Sunday, March 28, 2010

Science Proves Creationism


[E. coli, a common bacteria.]

Real scientific evidence (not the pseudoscience of evolution) proves that God created us.

The earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. It was then bombarded with huge meteorites for 600 million years. Bacteria appeared about 4 billion years ago, or approximately just as the bombardment was ending. According to Discover magazine July, 2007 page 62, life appeared about 50 million years after the point when the earth stabilized. Discover magazine, absurdly, takes this as evidence that life could “easily develop anywhere, anytime that the conditions are right”.

In fact, bacteria, although the simplest form of life, are incredibly complex. Scientists cannot begin to create a bacterium from simple chemicals and even creating a computer simulation of one E. coli has not yet been completed and will be extremely challenging. Yet scientists believe that bacteria formed on earth spontaneously from simple chemicals in a matter of tens of millions of years at most. I cannot imagine any clearer proof that bacteria didn’t develop spontaneously at all; they were CREATED.

Something gradually developing is called “evolution”. Something appearing suddenly is called “creation”. What does the evidence actually show us?

Nick Bostrom, a respected young philosophy professor at Oxford, has proposed that our universe may in fact be a computer simulation created by an alien civilization.

I think he's getting close to the truth, but I would take it a step farther.

79 comments:

zy anon said...

Same old fallacious watchmaker argument you've been making over and over again.

Do you think you've convinced anybody by now?

jewish philosopher said...

Do you think anyone is not convinced by now, other than addicts and murderers?

Anonymous said...

Scientists have found that the simplest known bacteria, the mycoplasm, is a lot more complex than they thought.

Shalmo said...

"The earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. "

Torah says otherwise.

Now I have read your "interpretation" of Genesis

You believe Genesis is only saying mankind is 6000 years old, and again science disputes that. The Mayans and hindus surpass that numbers by quite a few milleniums

The animists are over 100,000 years old. Various civilizations exist that have been unearthed that lead to that conclusion

zy anon said...

And this leads you to believe that by blow torching your oven before Pesach, having separate meat, milk and Pesach dishes, and not eating wet matzah, that you are doing God's will.

Great way to make decisions. No wonder Jews have been the subject of derision throughout history.

Stubbornly clinging to silly and illogical customs all on the basis of Tamudic, Chelm-like pilpul.

jewish philosopher said...

"The Mayans and hindus surpass that numbers by quite a few milleniums"

Believe me, they don't.

"Stubbornly clinging to silly and illogical customs"

The good old appeal to ridicule, another logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

A challenge to atheists:

Provide one, just one, reasonable, serious proof that there is no God or that evolution happened.

Anonymous said...

Here's more evidence that evolution is as much a religion as it is a scientific theory:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/8355/

zy anon said...

Atheism is as much as religion as non-astrologism is.

If I don't believe in astrology,thus a non-astrologist, am I a believer is the religion called, "non-astrologism"?

You frummies are atheists and skeptics, too, in relation to Islam or Christianity or any other of the thousands of faiths you reject. So we "real" atheists just add one more religion to our list of bogus claims. Is that so hard?

jewish philosopher said...

No, you make your own bogus claims. I think I have demonstrated that atheism is a religion as much as anything is.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

zy anon said...

In the competition of ideas for the minds of humanity, your form of Judaism is losing. It has few new adherents because it doesn't convince anybody. It makes illogical and offensive claims about being the chosen people. It manages to barely maintain its population through natural propagation.

So go on and live in your mental bubble of thinking that you belong to an enlightened and exclusive faith. But don't be too surprised when your opinions are ridiculed here.

I rather like Dawkin's and Dennett's idea of religion being a mind virus (meme). And boy, JP, have you got an infection.

jewish philosopher said...

Now we move on to another logical fallicy: the appeal to the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

and just incidentally, at present the number of Gentiles converting to orthodox Judaism probably about matches the number of orthodox Jews converting to atheism.

ZY Anon said...

"Provide one, just one, reasonable, serious proof that there is no God or that evolution happened."

Please provide one reasonable proof that Muhammad did not go to heaven from the Dome of the Rock or that chemical imbalances cause mental illness and not evil spirits.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't believe mohammed's miracles because I don't think the evidence supporting them is strong enough to prove the extraordinary claim.

About mental illness and it's causes, I'm not a psychiatrist.

zy anon said...

"Now we move on to another logical fallicy: the appeal to the people."

That comment's purpose was not to disprove your claims about Judaism, but rather an observation about the mental world you live in-- of your oft-made claim that only your ilk possess the objective enlightened truth and that if people would only honestly look at the facts everybody would just become frummies like you. This of course is silly and false. It refutes your haughty claims about "disproving" atheism and evolution-- you've done nothing of the sort.

"and just incidentally, at present the number of Gentiles converting to orthodox Judaism probably about matches the number of orthodox Jews converting to atheism."

There are many more atheists than there are orthodox Jews, and their numbers are rapid growing, from people who abandon the idiotic claims of many faiths, not just Judaism.

zy anon said...

"I don't believe mohammed's miracles because I don't think the evidence supporting them is strong enough to prove the extraordinary claim."

And that's exactly why I, along with most people on planet Earth, don't believe the Torah's claims, either.

Get it?

jewish philosopher said...

Claiming "if the people say it, it is so" is false and proves nothing.

Many religions by the way claim to be the fastest growing, so don't go there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

jewish philosopher said...

The evidence for Torah is irrefutable, unlike other religions.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

zy anon said...

What I have demonstrated is:

1. That your reasonable rejection of Islam's extraordinary claims is analogous to my reasonable rejection of Judaism's extraordinary claims.

2. Atheism is rejection of all religions and is not a religion. (Like "non-astrologism"). I reject N religions, your reject N-1 religions.

3. Therefore the rejection of atheism is NOT analogous to your reasonable rejection of Islam.

4. Evolution is a naturalistic mechanistic way of explaining the development of life, analogous to other scientific ideas that are proven inductively. The fact the you find the evidence unconvincing speaks more of your world view, rather than of the evidence itself which is overwhelming.

ZY Anon said...

"The evidence for Torah is irrefutable, unlike other religions."

You're stating that it is so doesn't make it so. Since reason is a human endeavor. So, the fact that other than people who are raised with this belief, that so few people are convinced, says something about how "irrefutable" your evidence is.

jewish philosopher said...

You simply make baseless statements and demonstrate nothing.

How do you define "religion"?

What reasonable, convicing proof is there of evolution? And bear in mind that an extraordinary claim (worms turning into people) requires extraordinary evidence.

jewish philosopher said...

"You're stating that it is so doesn't make it so."

Which is why I present evidence.

"So, the fact that other than people who are raised with this belief, that so few people are convinced, says something about how "irrefutable" your evidence is."

wrong. Again, the appeal to the people.

Anonymous said...

ZY Anon:

According to one study, more people believe in ghosts than in evolution. So I don't think appealing to the people means all that much.

And the at least half of the people in the world are Christian or Moslim, which means that they hold of the Divine origin of the Torah.

And atheism is just as faith based as religion. You have simple faith that science will answer all the big questions about origins someday. And much of the evidence for evolution is actually based on theological reasoning. Its just comes down to where you choose to place youir faith.

jewish philosopher said...

To me religion means a person's beliefs regarding the origin of the universe, man's purpose in the world, morality and ethics and the afterlife.

I think atheism is therefore a religion.

Atheists will protest "No! We are different! We are right, not like the other guys!"

Well sure, join the club. Everyone says that.

Anonymous said...

"To me religion means a person's beliefs regarding the origin of the universe, man's purpose in the world, morality and ethics and the afterlife."


I like how you make things mean whatever you want them to.

jewish philosopher said...

One thing philosophers do is make well reasoned observations about things.

ZY Anon said...

Your definition does not agree with any standard definition of the word.

jewish philosopher said...

I think I'm pretty close.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

ZY Anon said...

Something like astronomy or paleontology are not religions, but by your definition, if I am a paleontologist, or an astronomer, and I also believe in humanistic ethics, that is a religion. This is of course, absurd. Or if I am a non-astrologist, that is also a religion.

jewish philosopher said...

Something like agnostic secular humanism is probably a religion.

zy anon said...

If I can invent definitions as you do, great.
For example, I say that cheredi Judaism is
a cult, ruled by the wise men of Chelm.

jewish philosopher said...

And I can say, fairly accurately, that atheism is an evil cult in which you worship yourself.

ZY Anon said...

So we can say, then, the whole point of your blog is to concoct phony definitions so you can say whatever you want and present it as "true".

So, for example, "evil" means "rejecting my beliefs about the afterlife" and "sketicism" is a "cult".

You can do better than that.

Anonymous said...

ZY anon:

So many of the proofs of evolution are based on theological reasoning. And atheists have simple faith that science will someday answer the big questions about origins, so atheism is just as faith based as any religion.

jewish philosopher said...

The purpose of this blog is to promote Orthodox Judaism and to critique other ideologies, in particular atheism: promoting truth and real happiness; fighting lies and harmful addictions.

zy anon said...

Your promote it by lying.

And anon-- evolution is not proven by "theological arguments". Do you understand scientific reasoning at all? Your failure to understand this basic distinction reveals a profound ignorance of inductive scientific reasoning.

Atheists "faith" that science will provide answers is merely an educated prediction, not unlike my "faith" it will rain tomorrow if the weatherman predicts it. I'm likely to be right, but I could be proven wrong.

It is totally different than "faith" in the sense of obedience to unsubstantiated authority based doctrines. That wonderful thing is the lot of religions alone.

Anon, you, like JP, like to twist the meaning of words to deceive and distort.

You like to redefine "religion", "faith" to suit your desire to put religion on the same intellectual footing as atheism and evolution, but your being totally dishonest.

Worse than that, your insistence on a religious explanation for metaphysics removes any need to try to understand anything in nature. Why bother figuring anything out if you can just say, "God did it"?

People get sick? God did it. No need to look for germs or genes. Rain? God did it, no need to study meteorology. How did people get here? God did it. End of discussion.

jewish philosopher said...

"Your promote it by lying."

Which evolutionists actually do. Have you ever heard of the Piltdown man or Haeckel's embryos?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing#Contemporary_criticism_of_Haeckel:_Michael_Richardson_and_Stephen_Jay_Gould

"You like to redefine "religion", "faith" to suit your desire to put religion on the same intellectual footing as atheism and evolution"

So what is atheism? A scientific fact? I don't think so.

http://www.devilsdelusion.com/

"your insistence on a religious explanation for metaphysics removes any need to try to understand anything in nature"

This would come as a surprise to hundreds of Orthodox Jewish scientists. God does everything; but God helps those who help themselves by studying nature and making use of that knowledge.

http://www.aojs.org/

Anonymous said...

The evolutionists arguement that God would not make a vestigal structure, or create life that can be arrained in a nested hierarchy, or with sub-optimal functioning are all arguements for evolution that I've seen advanced. I knwo enough about science to know that these are theological arguements, not scientific ones. And if you read my post, you would have seen that I said some of the arguements, not all.

And you are sure that God doesn't exist because you predict that science wiil answer all the big questions someday, even though the answers are moving further away? That sounds like it is faith based to me.

Anonymous said...

Science says things like, "universe, popped out of nowhere." Fine tuning to accomomdate life? multiverse." "Unexplained motion of the universe and galaxies? dark, energy dark matter." "Life? Well it all started with magic soup turning bacteria, and then the bacteria turned into blue whales." The human mind? There most be emergent propertiess in their somewhere.""The origin of morality, religion etc. There must be an evolutionary explanation."
It looks like the metaohysical explanation scientists rely on is something like every thing is acceptabel as an explanation except traditional religion.


And the Talmud does say that all is in the hands of heaven except for colds. Which means that there is a naturalistic explanation for Disease. Maimonedes believed that as well. He was a doctor, you know.

zy anon said...

"This would come as a surprise to hundreds of Orthodox Jewish scientists."

They live a contradiction. They would have no jobs in the first place if man, in the 17-18th century, hadn't rejected religious ideas about nature.

"And you are sure that God doesn't exist ..."

No I'm not. It is not possible to prove that God doesn't exist, everybody knows that. Just as it is impossible to disprove Bertram Russell's teapot.

"you predict that science wiil answer all the big questions someday"

I predict that science will answer many questions that we can't answer today, as knowledge continues to explode. But it would be foolish to predict that science will answer "all questions"

You have set up a straw man argument, anon.

"So what is atheism? A scientific fact?"

It is a theory of metaphysics, based on the lack of good evidence for god. A theory is inductive reasoning, an explanation, not strictly a "fact".

So is evolution, although pragmatically speaking most scientists consider evolution to be fact because the evidence for the theory is so overwhelming.

zy anon said...

"It looks like the metaphysical explanation scientists rely on is something like every thing is acceptabel as an explanation except traditional religion."

It is a search for naturalistic explanation for mechanism. It doesn't address God at all.

It is no different than Einstein seeking a naturalistic explanation for gravity in relativity theory. You're not bothered by that, I suppose, only because it doesn't contradict the bible. You don't scream, "why relativity, God just makes things fall".

But the minute a naturalistic explanation contradicts scriptures, you scream "gevalt, its not science, its biased, its a conspiracy, its conjecture, its god hatred" etc.

It is interesting that even most theists in the world are not bothered by evolution, only you bible literalists. Could it be...cognitive dissonance, as in JP's homophobia and obssession with sex?

jewish philosopher said...

"They live a contradiction. They would have no jobs in the first place if man, in the 17-18th century, hadn't rejected religious ideas about nature."

It's no contradiction. Maimonides was a doctor.

"But the minute a naturalistic explanation contradicts scriptures"

It never does. Actually, the more we discover the purposefulness in nature, the stronger the evidence for God becomes. Some people have become believers because of DNA.

Zy anon said...

I mean that you reject a naturalistic explanation, such as evolution, because it contradicts the bible. Similarly you reject paleontological evidence of man existing for hundreds of thousands of years because it contradicts Torah. If it doesn't contradict Torah, it doesn't bother you.

And Maimonides writings were considered by many to be a heretical in his day. I'm sure you would have.

And much of his medicine and cosmology is wrong, but he borrowed it from the muslims.

jewish philosopher said...

The study of nature is perfectly consistant with Torah and in fact enhances our love of God.

Evolution however is science in the same way that the Resurrection is history. Not.

Anonymous said...

ZY anon:

I mentioned maimonides because you said that theists will not loook for naturalistic explanations for anything. But Maimonedes did, as do lots of other religious scientists.

And a lot of the early science that lead to modern science was done by religious people. Religion was actually a motivting factor in early scientific research. Newton himself wrote a commentary on the book of Daniel.

And most of the objections to evolution I've raised on the blog are scientific, not theologocal.

Anonymous said...

Science can't address the existance of God, you say, but you are sure he doesn't exist. So you're atheism is based on what? Could it be metaohysics? I'm, just curious.

And you prefer "we don't know" to "God did it" why? Metaphysics?

zy anon said...

Maimonides is notable as an exception, rather than the rule. And Maimonides cannot be credited with any scientific discovery.

I agree than many religious people do not see a contradiction between religion and science. But this is not possible with religious fundamentalism, when science says something that contradicts the Bible or other religious beliefs.

Newton was a rationalist, not a fundamentalist like JP, and if he were alive today he would have embraced evolution (like Francis Collins does).

"Science can't address the existance of God, you say, but you are sure he doesn't exist. So you're atheism is based on what? Could it be metaohysics? I'm, just curious."

You repeat the error that I am sure he doesn't exist, which I said is not true, because god cannot be disproven or proven.

What I AM sure of is that if god does exist he is not the God of the Torah which is a sophisticated hoax like all other religions.

Furthermore, the side who asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof, not he who questions it. Therefore, since his existence has not been proven to me, my agnosticism stands.

If I claim Russell's teapot exists, which of us has the burden of proof? Do you have to disprove it?

Yes, I prefer, "we don't know", because that leaves the challenge to try to figure it out, rather than say, God did it. I prefer to try to figure out consciousness, emotions, and personality rather than say, "its the soul".

jewish philosopher said...

"when science says something that contradicts the Bible or other religious beliefs"

Actually, that's what atheists do. As I mention in this post, science contradicts atheism however atheists will simply respond that science must be wrong - bacteria are not as difficult to create as they clearly appear to be. Atheist beliefs trump science.

Anonymous said...

Atheist make up stories like , banging branes, multiverse, dark matter, emergent properties, etc. if empirical evidence contradicts their beliefs. Evolution must be true no matter how serious the problems. Evolutionists resisted genetics for a long time because it caused problems for evolution. Any theory is okay as long as it isn't God. So who is really holding up inquiry?

And many scientists were motivated by religion to do research. They wanted to understand the mind of God.

zy anon said...

"Atheist make up stories like , banging branes, multiverse, dark matter, emergent properties, etc. if empirical evidence contradicts their beliefs..."

I supposed "atheists" made up things like quarks and electrons, too, since they can't be seen.

There's not any better way to say this, but you're simply full of crap. You've bringing new heights to Orwellian double-speak. You hijack "science" to mean "empirical observations that support my beliefs".

Science is much bigger than that, and you should read a little about the philosophy of science and scientific reasoning.

And, again, atheism is NOT a belief system.

Let me ask you: since each of us claims that the other is deluded and biased, and you don't accept the objectivity of scientific method, suggest to me an alternative objective standard that we can agree on, to determine truth and reality, and we'll go from there.

Anonymous said...

So you're saying that we need to base our belief systems on some philosophy. That's my point.

Now, I like to follow the empirical evidence where it leads. That's science at its most basic. And it leads to either a supernatural explanation, or an "I don't know." I don't know is not an explanation.

zy anon said...

"Now, I like to follow the empirical evidence where it leads. That's science at its most basic. And it leads to either a supernatural explanation, or an "I don't know."

Therein lies your false and erroneous understanding of science and what lead to progress in the past 200 years. Empiricism is not science.

zy anon said...

What is wrong with "I don't know"?
Don't you religionists say the same thing regarding the mysteries of god's justice and behavior?

The difference between my I don't know and yours is that you are satisfied to leave it as a divine mystery and I continue to strive for an answer.

I agree with you that all systems of knowledge are based on a philosophy, an epistomology. But I have shown that your claims to be able to use "science" to prove god or the bible or whatever are based on an erroneous or distorted idea of what science is. It is not empiricism, or else we would still be thinking that the world is flat and the sun goes around it.

Science is INDUCTION!!!!!!!!!!not deduction!!!!

Anonymous said...

But that is a philosophy. And many people before Columbus thought that the wordl was round. The Gemora says it is round. And according to General Relativity, teh sun goes around the earth and the earth goes around the sun. And I'm like all those religious scientists who try to understand the universe out of curiosity, or to find God's wisdom in the creation. They didn't stop. Adn it looks like saying science is induction means that any explanation, no matter how magical, like multiverse, or dark matter, is okay. As long as it isn't "God did it."

zy said...

"Adn it looks like saying science is induction means that any explanation, no matter how magical, like multiverse, or dark matter, is okay. "

I think you should read the excellent summary of scientific reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

before you dismiss my assertion.

"The Gemora says it is round."

They argued about the movement of the sun: (Pesachim 94b)
"The sages of Israel say, "During the day the sun travels below the sky and at night it travels above the sky." The wise men of the nations say, "During the day the sun travels below the sky and at night it travels below the earth." Rabbi [Yehuda HaNassi] said, "Their words seem [more correct] than ours because the underground streams are cold during the day and warm at night."

It seems that the sages of Israel thought the earth was a disk, and the sun went back and forth above it.

It was a reasonable conclusion, based on what they could observe (although the Greeks had maintained that it is a sphere for hundreds of years prior)

zy said...

Anon, does the bible have an explanation for this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_hominid;_ylt=AtGC3IJhA5gJlkf4T9dfXams0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlZXVrNmNkBHBvcwM4NARzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawNuZXdmb3NzaWxzbWE-

jewish philosopher said...

Actually, human ancestry is totally a mystery.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/01/our-family-tree.html

Anonymous said...

"Actually, human ancestry is totally a mystery."

Therefore...God.

jewish philosopher said...

Before Darwin published his giant fece, what do you think scientists believed? Check it out.

Anonymous said...

"what do you think scientists believed"

Appeal to authority.

How lucky that scientists were "right" when they shared your general belief.

Therefore...God.

Tell me, is the "Philosopher" in your title meant to be sarcastic?

jewish philosopher said...

My appeal to authority is certainly as good as your feeble "appeal to ridicule".

However, as you can see from this post, I've got some evidence as well.

Anonymous said...

"However, as you can see from this post, I've got some evidence as well."

Bullshit. You say this: "In fact, bacteria, although the simplest form of life, are incredibly complex. Scientists cannot begin to create a bacterium from simple chemicals and even creating a computer simulation of one E. coli has not yet been completed and will be extremely challenging. Yet scientists believe that bacteria formed on earth spontaneously from simple chemicals in a matter of tens of millions of years at most. I cannot imagine any clearer proof that bacteria didn’t develop spontaneously at all; they were CREATED."

Shorter version: You have your own view of how bacteria formed on earth, i.e., they were created.

That's a nice view, but what do you base it on? You don't seem to be a scientist with any direct knowledge of bacteria. So where are you getting this view and where are you getting the audacity to claim to know how bacteria were formed on the earth so long ago?

You have opinion and chutzpah. That's it.

jewish philosopher said...

What I have is the fact that a watch needs a watchmaker, something irrefutably obvious to all those who are not drunks, murderers, whoremongers or pot heads.

Anonymous said...

"What I have is the fact that a watch needs a watchmaker."

Boo-hoo, your feathers have been ruffled.

BTW, I agree that a watch needs a watchmaker. I maaaay even agree that to some extent bacteria are watch-like. That watchmaker could very well be "nature."

jewish philosopher said...

My feathers are far from ruffled; I am simply amused by the moronic masses who never cease to amaze me.

Now about the watchmaker, purposefulness indicates an intelligent designer. Regarding the search for intelligent life in the universe, scientists would regard even a narrow band radio wave as a sign of purposefulness.

http://www.seti.org/Page.aspx?pid=558#a3

Surely, the complex machinery of the bacterium is billions of times more clearly purposeful than that. This proves the existence of a super intelligent designer.

Anonymous said...

"Surely, the complex machinery of the bacterium is billions of times more clearly purposeful than that."

Depends. Who decides what's purposeful? Isn't purpose just a human concept that you're imposing on what you see?

jewish philosopher said...

"Isn't purpose just a human concept that you're imposing on what you see?"

Nope.

If it were, why would scientists involved in the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence assume that a a narrow band radio wave is purposeful?

Anonymous said...

Zy anon:

The4 gemora in chagiga says that there were 976 generations that predated Adom. So that's one explanation. Anopther explanation is that Homo Habilus is really an ape. And I understnad that historically there has been considerable controversy about homo habilus.

Anonymous said...

"If it were, why would scientists involved in the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence assume that a a narrow band radio wave is purposeful?"

Ask them. I bet there's an FAQ on their site.

jewish philosopher said...

"I bet there's an FAQ on their site."

There is, but don't explain further, because it's obvious. Radio signals would obviously be the result of intelligent design if they had a repetitive nature and a narrow bandwidths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI#Radio_experiments

There is no need to know who transmitter is or what his agenda is. But we would know that something intelligent is trying to do something.

Same with a bacterial flagellum for example. Someone created it so the bacterium can move.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

Anonymous said...

"Same with a bacterial flagellum for example. Someone created it so the bacterium can move."

What are the properties that tell you it was created? Why could it not have evolved through natural means?

jewish philosopher said...

Why can't TV broadcasts from other stars just happen by chance?

Anonymous said...

"Why can't TV broadcasts from other stars just happen by chance?"

Who said anything about chance? Please answer the question as asked.

Anonymous said...

How do you create a mechanism with lots and lots of interdependant parts that have to fit together just right by a rndom process?

jewish philosopher said...

"Please answer the question as asked."

Because it's the same answer. It's impossibly improbable for TV broadcasts from the Andromeda Galaxy to happen by chance as it is for bacterial flagellum to happen by chance.

Purposefulness = intelligent design.

Anonymous said...

"How do you create a mechanism with lots and lots of interdependant parts that have to fit together just right by a rndom process?"

Why do you equate natural with random?

Anonymous said...

You think natural processes are equal to "chance" and "randomness." Common error.

jewish philosopher said...

Couldn't you just as easily argue that a repetitive, narrow bandwidth radio transmission is no indication of intelligent design since first of all it could just be chance and second of all "purpose" is just a human concept that I'm imposing on what I see?

That's how you explain the origin of bacteria.

When we are talking about God, anything and everything will be used as means of denial but if it's just space aliens, you can evaluate it all very soberly and rationally.

zy said...

"The4 gemora in chagiga says that there were 976 generations that predated Adom. So that's one explanation."

That would account for, say, 2000 years. Not 2 million. Besides, how does the gemorah know? What makes their information any more reliable than any other myth?

"Anopther explanation is that Homo Habilus is really an ape."

Call it what you want. But it is a lost species, very humanoid but not quite modern human, that seemed to live in the early spectrum of times we find human skeletons.

Just what you would expect if evolution were true, not what you expect if the Bible was literally true, or even JP's "lost worlds" hypothesis.

BTW, do you reject the scientific validity of dating methods?

Anonymous said...

Evolution starts with random changes. Natural selection sort out the good from thebad, That's Darwinism 101. How this can create a fantastically complex nanomachine is a bit of a mystery.

The Gemoras uses a DRosha to et the figure of 976 generations of humans. This would account for 20,000 years which would put us inthe Aurignacean period, which is when humans began to developed culture.

Adn the Homo Habilus is dated to 2.3 million years ago. The there are australopoethcenes dated to 1.9 million yeares ago. So the ancestor is younger than the descedant. This is not what I would expect.

And Judaism does not take the Bible literally. There plenty of evidence from the Torah Canon for a world that is more than ~6,000 years old.

And I'm an agnostic when it comes to modern dating techniques. Why do yuo ask?