When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Goosebump]

Isn't the "JTB" the Gettier problem? If so doesn't that mean that it's "true but unknown"? How is that provable or even usable in any argument? Atheists don't say there is "No God" they simply say there "Is not Your God". I think your entire reasoning is false because your making some assumption.

[AAA]

Beccs is a surgeon, AAA, and I'm a retired biologist. Your statements thus far demonstrate an astounding lack of understanding of how evolution actually works. I'm not saying this to belittle or insult you; I'm truly baffled that you think it works the way you have been claiming, the past few pages.

The reason something is vestigial is not because it has no function; rather an organ is considered vestigial if it is inherited from an ancestor in which it had a primary purpose that is now lost. Often, the original function of the organ can be seen in related species that did not lose that function as part of their evolutionary development... an example is the wings of flightless birds. Clearly, they inherited the "have feathers and wings" from flighted ancestors, then grew so large that the wings could no longer support that function. Now, the wings are used for cooling and for balance, but not for flight. Another famous example is the pelvis and miniature hind "legs" of modern whales; you can see that the ancestral versions had such legs, based on fossils we've found, but in the modern version the legs have miniaturized so much that they never emerge from the skin. Those miniature legs and wings are vestigial organs. Whoever told you that an organ must have zero function to be considered vestigial was lying to you.

The reason they are saying they could design better humans is not because they think they have the magical powers to create one from scratch, but because there are numerous basic engineering problems with the layout of the human body, problems that make no sense if we were designed from scratch by some Creator, but which make perfect sense if you look at us as the descendants of quadrupeds. The classic example of this (there are many others, if you bother to look) is our double-curved spine, located at the rear of the torso. If it had been centrally located, the weight would be more-evenly distributed and back problems would be less common; the design of the discs is also problematic, as they were evolved originally to hold weight beneath them, as a quadruped's spine does, and never meant to support vertical weight for years on end. Because of the double-bend and the vertical gravity problem, over time the discs can become pinched by this pressure and uneven load, resulting in pinched/enflamed nerves (because they pass right through the gap nearby) and a truly awful form of back pain. Bad design, but perfectly well-described by the process of evolution from quadruped ancestors who laid out our basic body-planform. If you really want to know about these other issues, I suggest you read the book Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.

Now on to what you said to me:

I read the article, I haven't watched the video yet. The difference between your interpretation and mine is this. If we do see the building blocks of life so abundantly in the universe, then you seem to think this means that life must develop often. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if the building blocks of life are so common, then life also should be according to the materialist model. 

When I see the fact that there are building blocks of life out there, I then wonder why there is no other signs of life. It makes abiogenesis even rarer when it doesn't seem to happen anywhere else despite having what it needs. Also discovering acetate in outer space is a small step toward the building blocks of life. The amino acids are more complex than that, and some even require multiple enzymes (made out of the amino acid that needs to be produced by them) in order to synthesize them. Then you have the problem of getting the building blocks to come together, which also requires enzymes. Also I agree that NASA should continue researching, but they may be wasting their money if life really didn't form spontaneously. The more ways they find out life cannot form naturally, the more likely an intelligent causal agent becomes. Do we have to exhaust all possible natural mechanisms before a designer becomes reasonable?

I don't understand why none of you Intelligent Design types ever seem to understand that life was not always the way it is today, or to grasp what it means when they say they've developed a model of the Pre-RNA World biochemistry. What makes you think that enzymes were always the only way to do the required chemistry? What makes you think that life should be common or else a designer is necessary? Even you are claiming that it is a difficult set of circumstances to jump from prebiotic to reproducing biomolecules... so even if it's common to form the precursors, why should we expect to find life "everywhere"? I happen to think some form of life is common anywhere conditions are right, based on what I know of the chemistry involved, but that's a big leap from "everywhere", and it's hardly surprising that we've found nothing since the only places we've gone don't have any water. If we wind up finding nothing beneath the ice of Europa, I'll be surprised, but for now your "why don't we see it?" argument is ... to put it nicely, more than a bit premature.

The reason I was pointing out that NASA does this kind of research is not to actually suggest that they're wasting their time, but to suggest that they know what the fuck they're talking about better than I do, and certainly better than you do, and they're willing to invest careers and resources (that could be spent on other projects) on this line of research... and have produced some pretty amazing natural and laboratory discoveries along the way. They clearly think that life can and does form naturally wherever conditions are right, and so they are trying to figure out just what those conditions are (other than what we already see on earth) and where we might look to find our first proof.

Please, AAA. Seriously. There are hundreds of thousands of serious, working evolutionary biologists who are Christians, and every one of them would agree with what I'm saying, and not with what you're saying. My fiancee, an evolutionary biologist and devout Christian, sat right here next to me on this computer while I had a conversation with another person about Intelligent Design, and she made comments about his ideas which were so disparaging and insulting that even I wouldn't repeat them in typed format. She considers ID to be an insult to the Creator, whereas evolution is something that just happens, in the words of Darwin, "whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity". God, she says, does not need to "stick his fingers in the pie" and meddle while the recipe bakes.

There are many things that are "apparently true", to our simple and biased human senses/thinking, which turn out not to be true when those biases are eliminated via the Scientific Method. The classic example is how genetics actually works, versus the Lamarckian adaptation model proposed for hundreds of years before Mendel discovered how it actually works via careful observation measurements that eliminated previous suppositions. That didn't stop the "divinely inspired" authors of Genesis from getting it dead-wrong, in Genesis 30, where they attribute the wealth of Jacob (acquired from his boss Laban's flocks) to his cleverness in exploiting the Lamarckian adaptation model... an idea that seemed good at the time, and actually fooled everyone until about 150 years ago, because it is "apparent" but not true.

Please, check your prejudices and read any of a number of good books on evolutionary biology written by Christians who are also scientists (that is, actual scientists; not the wolves-in-sheeps-clothing at places like the ICR, who distort science and mine quotes out-of-context to make real scientists look stupid or confused), which might help you understand the things you seem to be misconstruing about how biochemistry and the evolutionary processes actually work. You may be quite intelligent, but biology is clearly not your field of expertise. Again, I don't say this to insult you, but only to put a "reality check" brake on your POV.

You two have better credentials than me and most likely know more, but I am using facts reach the design conclusion. I don't get  why what I'm saying is demonstrating a lack of how evolution works. You guys keep saying that to me, but I think I understand the mechanism and I just don't think it is sufficient to explain away all the chicken or the egg problems that come with it. If there is some secret knowledge that can help me see the light of evolution, I would love to hear it, but you guys just repeatedly telling me that I don't understand it seems to just be a way of putting yourselves above me without tackling the real question. 

I don't think anyone ever told me that an organ has to have no function to be considered vestigial, but if vestigial organs can have functions, then where do we draw the line? We could easily interpret the appendix as part of the design. Same with wings on flightless birds. Sure they don't have the function that we typically think of wings for, but it fits both evolutionary and design theories well enough. It comes down again to presuppositions. The whale legs again have an important function as a place for muscle attachment. If vestigial organs are what you defined them as, then aren't all of our structures vestigial? Structures gradually changing their purpose over time. It seems like we can either call everything vestigial or nothing vestigial based on that definition. 

Also the poor design arguments are always interesting. If our backs are better suited for quadrupeds, then would we be better off (as far as back pain goes) if we spent our lives with the posture of such organisms? I predict that this would lead to more back issues. 

This is one of the problems I have with the theory of abiogenesis  and evolution. They have gone on for a while about the RNA world hypothesis, but they are straying from evidence to theory based on presuppositions. Why was there an RNA world? Because RNA can have metabolic and replicative properties and is the only molecule that could bridge the gap between non-living and life. Because we know evolution to be true, we can say that there must have been an RNA world. 


Do you see the problem with this? They are building on presupposition based on presupposition upon presupposition. I worry that they are building their ideas on false realities. Why do I think that enzymes are always necessary? Because that is what we always observe. I shouldn't try to invoke something that we don't know can happen to explain what we see. Intelligence is the known cause of information, sketchy models of pre-RNA biochemistry are not known causes of information. Therefore, I feel more comfortable with what I know can explain it than something that I have no experience explaining it.  

I am not trying to attack NASA, and I welcome their research. I think that the money could be put to better use, but that is a different story. I understand that they are smarter than me, but intelligent people can be wrong. In fact it is when intelligent people are wrong that science takes a turn and gets closer to truth. If we discourage discussion, then progression will halt. 

I also know that you can be a christian and believe in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that I see problems with the theory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am not just going to accept a problematic theory because it is OK for my religion to do so. Also I don't think that design is insulting to the creator. Evolution is insulting to the creator. It paints a nasty picture for the creator. Years of misfits and suffering to bring us into the world is not a loving way to bring about humans. I realize that this does not determine the truth of either theory, but I would not want to worship the creator if He used evolution. However, I don't disagree with the theory on theological grounds, it is on scientific grounds. 

You imply that people who believe in intelligent design are not real scientists. I think that this is the type of treatment that discourages people from questioning the scientific consensus. I'm sure that you realize the importance of differing takes on the evidence in science. Most breakthroughs occur when very few individuals question the current consensus and begin looking at the evidence and testing their alternative models. If we don't allow people to question the consensus, then we will no longer progress.

[Delicate]

Of course you're arguing that the two should not be disparate.

I'm pointing out that they are, and that there's a reason for it.

If you cannot understand the simple difference between belief and knowledge, I don't see much hope of this being a productive conversation. You go on ahead and bruit about your misapprehnsions regarding atheists, and I'll resume regarding you as someone unworthy of serious consideration.

Whatever your reasons might be for having that distinction, if you have that distinction, it logically entails that your atheism is false or unjustified. Or both.

If you disagree with my argument, point out where I am logically out of step or factually incorrect. As far as I can see, my reasoning is deductively valid.

[Silver]

For one who just ranted about presuppositions, you certainly are quite unaware of that which takes place within the Christian mythology. After all, religion has built its church walls based on false realities.

Being a Christian and believing in evolution based on an imaginary sky daddy being behind the workings of evolution is quite a retarded apologetic stepping stone, I do agree.

For one who cannot accept reality as it is certainly has no problems accepting mythology as factual. (I was responding in reference to how you posted, and you obviously repeated yourself, triple A)

There is nothing intelligent about any design based on a primitive mind's concept of human origin.

[Delicate]

Isn't the "JTB" the Gettier problem? If so doesn't that mean that it's "true but unknown"? How is that provable or even usable in any argument? Atheists don't say there is "No God" they simply say there "Is not Your God". I think your entire reasoning is false because your making some assumption.

It isn't. The Gettier problem attacks JTB. To be more specific, the Gettier problem attacks the claim that JTB is N&S for knowledge. Given Gettier (and other) problems with the JTB account, I think most epistemologists today take JTB to be N&~S for knowledge.

[Delicate]

For one who just ranted about presuppositions, you certainly are quite unaware of that which takes place within the Christian mythology.  After all, religion has built its church walls based on false realities.  

Being a Christian and believing in evolution based on an imaginary sky daddy being behind the workings of evolution is quite a retarded apologetic stepping stone, I do agree.

For one who cannot accept reality as it is certainly has no problems accepting mythology as factual.  (I was responding in reference to how you posted, and you obviously repeated yourself, triple A)

There is nothing intelligent about any design based on a primitive mind's concept of human origin.

Swing and a miss. This isn't what we were talking about.

[Silver]

Word saladist in the house, yo.

[Silver]

Swing and a miss. This isn't what we were talking about.

And that response was not even toward you, Miss me-me-me.

Now, the word saladist response, yes, that is directed toward you. You're welcome.

[Delicate]

Word saladist in the house, yo.

Anything written above a third-grade level is word-salad to you, buddy. 

And by the way, your attitude represents the anti-intellectual nature of atheism on this forum.

[Redbeard The Pink]

There is plenty of evidence that points to a designer. Information rich cells and the fine tuned universe are old but good arguments that give the appearance of design. When you first see it, the conclusion should be intelligent cause. Materialistic explanations fall short continuously, which ironically inadvertently ends up making it more likely that the design conclusion is correct. I think there is plenty of evidence from biology that supports a designer.

Nooope.


No designer is needed to explain the complexity of the Universe, and if the complexity of the Universe requires a designer more complex than the Universe itself, then that designer must also be complex enough to require a designer more complex than itself, and that designer must also require a more complex designer...welcome to infinite regression.


If your designer doesn't require a designer more complex than itself, then why should the Universe?


If your designer is the only thing in reality that doesn't require a designer, then that's special pleading.


Check.