. If your documents are supposed to have some extra significance, then you need to prove that they do. If they are indeed the actual words of God (at least the Quran has the decency to portray itself as being dictated by God rather than be a book of folklore, history, rules, poems, etc. later exclaimed to be inspired), then why didn’t this all powerful being make any effort to preserve it accurately? Thousands of years old anecdotes written in obsolete languages on media that doesn’t survive without alterations and errors is not the way to communicate Truth and any God worth worshiping should know this. Regardless, what is in those texts is so grotesque that God is not worthy of worship anyway. You worship a petty jealous god that would just as soon smite someone as talk to them, indeed, the vast majority of interactions God has with humans in the Bible is killing them or ordering them to be killed not to mention His weird obsession with foreskins.

    No, we don’t have absolute proof of the origins of life. We understand the chemistry of life processes and we have traced them back and formed a phylogenetic tree of life. Through DNA and other morphological research, we can see where lifeforms branched off from common ancestors. We still even have remnants of ancient duplications and transcription errors and retroviruses (pseudogenes) that have passed down from ancient species into modern descendants. If we can determine when these pseudogenes arose, and could thus fix its origin to a particular position on the accepted evolutionary “tree,”we can then predict that the same processed pseudogene should be found in modern species that derive from that point on the tree and not in any other branches. And this is the case. Our inability to synthesize Vitamin C is a good example.

    But again, why is there such an obsession with the origins? It’s because it’s all you have. A fairytale that can’t explain the obvious changes in life over time but offers unprovable answers to questions of origins and the afterlife. You have a world view based upon an ancient superstition that has been so pernicious because your church elders made it a SIN to question them. When scientists started ignoring church doctrines (such as against dissection of dead bodies) we started making progress in the sciences.

    Do I want to see religion outlawed? No. What I want is a world that outgrows its need for religion like a child outgrows his attachment to his binky.

  29. Kenneth Tyner February 22, 2011 at 9:52 am #

    Jennifer Preston stated:
    “Nobody is saying that the speed of light is constant. Only that it has a maximum speed level. The speed of light can be slowed down. But I doubt you’d be able to make it go faster that 186,000 miles per second. Why does it have a maximum speed level? Because photons, particles of light, are massless so it has no option but to travel at the fastest speed possible. This is going into the realm of Quantumn Electrodynamics (QED) to which I shall point you to do some reading by Richard Feynman.”

    Jennifer, there is a reason the speed of light is called a “constant”; because that is what is believed and claimed. Ever hear of E=MC2? “C” is the constant.

    The constant is based on the measurement of a round trip average speed, over a limited distance. Average speed and constant speed are not the same thing.

    The greater the temperature of the star emitting EM, the faster light will travel, followed by attenuation (slowing down). The maximum speed of light has never been measured, nor can it be measured.

  30. Jim Olson February 22, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    @ Kenneth Tyner I was pretty sure my use of the word exploitation would bring a big daddy vengeful and judgemental god proponent with a narrow understanding of the English language out of the woodwork. If two ten year old girls set up a lemonade stand at the 37th parallel on July 30th that’s exploitation. I don’t know who you are referring to when you use the word “we” but the we that I am familiar with don’t agree with, or accept as fact all those things you mention that your” we” believes about what light is or does. Just answer the question, Look! over here! isn’t gonna cut it.

  31. Stephen Holshouser February 22, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    “Stephen, an all knowing God should no exactly what evidence would be required and what method of delivery would be needed to convince Duanne.”

    Agreed. Is God trying to save every last individual or all His elect? If there are some people He is trying to save and cannot, He’s unable to save anyone at all. He’s obligated to no one, but merciful to anyone who comes to Him.

    “So why write it just in a book in a language few people speak?”

    Last time I checked, it is written in almost every language.

    “One must conclude he does not WANT Duanne to believe, in which case, who are you to question God’s will?”

    No, God’s revealed will is that Duane, you, and everyone else repent and believe the gospel… to turn from your sin and self-rule and trust in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ who perfectly fulfilled all righteousness and took the penalty for sin on behalf of all those who believe on Him. Through God’s Word, the witness of creation, your own conscience, and the testimony of believers, you will be utterly and hopelessly without excuse… I pray that it doesn’t come to that for you… It certainly doesn’t have to.

    “And if you’re in front of Allah, and he’s saying “I put it all so clearly in the Koran!”, are you just going to shrug and point to CSE?”

    Would I not be accepted by Allah for following the Bible?

    Sura 5:68 (Al-Maida) – “Say: ‘People of the Book (Christians and Jews), you stand for nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord.”

    Sura 2:62 (Al- Baqara) – “Believers, Jews, Christians and Sabaeans – whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does what is right – shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or regret.”

    May God bless you, andrew

  32. Kenneth Tyner February 22, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    Jim, do you not believe that the EM spectrum is light? When God said “let there be light”, he brought forth the EM spectrum, gravity, strong and weak force. They are all the same thing. That’s because light attenuates, and therefore travels at different speeds.

  33. Michael Deas February 22, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    Camels are becoming “endangered” and there seems to be too many gnats!!!!!!!
    I believed the lie at one time, and wished that instead of spending research dollars on cloning kittens and sheep, they should concentrate their efforts on creating an airbourne virus that attacks the reproductive system of those with an IQ of 100 or lower, because I hated dealing with stupid people. Then a stranger told me, after I went on a screaming red faced rant on lobotomized automotive engineers, that he knew of someone with the same feelings. Adolf Hitler!
    Pride will get you every time!! I dare the detractors on this blog to test God and ask him to show himself to you! He will never fail!!!!!!!

  34. Geno Castagnoli February 22, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner
    The greater the temperature of the star emitting EM, the faster light will travel, followed by attenuation (slowing down).
    ####
    Geno:
    Nope. The light travels at the same velocity. The increased energy due to the higher temperature is in the increased frequency of the light… not its velocity. Hotter stars are blue and cooler ones are red.
    ####

    Kenneth:
    The maximum speed of light has never been measured, nor can it be measured.
    ###
    Geno:
    When we say the speed of light is a constant, that means it’s constant in a vacuum. When light passes through something that has density (water, glass, even air) it slows slightly.

    There have been experiments in which light has been stopped and one I know of using cesium gas in which light appears to have reached the destination before it was emitted from the source. However, since interstellar space is a vacuum there is no reason to consider a significant change in “c.”

    In fact, in the 8/02 issue of the journal “Nature,” Davies et. al. did establish the speed of light had changed since it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth. The change is less than 0.001%, but that didn’t keep creationists from making a lot of noise about it. The way I put the situation is: 0.001% down, only 199,999,999.999% to go. I’m not exactly shaking in my boots over this one.

    Even AIG lists that one as an argument creationists should avoid.

  35. Jennifer Preston February 23, 2011 at 7:34 am #

    Kenneth Tyner wrote;
    “Jennifer, there is a reason the speed of light is called a “constant”; because that is what is believed and claimed. Ever hear of E=MC2? “C” is the constant.

    The constant is based on the measurement of a round trip average speed, over a limited distance. Average speed and constant speed are not the same thing.

    The greater the temperature of the star emitting EM, the faster light will travel, followed by attenuation (slowing down). The maximum speed of light has never been measured, nor can it be measured.”

    E=Mc^2 is a result of relativity. The theories of general and special relativity are very good at describing the way nature works mathematically. When used properly, maths is a brilliant tool for describing the way nature works. The great thing about maths is that you can build a model of nature which can tell you things you might not have observed yet – it can make predictions. This is what relativity did back in the 1920s. Relativity is an explanation for gravity. Newton worked out the mathematical equation that described gravity, but Einstein went further and explained why. Simply making observations is one thing. Real knowledge comes from asking why you are making those observations. Newton made the observation. Einstein worked out why.
    In fact the maths is a whole branch of physics – theoretical physics. The experimental physicist looks at ways of testing the maths. String theory is a very good mathematical theory that combines the theory of the very large with the theory of the very small. So we stop letting our intuition tell us what the maths should be and start letting the maths tell us what our intuition should be. When you study string theory/M-theory, you find that it says there are 11 dimensions which gravity could be leaking through explaining why gravity is such a weak force. As a result of these 11 dimensions, there is a real possibility of parallel universes. The problem with testing this theory, is that we don’t yet have the technology to do it. It’s not that we haven’t got ideas. The LHC may be our answer but we may have to wait until something a bit more technologically advanced comes along.

    I won’t get into relativity here, but E=Mc^2 is what the maths works out as. All the maths that led to it has a wealth of observation to back it up. GPS needs to account for time being faster in space than it is on Earth.
    Nuclear fusion is essentially E=Mc^2. To get an enormous amount of energy, you only need a very small mass. But to generate a small amount of mass you need a lot of energy. The equation also tells us that energy and mass are the same thing. This is what they are doing at the LHC. Smashing particles together at great energies to produce heavier particles.

    C is not a constant. It is a MAXIMUM speed of light. Because as the maths works out, from relativity and QED, the speed of light must have an upper limit. C is the constant in the equation E=Mc^2, but it is certainly not a constant in real life. The speed of light is variable. But is does have a speed limit.

    “The greater the temperature of the star emitting EM, the faster light will travel”

    Temperature is just a measure of how fast something is moving. Molecules that move faster are hotter, and molecules that move slower are colder. But particles of light, photons, are not molecules. For one, molecules have mass, for another, light is not a chemical. The greater the temperature of the star, the faster the hydrogen and helium, and other gases that make up the star are moving. But this has nothing to do with how fast the light is travelling. To know why that is I once again point you in the direction of Richard Feynman and Quantum Electrodynamics, particularly the bits on how photons interact with electrons.

  36. Stephen Holshouser February 23, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    Duane,

    “What is it with you people and rocks?.. …Also, what is this obsession with origins? Science is looking into it.”

    Why so sensitive about the rock origin thing? Don’t be shy about that… If you believe the earth was once a molten ball of lava, lava does’t cool off and become “oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus” does it? As far as I know it cools off and becomes a rock of some sort, though I am no geologist. You might be able to correct me on that, but still, you believe that chemicals got together and made everything, right? I know coming from a rock by natural processes sounds ridiculous, but if that’s what you believe, own it with pride man. If not, tell us what then so I can ask you, “And where did that come from?” You hate that and belittle it because it leads to the Designer 100% of the time.

    Why is science looking into origins? Are they obsessed with it? But seriously, that is the crux of the debate; where did we come from? Did no one or someone create us from the elements? Did no one or someone create the elements from nothing?

    “This God of yours has an outright DUTY communicate with us directly if He is going to hold us to an eternal punishment for finite crimes (or those of some ancestor).”

    Duane, you have a dramatic over-estimation of your rights in the sight of the Almighty and what He owes you, while at the same time having a dramatic under-estimation of who God is and how vile your personal sin really is.

    May He grant you great grace and repentence

  37. Kenneth Tyner February 23, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    Jennifer and Geno, you are both too funny, sounding like you are both reading from the same science textbook.

    The speed of light is not constant due to entropy, and gravity only has one source; the thermal core. Strong and weak forces are proof of entropy. This bears out with the speed in which planets orbit the sun.

    The fastest moving planet is Mercury, which is the closest to the sun. The slowest moving planet is Pluto, which is the farthest from the sun. Since light and gravity are both produced by the same EM wave of solar radiation, if gravity slows down due to entropy, then light also slow down due to entropy. They are both the same thing, lol.

  38. andrew Ryan February 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    “. If not, tell us what then so I can ask you, “And where did that come from?” You hate that and belittle it because it leads to the Designer 100% of the time.”

    100% of the time? So that means when we ask you where your designer comes from, you are forced to answer that he was designed by another designer, and so on ad finitum?

    And are you claiming that ANY God would let you into its heaven, no matter which God it is? My view is that any reasonable God would judge all of us on our actions. I can’t really do anything to appease an unreasonable God, including one who punishes people for accepting that the world is as it appears to be.

  39. andrew Ryan February 23, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    “… how vile your personal sin really is.”

    Speak for yourself, Stephen! If you’ve done vile things, that’s for you to worry about. And if we have all been created by one God, then why not say it would have certain duties to us? I have duties to my daughter, I don’t test her or try to fool her or ‘harden her heart’.

  40. Jack Napper February 23, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    Why so sensitive about the rock origin thing? Don’t be shy about that… If you believe the earth was once a molten ball of lava, lava does’t cool off and become “oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus” does it?

    It’s a strawman and and argument from ignorance.

    As far as I know it cools off and becomes a rock of some sort, though I am no geologist.

    Obviously you’re not a chemist either.

    You might be able to correct me on that, but still, you believe that chemicals got together and made everything, right?

    Chemicals “get together” all the time. What’s your point? Various chemicals bond together naturally too. I think we’ve established already that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    know coming from a rock by natural processes sounds ridiculous, but if that’s what you believe, own it with pride man.

    Here you want us to accept your strawman as true. Did I really need to point that out to you?

    If not, tell us what then so I can ask you, “And where did that come from?”

    You can be told where the evidence leads based on what is currently available.

    You hate that and belittle it because it leads to the Designer 100% of the time.

    Really now? And what evidence is that? Absence of evidence for what position is not proof of the other. Nice false dichotomy and god of the gaps though.

    Why is science looking into origins?

    Science? No. People? Yes. The more we learn the more we learn that we don’t know. It’s those who claim to have all the answers you need to worry about. If you truly have the answers why not reveal some scientific insight that is currently and completely unknown. Now read that again. Perhaps you’d like to explain cold fusion? Sorry but they don’t give out Nobel Prizes for “God did it!”

    Are they obsessed with it?

    Science is a “they”? I’ve already answered this.

    But seriously, that is the crux of the debate; where did we come from? Did no one or someone create us from the elements? Did no one or someone create the elements from nothing?

    The truthful answer is we don’t know…YET. You can claim you do but I can claim is was Magic Space Monkeys. Neither claim is supported though. That is unless you’ve been too busy with fallacious arguments trying to make the other side look silly to present it.

  41. Jennifer Preston February 23, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner wrote
    “All things are formed by light. All things are held together by light.”

    No, no, no. All things are held together by forces, not light. All things are formed by molecules, chemicals, things that have mass. Photons (light particles) are not chemicals or molecules. The reason why we can see anything that emits light is due to the interaction of photons and electrons. Which is Quantum Electrodynamics. I suggest before you post anything else on this topic you go read some Richard Feynman, because its obvious from your posts you have no idea what you are talking about.

  42. David McCrea February 23, 2011 at 6:02 pm #

    Duane,

    Rail against bad Christians all you want. I’m right there with you. But here’s where we differ. When a football player fumbles the ball, do you blame the coach?

    And God is SCREAMING at you that He is real and that He loves you. He sent His Son, He used the prophets and the Apostles and the Martyrs. He used His people to write a book, and He sent His messengers (Christians) into the world to share the Good News of Jesus Christ!

    He warned the path to destruction is wide, and many choose it. He warned against worshipping the creation (Darwinian evolution/animal rights/radical environmentalists) and denying the Creator. He reminds us His Godhead and power are clearly evident in His creation, therefore let no man be without excuse. He desires that NONE should be lost but that all should come to repentence.

    Your senses are God-given and reveal His truth, presence, and nature. If you have eyes to see and ears to hear God is there. He is eternal. And He is very, very real.

    God has not given up on you, Duane. Please don’t give up on yourself.

    God bless.

  43. Duane February 23, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    @Stephen Holshouser February 23rd at 8:09 am

    Duane,

    “What is it with you people and rocks?.. …Also, what is this obsession with origins? Science is looking into it.”

    Why so sensitive about the rock origin thing? Don’t be shy about that… If you believe the earth was once a molten ball of lava, lava does’t cool off and become “oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus” does it? As far as I know it cools off and becomes a rock of some sort, though I am no geologist. You might be able to correct me on that, but still, you believe that chemicals got together and made everything, right? I know coming from a rock by natural processes sounds ridiculous, but if that’s what you believe, own it with pride man. If not, tell us what then so I can ask you, “And where did that come from?” You hate that and belittle it because it leads to the Designer 100% of the time.

    You are seriously obtuse. Again, no one says we came from a rock. Regardless, it does not lead to a designer. It merely leads to natural processes. Saying your tribal storm god did it is no answer at all. It is no different than saying the flying spaghetti monster did it. Let me remind you once again, 6 day creation, man from dirt (ground up rocks-see that’s your belief you keep projecting), rib-woman, talking snake, tree with fruit of knowledge of good and evil, all created by a petty jerk god that has a weird obsession with male genitalia. The fact that you, as an adult human being with the life experience that you have, still believe this fairy tale as literal fact says that you are actively delusional. I hate to tell you this, but most Christians have enough common sense to know these stories are allegories. Only a small group of the more naive ones take the whole book as literal truth, and they are rightly mocked. If we still believed as you, we wouldn’t have medicine, space exploration, or any advance we enjoy today. We had a time when your ilk ruled and it was known as the Dark Ages.

    Why is science looking into origins? Are they obsessed with it? But seriously, that is the crux of the debate; where did we come from? Did no one or someone create us from the elements? Did no one or someone create the elements from nothing?

    We don’t know what created everything. What we did was chuck your fairytale and start from scratch. We observe, hypothesize, test, model, and so on to arrive at the truth. We know from experience that this is the one most reliable path to truth. Merely stating the world was created by Yahweh, Vishnu, Chronos, the Great Green Arkleseizure (who sneezed the entire universe into being, whose followers dread the coming of the great white handkerchief) does not answer any questions at all. Who is right? What is the nature of those gods? Where did they come from? Why don’t they have any interaction with us whatsoever?

    “This God of yours has an outright DUTY communicate with us directly if He is going to hold us to an eternal punishment for finite crimes (or those of some ancestor).”

    Duane, you have a dramatic over-estimation of your rights in the sight of the Almighty and what He owes you, while at the same time having a dramatic under-estimation of who God is and how vile your personal sin really is.

    You don’t know me. But you do know your script, don’t you. Once again you demonstrate what I’ve said in here multiple times. Christianity is a con that uses classic brainwashing techniques. You degrade the person’s character and esteem until they are at the bottom, only to lift them again in the warming glow of Jesus. Oh, and we take VISA and MasterCard.

    But, the old “He does what He wants when He wants to” is a cop-out. You know He doesn’t exist and this is your rationalization. A god that has no interaction with mankind is essentially the same as one that does not exist. 2500 year old paperback book written in an obsolete language that shows signs of redaction and alteration is NOT interaction.

    May He grant you great grace and repentence

    May the Force be with you.

  44. Jim Olson February 24, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    Kenneth I believe a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I believe that taking snippets of knowledge out of context and useing them to “prove” something you already believe, is not science, or the search for enlightenment. I believe my question was about the commercial use of the em spectrum. Radio T.V. GPS etc. I believe you knew perfectly well what my question was asking. I believe you knew that you had no answer for my question which answered honestly would not negate what you believe. You may notice I used the word believe as opposed to the word know. This was not an accident. Belief is the province of religion. The search for Knowledge is the province of science. I believe there is no science of creation. I believe you believe this also. Which leads me to ask, are you sure that lying to yourself is a proper way to live your life?

  45. Manuel Little February 24, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

    This is a philosophical topic. It is for philosophers to discuss. Science is based on philosophy (always). Scientists don’t usually have the formal training to discuss philosophical issues. But, it is a free country….

    It is, for instance, not cool to discuss “oxymorons” while saying oxymorons in the process of discussion.

    Evolutionary theory makes certain assumptions which cannot be proven, but it is logic which we call thinking (correct thinking). Once you agree on the premises, logic defines thinking. Logic is not the exclusive realm of Scientific Creationists.

    To deal with the premises, though, you better be a formally trained philosopher. In the end, we all like to think of ourselves as philosophers. We are, but maybe not good philosophers. I know i am not, but at least i know where science ends and natural history begins.

  46. Rod Naugler February 24, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    @ Carl M

    (In the interest of brevity, I will constrain myself only to your comments)

    >>but that in an environment created entirely by chance,

    >Strawman argument. The environment is both random and deterministic.

    If by deterministic you mean that there are rules, I would say that current theory says yes, back to a few moments after the big-bang. However, the rules that ‘crystallized’ (probably not the currently acceptable term, but it gets the point across), were also random. In other words, if there are, indeed, other universes, they may have entirely different rules. But, to clarify what I was saying, even though there is determinability in the system as a consequence of the rules, this does not constitute a purpose anymore than a plinko ball reaching the middle slot constitutes intelligence on the part of the ball. If this is all the process of entropy in action, as a consequence of the rules and impetus of the big-bang, then your thoughts and ideas are no more important than the foam at the bottom of a waterfall. Yet, you seem to value ‘truth’ since you choose to expend your limited time composing detailed responses to the ‘mis-information’ on this website. I find that incongruous.

    >>thought lacks something essential, a purpose.

    >Unsubstantiated assertion. Does day-dreaming have a purpose?

    While I can only speak for my own day-dreams, I have also read, in my studies, about some of the supposed benefits of both day-dreaming and dreaming in general. For myself, day-dreaming provides several benefits: Fleshing out an idea, exploring a concept, stress escapism and narcissism to name a few. However, with the grand scheme of things being a consequence of rules established at random at the formation of the universe, and the process of entropy, thoughts would have no purpose as there would be no purpose contained in the fabric of the universe.

    >>If life originated by chance, then there is no ultimate purpose.

    >It does not follow that the nature of the initiation of life is the only determination of its “ultimate purpose”. Lack of “ultimate purpose” does not prevent the existence of intermediary purposeful goals.

    It does follow that without an ‘ultimate purpose’ there can be no intermediary purposeful goals as they cannot be intermediary to naught. I’m perfectly happy with your assertion that you have purposeful thoughts and goals and that society as the fragmented whole that it is can have over-arching purposes and goals as well. What I am saying is, as a consequence of the random and purposeless origin of the universe, the pursuit of truth is no more valuable than the pursuit of myth, delusion, self pleasure or self immolation. All would be equally logical and reasonable as with no ‘ultimate purpose’ all of the above increase the entropy of the universe eventually.

    >>Much like random bits forming a program inside a computer, they [thoughts] would still be useless because they don’t serve a purpose.

    >Thoughts are very important daily operation of said organism. Personally, I think that is a very good purpose.

    Define good. Thoughts are important to the daily operation of some organisms, which is really my point. Since there is a purpose to life and even you seem to think there is some standard to judge good against, what is it? It cannot be the purpose of the big-bang universe, for it is racing to entropy. Life seeks to avoid or postpone entropy.

    Rod