Check this out – This is really ridiculous.

The NEW evidence:

The researchers, working at the Cambridge-based Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, used a wealth of newly available genetic data to estimate the time when the first human ancestors split from the chimpanzees. The team arrived at an answer that is at least 1 million years later than paleontologists had believed, based on fossils of early, humanlike creatures.

Their ‘CONCLUSION’ based on the NEW evidence:

The lead scientist said that this jarring conflict with the fossil record, combined with a number of other strange genetic patterns the team uncovered, led him to a startling explanation: that human ancestors evolved apart from the chimpanzees for hundreds of thousands of years, and then started breeding with them again before a final break.

Man, this stuff becomes laughable because “scientists” accuse Christians of trying to make everything fit their model. Yet when scientists do it, there is no equivalent cry of “foul” against their own. Come on, you have to see the humor in this don’t you??? LOL

Source:
http://boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/

God Bless!
Chris

Are you referring to the basic logic of Ed’s argument? It holds no water, because he must assume design before he can point to flawed design. He points to alleged flaws in design as evidence of no designer. His argument amounts to “I think God should have done it another way”. I would ask, “Says who?” His most basic premise is flawed. It is not based on any observable facts, but mere assumptions. In fact, I want to hear how putting “the reproductive organs next to the waste vents, promoting infection” is a bad thing in the world of Darwin. Seems to me that this helps limit population growth. You know, survival of the fittest and all. Perfect design if you ask me.

So lets put Ed’s argument in terms of your own logic.

“If X (designer), then we would expect Z (optimized designs).

Why would you expect to see Z, and by what yardstick will you measure “optimized designs”? We need an answer to that, as well as why the current design is to be considered flawed. Also, without God, please explain why we should be able to see anything.

“And my point, again, was that the issue (intelligible experience) is moot. You may not agree with my assumptions, and I don’t agree with yours, but we both concede that reality is real and induction is valid, and so forth. In fact, you cannot HELP but agree with me no matter what you do (unless you stop treating reality as real, and thus are sure not to continue debating the point).”

Again I’m not going to concede anything. If your worldview is correct, then you must somehow establish these thing arising from a strictly material universe. You demand scientific evidence for God, which you reject when given to you, as I will address below, yet you don’t hold the same standard for laws of logic, intelligible experience, or the uniformity of nature. You standard for knowledge is quite selectively and arbitrarily applied. But at least you admit that you have “assumptions”. That’s a step in the right direction.

“We observe uniformity in natural laws. As for why there is that uniformity, we don’t pretend, falsely, to know why.”

Are you suggesting that personal experience is a valid test of reality? Hume would disagree, which is probably why you won’t answer him. Shall we talk about personal experience? Will you apply this standard consistently?

There are no shortages of empirical evidences for God, especially in the created order. But you can watch the film and learn more about that. Of course, based on your own unproven assumptions, will reject these evidences as “we don’t know” and accuse us of adopting a “God of the gaps” philosophy. Fine, but if atheism is to be considered a valid worldview, then it must be able to account for the preconditions of the tools it uses. I have held the God is the precondition for science, logic, reason, knowledge, intelligible experience, human dignity, inductive reasoning, the uniformity of nature, free thought, free will, etc. Naturally, you are rejecting that argument, so the burden of proof is on you to account for these things in an atheistic, naturalistic worldview. Before you can even begin to do science, you must have order, uniformity, and intelligible experience. You must account for these things before you can appeal to science. I hold that science only makes sense in a theistic worldview. It is upon you to prove me wrong by accounting for the preconditions of science. You must answer Hume. I wish you well, as no one has been able to do so yet. I would have to call your approach to science the “atheism of the gaps” approach.

Why? Because the lack of God is what allows us to perceive things accurately and rationally”

Can you prove this, without being circular or arbitrary, or is this merely another assumption?

I see you like logic. Tell me, are the laws of logic universal, or are the subjective in the minds of individuals? Please account for them in a random, chaotic, naturalistic worldview.

Remember that for hundreds of years it was a “proven scientific fact” that spontaneous generation fully explained the origins of life.
Then came Darwin who believed characteristics passed from parent to offspring by the environment. This was called “Acquired Characteristics” and was undebatably considered truth. You remember the old experiments where they would cut off the tails of mice for several generations believing that eventually the mice would be born without tails.

Then the science of genetics came along and totally disproved yet another “proven scientific fact”. Now you believe that we evolved through random genetic mutations. We are still looking for an example of even one positive genetic mutations, but you believe that countless billions and billions of them have taken place.
The more we learn about the complexity of DNA the more it looks like your latest “proven scientific fact” will fall by the wayside.

But this time you are completely sure that there are no holes in your theory.
Fine, believe what ever you want, but don’t stand in the way of those that actually want to seek the truth. And if it happens to lead to “Intelligent Design” or even “Creationism” so be it.

Any argument that points to “design flaws” is not an argument against the existence of a designer, but an argument against his competence. It must assume he exists.

Did you even read the link I supplied on the reductio? Someone does not have to assume the truth of X to argue that, IF X were true, then Z Y and W would be the case, and these being absurd, X is probably not true. In fact, the whole point is to argue that X is NOT true, not to assume that it is.

This is really, really basic logic.

I’m only scratching the surface, but you can surely see the point.

I see your point. I don’t see that it’s based on anything useful.

Why do you keep dodging the question?

I don’t see how I’ve dodged the question. You haven’t raised any question that I can see. You’ve made a groundless assertion that you don’t seem able to justify: that you are somehow able to better account for the way reality is than I can. And yet, you’ve missed the rather crucial element, which is that all you are doing is just laying out a bunch of assumptions. I can do the same. So what? My assumptions are at the very least a lot more direct and to the point.

And my point, again, was that the issue is moot. You may not agree with my assumptions, and I don’t agree with yours, but we both concede that reality is real and induction is valid, and so forth. In fact, you cannot HELP but agree with me no matter what you do (unless you stop treating reality as real, and thus are sure not to continue debating the point).

My worldview can account for both items, as God created the human brain as well as the fruitful connection between it and physical reality.

The fact that your worldview can tell a story accounting for them is irrelevant. That doesn’t make the story true. For all you know, a God could have made your brain such that it gives a grossly false picture of reality, and also prevented you from having the capacity to realize it. How would you know different?

He “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).

Which means… what exactly? Can you actually explain what this purported act entails? If not, how can you claim to understand it or employ it in an “explanation” of anything?

This is the basis for the uniformity of nature, which you cannot account for.

We observe uniformity in natural laws. As for why there is that uniformity, we don’t pretend, falsely, to know why. Now, yes, if we wanted, we could make up any number of reasons off the top of our heads. But that’s not knowledge. The fact that you can tell a story that accounts for it is not knowledge either.

Your implication, however, seems to be that we should find it strange that there is uniformity in natural laws. But you haven’t justified this implication in the least.

Eastern philosophy, pagan religions, and atheism could never have fostered such knowledge.

You’re pretty ignorant of history as well, I see.

Instead, modern atheism has tried to turn science into a prodigal son, revolting against the worldview that fostered it.

Genetic fallacy again. Snore.

Therefore, you cannot “assume” anything. If so, we can just assume the God exists, and all go home.

You are welcome to assume that God exists. I don’t however. I merely assume the basic axioms necessary to act and live in our common reality.

And unlike your assumption, which is completely optional, the assumptions I’m making are not. You have to make them to function at all, even to have this argument.

You are even more deeply confused than I thought if you think that one does not have to make assumptions. ALL logical systems have to start with axioms. Everything you argue assumes some basic axioms, unproven.

On the contrary, I have just demonstrated that my worldview can account for the preconditions of science, logic, etc.

No: you’ve told a story asserting that a Godidit. That’s not what an “explanation” is though. If all that mattered were telling a story, do you think I couldn’t tell stories too? I happen not to because it doesn’t explain or illuminate anything to do so, but if those are the rules you want to play by, anyone can do it.

My argument is that God exist because of the impossibility of the contrary.

You haven’t demonstrated that the contrary is impossible. I’m not sure, from talking to you, that you even understand what “demonstrating” something (logically or evidentially) would entail.

I’d certainly love to see you try to do so without making even a single implicit assumption!

Without God, we cannot know or prove anything.

I might as well say that, without the lack of God, we cannot know or prove anything. Why? Because the lack of God is what allows us to perceive things accurately and rationally. I don’t have to explain why this is true, or course, or demonstrate that it is, in fact, the case. I can just assert it, pointlessly, like you do your claims. And apparently, that’s enough to satisfy you, right?

Once you have provided an answer to Hume, then I’ll accept the idea of atheistic “science” and “logic”, Until then, these things are a pipe dream.

Regarding my argument regarding design, I hold that without a designer, we could not expect the human eye to exist, nor would we expect it to be able to send accurate data to the most complex computer system known to exist (the human brain). I would not expect this brain to exist, nor would I expect it to have any fruitful connection with the created order. I’m only scratching the surface, but you can surely see the point.

But your problem, as an atheist, goes much deeper than that. Concerning induction and intelligible experience, you wrote that “I am merely pointing out that we both accept them already, and therefore demanding that I must prove them to you is silly.” Why do you keep dodging the question? My worldview can account for both items, as God created the human brain as well as the fruitful connection between it and physical reality. He “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). This is the basis for the uniformity of nature, which you cannot account for. Uniformity of nature is the basis for all inductive reasoning, which in turn in the basis for science. This is why scientific advancement succeeded in the West, due to its puritan worldview. Eastern philosophy, pagan religions, and atheism could never have fostered such knowledge. Instead, modern atheism has tried to turn science into a prodigal son, revolting against the worldview that fostered it.

Don’t take my word for it. The father of naturalistic philosophy, David Hume, noticed this dilemma 300 years ago.

See Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding

Therefore, you cannot “assume” anything. If so, we can just assume the God exists, and all go home. If you reject Hebrews 1:3, then you need to account for the preconditions of your arguments.

You concluded, “One, you have not demonstrated that you have any special route or explanation or justification for these things.” On the contrary, I have just demonstrated that my worldview can account for the preconditions of science, logic, etc. My argument is that God exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. Without God, we cannot know or prove anything. Once you have provided an answer to Hume, then I’ll accept the idea of atheistic “science” and “logic”, Until then, these things are a pipe dream.

First, you stated that “if X (designer), then we would expect Z (optimized designs).” I would disagree. My argument is “If not X (designer), then we should not expect to see anything, let alone design flaws.”

Ok, but that’s an extremely different argument than claiming that Ed must concede design because he shows how it would have be bad design, if so. And of course, this new argument is not very convincing at all. Why would we expect so “not see anything” without a designer? On what evidence could you possibly base such an assertion, having no experience with or knowledge about any existence other than our own?

Second, you have simply dodged my question concerning induction and intelligible experience.

Not in the slightest. I am merely pointing out that we both accept them already, and therefore demanding that I must prove them to you is silly.

I have not “conceded” anything to you. I hold that these things cannot exist without God, and it is up to you to prove me wrong.

Quite backwards, I’m afraid. You’d need to prove that you are correct before I’d be capable of arguing that you are correct or mistaken.

All of your arguments assume that these things are reality.

Indeed. Though, as I pointed out, those assumptions are axiomatic: they are essentially unavoidable in this context. So they seem to be a dramatically better place to start than anywhere else.

I hold that God is a precondition of all intelligible experience.

Ok, but I am not obligated to believe this claim or this assumption in the same way that you are obligated to accept reality to even debate the issue with me. Thus this is a claim that you need to prove. I see no reason to accept it. It doesn’t as far as I can tell, even explain anything at all about what an “intelligible experience” is: how God is a necessary precondition for it, or even how God goes about making experience “intelligible.” What would an “unintelligible” experience even be like?

Without his design in the human brain, our “reason” is nothing more than electricity floating around inside ou skulls.

This is a pretty flimsy proposition for at least two reasons. First of all, neither Ed nor I think that design is necessary for reliable function, let alone any functioning at all. Second of all, the fact that you can cite what the brain does in some reductive sense just not justify the word “merely.” The impulses in the brain are not wholly randomly jagging around: they appear to be doing all sorts of things that are clearly related to things like experience, memory, knowledge, reasoning, and so forth.

For you to imply that the fact that brains/minds have some sort of underlying mechanism or explanation for their functioning somehow weighs for or against the rationality of the arguments they make is, in fact, merely the genetic fallacy coupled with the fallacy of composition. Brains/minds have to work in SOME way, after all.

That is where we disagree. I’m asking you to prove this. Defend logic, reason, science, and morality from a naturalist, atheistic perspective. Until you do this, you cannot use them as you are begging the question.

That’s not what “begging the question” means: it means assuming your own conclusion by using it as one of the premises, not “I have questions to ask.”

And your demand is premature for two reasons. One, you have not demonstrated that you have any special route or explanation or justification for these things. As I’ve noted in various times and places before, the general theist case for superiority here is usually based on a fatal misunderstanding of the concepts themselves. Two, as I have already noted, I can perfectly well use them simply by reference to them existing and you de facto conceding the point simply by replying. This makes the issue entirely moot. That reality exists and that the senses give a reasonably (though not error free) depiction of it within their scope is where I start to begin with: I do not need to “prove” my axioms. That is why they are axioms in the first place. And, in addition to you already agreeing with me on them for the purposes of any debate, these axioms seem a great deal stronger and more immediate than yours, which from their own starting points require all sorts of elaborate assumptions about hypothetical beings no one can demonstrate having intentions no one can discern, doing things you can’t explain in ways you also can’t explain.

First, you stated that “if X (designer), then we would expect Z (optimized designs).” I would disagree. My argument is “If not X (designer), then we should not expect to see anything, let alone design flaws.”

Second, you have simply dodged my question concerning induction and intelligible experience. I have not “conceded” anything to you. I hold that these things cannot exist without God, and it is up to you to prove me wrong. All of your arguments assume that these things are reality. I hold that God is a precondition of all intelligible experience. Without his design in the human brain, our “reason” is nothing more than electricity floating around inside ou skulls.

“This is, of course, a myth, though apparently a comforting one. But theism offers nothing at all philosophically that isn’t available elsewhere with just as many, or even fewer, assumptions.”
That is where we disagree. I’m asking you to prove this. Defend logic, reason, science, and morality from a naturalist, atheistic perspective. Until you do this, you cannot use them as you are begging the question.

You entirely missed the point. Z cannot be flawed unless there is Z to begin with

You seem unfamiliar with how logical argument works. In this case, Ed was making an argument of the reductio ad absurdum: i.e. assuming for the purposes of argument that what you claim is true, seeing what follows from that, showing that this leads so a serious problem or absurdity, and then finally concluding that the original assumption was flawed. So, no: Ed does not, in fact, have to believe X or Z in terms of “design” by an intelligent agent to argue hypothetically and show that X is counter-indicated by reality. He’s dipping into your claims, and showing a flaw. Not conceding that your claims or terminology are correct.

In any case, I have yet to hear any explanation of how the human mind can comprehend Z without God, let alone account for it.

In the case of sub-optimal features in nature (i.e. the non-question begging version of “bad design”) these are actually quite well explained by sorts of changes natural selection is capable of: i.e. its inability to address large structural missteps that are only apparent in the long run.

For that matter, how can there be any intelligible experience, much less inductive reasoning, both of which are preconditions of science?

This point seems moot, since by even responding to me here on the internet, you are already conceding all of these points. There is intelligible experience, and there is viable inductive reasoning, and you seem to already agree on these points, however you or anyone else gets there. In the case of methodological naturalism, these are, in fact, the basic assumptions, not conclusions of anything else. And as they are so fundamental to everyone’s experience of a common reality and interaction within it (in a way that supernatural or theistic assumptions are not so necessary or fundamental), they seem a lot sounder than any other starting point for inquiry.

Naturalists will never admit to their own metaphysics, and must borrow from the theistic worldview in order to argue against it.

This is, of course, a myth, though apparently a comforting one. But theism offers nothing at all philosophically that isn’t available elsewhere with just as many, or even fewer, assumptions.