Post-Modern Bloodhounds

The other day I went on a hike through the woods, and came across a pack of Bloodhounds sniffing the ground.  After watching them for a moment, my curiosity got the better of me.  “What are you doing?” I asked the dog closest to me.  He paused to answer me, “Why, I am on the trail of something really big!  So I am tracking as well as I know how.”  Of course, I was now more curious than ever so I asked him, “What exactly is it you are tracking?”  The dog, growing impatient with my questioning, was still kind enough to answer me.  “I am tracking Truth.  I am on the scent of it, and soon, I think I will find it!”  So I asked the dog, “What are you going to do once you find the Truth?”  He got a very serious look on his long face and answered me, “Well, I think that once I find it, I will pretend I didn’t and just keep on looking.”  As you can imagine, my curiosity was now at a fever pitch.  “Why would you do such a thing?!?  Don’t you want to keep the Truth once you find it?  Don’t you want to share it with your Bloodhound friends so they can stop looking and enjoy the Truth with you?”  “Oh no!” responded the dog, “If I let everyone know I found the Truth, they would think I am an arrogant dog since I found it and they did not.  They would bite me for claiming I found what they too were looking for.  And if they find the Truth and let me know about it, well you better believe I will bite them!  It is better for all if we simply pass over it and keep on looking.  Better that than to be considered arrogant or get hurt!”

Does this sound familiar?  It is exactly what is going in modern society.  If someone is bold enough to stand on the Word of God and proclaim the truth of the Gospel (repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ name), they will get bit.  They are considered to be arrogant.  Holding stubbornly to the Truth is no longer seen as a good thing, it is just seen as stubborn.  Standing up and confronting those who are teaching error isn’t seen as being bold for Christ, it is seen as being contentious and immature.  The very same folks who say they admire Spurgeon and  Luther for their boldness denounce modern-day counterparts as being divisive.  It seems as though nobody remembers Paul confronting Peter (Galatians 2:11) or realizes that in the same place we are told not to be arrogant we are also told to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine (Titus 1:7-9).  Even sharing the truth of the Gospel is seen to be intrusive and pushy, not something done out of genuine concern and obedience to Christ.  How is it that in our modern “wisdom” we have decided that we should be sitting down with those who teach false doctrine (or completely denounce Christ altogether) and having a conversation as to what we have in common?  Is unity of more value than truth?  Can it be true that looking for the Truth is admirable but finding it is arrogant and exclusive?  Is obedience to our Lord to be abandoned and civility pursued?  I know, I know, just the rantings of yet another immature cretin who holds to Biblical truth, not caring who he offends.  How immature!

, , ,

Subscribe

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

12 Comments on “Post-Modern Bloodhounds”

  1. agnophilo Says:

    “Huh? Are you saying because certain segments of societies in various parts of the world are having problems, no intelligent discussion should be had regarding the relationships between other groups in other regions?”

    No.

    “For that matter, what does the arrogance found in post-modernity (the point of the post) have to do with the opression of any particular group, minority or otherwise?”

    The blog (and many other blogs feigning christian persecution) label it as a christian thing or as something that happens to christians specifically rather than being a part of everyone’s life, and especially the lives of minorities who, for obvious mathematical reasons tend to face much more adversity than christians do in the US.

    “I am thinking you may have a pointed problem with US Christians so as to read that into the article.”

    I think anyone who is in every majority simultaneously is bound to have a blind spot when it comes to things like minority rights, tolerance and the harmfulness of their own ideology, and in this country that would be white, christian, non-poor males, of whom there are a lot. That the group in my country happens to be christian is circumstantial and temporary.

    “How does the “crap” handed to the minority somehow ascend in importance over the “crap” handed to the majority?”

    It doesn’t, in principle. But miinorities tend to require more protection for the simple reason that they have less influence and face more adversity. Obviously someone lynching someone in a minority (to use an extreme example) isn’t worse than someone lynching someone in a majority, but you may have noticed people in the majority tend not to get lynched a whole lot.

    “Seems a bit bigoted to me to have a ranking level for “crap” based on whether they are a minority or not, and whether or not they live in the US…”

    I will put it this way – if you think christians are, on average worse off than any other group in the US, you need to look around more.

    “I did follow the link and read all the comments between you and the muffin. Please know ahead of time I have no interest in long, drawn-out conversations”

    But you read the entire conversation?

    “with someone who spends such an incredible amount of time trying to prove to others that something he doesn’t believe in really doesn’t exist.”

    Ah, I see – you merely said you read it but didn’t actually read it. If you did you would know that 99% of the conversation was about science, not the existence or non-existence of god. Unless you equate science with atheism which sadly many evangelicals do.

    “The intensity and endurance of the atheist is only matched by the fervor and devotion of the religious (indeed in my mind atheism and evolution have so many gaps that are bridged by faith…ahem…theory, that I view it as a religion itself). Not trying to be rude, but as a blogger I have been down that road far too many times and it has proven to be fruitless for all involved.”

    Some evangelist saying no transitional fossils exist or we’ve never seen a mechanism that could explain this or that doesn’t make it actually true. I’ve never yet found a part of evolution that is not extremely well supported by tests and evidence, and none of you “it takes more faith to believe in evolution” apologists has ever been able to provide a genuine example. The conversation always goes the way the one linked to goes – they claim there’s no evidence, then I spend an “incredible amount of time” explaining a small portion of the supposedly non-existent evidence to them, then they blow me off and start spouting scripture about how wicked I am and telling me about jesus.

    Reply

    • The Master's Slave Says:

      We spout off using the Scriptures, you use so called science. Your science is nothing more than well crafted circular reasoning, made to frustrate anyone you argue against. I have been down that road before, dealing with people who cannot answer a question directly. Churchsalt and I are Christians, made so by the sovereign hand of God. This you can NEVER understand, nor do you wish to. I have been called arrogant and bigoted so many times I can’t even count, and it’s funny that to talk to me and to read any material I place on my blog tells a very different story. Read my page called My Journey…do you see any arrogance in it whatsoever? The real reason you use these phrases such as bigoted, arrogant and the like is because you are defending your position and choices. To waste your life trying to prove the non existence of something is idiocy. I don’t run around trying to prove the non existence of leprechauns…what a waste of time!

      I will be very clear with you:

      God is sovereign.

      He created EVERYTHING and through the power of Christ Jesus, EVERYTHING is sustained.

      Unless He saves you, you are destined and judged to hell for eternity.

      Scripture is perfect, without error or contradiction, and must be lived and followed.

      You can choose to believe the reality of this or deny everything, that is your “choice”, but God is not fooled or mocked, you will be judged and sentenced accordingly.

      Reply

      • agnophilo Says:

        “We spout off using the Scriptures, you use so called science.”

        No, it’s actual science. As in observable, testable reality. The stuff you find on creationist websites is “so-called” science, in other words it’s not even accepted by most christian scientists. If you killed every non-christian or shipped them all to the moon or something and left only christians and christian scientists the scientific consensus about evolution would be the same as it is right now. That is how well it is accepted across all ideological lines. Which is the mark of actual science. Evolution isn’t an atheist concept any more than gravity is a christian concept. Observable reality is observable reality.

        “Your science is nothing more than well crafted circular reasoning, made to frustrate anyone you argue against.”

        Yeah, new diseases, pesticide resistance, cancer cells adapting to chemo and hundreds of other phenomenon in nature are all byproducts of internet sophistry.

        “I have been down that road before, dealing with people who cannot answer a question directly.”

        I’ve been very direct with you, and I was very direct with the guy on the other blog.

        “Churchsalt and I are Christians, made so by the sovereign hand of God. This you can NEVER understand, nor do you wish to.”

        I don’t pretend to understand you as an individual, but I doubt that if what you say were true it would be something that anyone could comprehend.

        “I have been called arrogant and bigoted so many times I can’t even count,”

        Maybe you are arrogant and bigoted.

        “and it’s funny that to talk to me and to read any material I place on my blog tells a very different story. Read my page called My Journey…do you see any arrogance in it whatsoever?”

        I am relatively new to wordpress (all but a few of my blogs are imported from xanga) so I don’t know how to navigate to it. I tried googling it but google doesn’t seem to like wordpress.

        “The real reason you use these phrases such as bigoted, arrogant and the like is because you are defending your position and choices.”

        I didn’t use those terms or call anyone those things. Or do you mean you as in “you people”? If you do then generalizing like that is, ironically, bigoted and arrogant.

        “To waste your life trying to prove the non existence of something is idiocy. I don’t run around trying to prove the non existence of leprechauns…what a waste of time!”

        Imagine a world where people justified slavery, sexism, murder, war, hatred, denial of civil rights and persecution of every minority using the concept of leprechauns. Might you be inclined to argue against their existence then? I don’t feel compelled to argue against the validity of the quran (or even read the thing) but if I lived in a country where women were being stoned to death because of it I would certainly take an interest. But that is beside the point for now because that is not what I was doing on either of these blogs.

        “I will be very clear with you:
        God is sovereign. He created EVERYTHING and through the power of Christ Jesus, EVERYTHING is sustained.”

        You know this how?

        “Unless He saves you, you are destined and judged to hell for eternity.”

        Sounds like a great guy.

        “Scripture is perfect, without error or contradiction, and must be lived and followed.”

        Even if it once was I know enough about the changing of language, connotations, differences in dialect and slang and different forms of composition to know that this is impossible. There is poetry in the bible, how can a poem be infallible? There are words in the bible that we guesstimate their meaning based on what the term meant a hundred years later, because that’s the most approximate text we have with which to translate. To treat the bible as though it were written last week in modern english is absurd and if I were christian I would consider it blasphemous.

        “You can choose to believe the reality of this or deny everything, that is your “choice”, but God is not fooled or mocked, you will be judged and sentenced accordingly.”

        Nobody’s mocking anybody. I just don’t see any reason why I should believe anything you tell me. Ironically you can probably relate to my point of view perfectly, it’s the same attitude you probably have toward the heaven/hell/miracle/revelation claims of every other religion.

        If god would punish me for honestly not knowing which version of which religion is correct (especially when there are so many) then he is a cruel, evil god and I don’t think I could worship a being like that even if I knew it existed.

      • The Master's Slave Says:

        I began with a discussion on the engines which drive evolution. The one fact which prevailed in that discussion was the impossibility, near impossibility, of a positive mutation (the probability is so near that it is practically impossible). Now I will simply list several well known and accepted facts which do not allow the theory of evolution to exist. To continue on the point of mutations which drive the theory of evolution, I will begin there. This will be a wealth of information. It is perfectly alright if, in your responses, that you discuss the points I have presented here one by one, listing the point number in some sort of way.

        1)The Structure of Protons in the Nucleus

        Protons, being of like charge, naturally repel each other. Speeds needed for nuclear fusion does not occur naturally in nature. We attempt to produce nuclear fusion, and even then, the process is not 100% efficient (during the process, protons bounce off of each other). Everything that is alive contains carbon. Period. Carbon has 6 protons. Those protons are held together by nuclear forces, which attract protons to each other when they are extremely close. Any one micrometer farther apart, and the protons split. How can, with repelling protons and with the lack of naturally occurring nuclear fusion, carbon have formed? In addition, how can anything with an atomic number (atomic number=number of protons) of 2 or higher have formed? The answer to this question is that it is frankly impossible.

        Big bang attempts to explain this. However, this is simply what big bang sais: nothing took itself, and made something from nothing. The big bang theory sais that a tremendous explosion began the universe. Where did those things which the explosion was composed of came from? And if from something else where did they come from? The eventuality is that it same from nothing, or that it appeared from nowhere. Everything has a source. Things dont appear from nothing, explode, and cause the universe to expand and heat, then cool, then randomly form the earth. This, in simple common sense terms, is impossible.

        2)The Age of the Sun (Russian Sun Study and Earth’s Magnetic Field)

        For the theory of evolution to be possible, the sun had to have existed throughout the duration of the evolutionary time scale. Life as we know it could not have developed or exist without the sun in tow. A study was done on the sun by Russian scientists. Based on the sun’s rate of nuclear fusion, the Russian scientists found the sun to be 10,000-30,000 years old.

        Also supporting young age is the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. Scientists have found that the magnetic field is reducing in strength at a rapid rate, with a half life of about 1,400 years. If that rate is reversed, the strength of the earth’s magnetic field 20,000 years ago would be that of a magnetic star. This supports Earth’s young age, as appose to evolution’s over estimation.

        3)Population Statistics

        This science is above all the most convincing. As you can see in the chart of population growth, the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth. According to evolution, humans appeared 200,000 years ago, and the modern human 40,000 years ago. The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2%, yet it has been shown to be 1%. Every 82 years, one-third of the population is wiped out by disease, war, etc. If these rules are applied, over the course of 41,000 years, according to the observed science of population statistics, there would be 2×10^89 humans in existence today. In other words, 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The current population is 6900000. There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies.

        This is not conjecture. This is a science of population statistics. Evolution does not conform to this.

        4)McFall & Taylor Trail Footprints

        These two trails have both dinosaur and human foot prints. For one, dinosaurs are, according to evolution millions of years old. These fossils should be underground to coordinate with the evolutionary time scale. However, the very fact that these fossils are on the surface is cause for disproof. Also, there is one particular footprint which has a human footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint. This shows that humans and dinosaurs existed recently and in the same period, which evolution is quite contradictory to.

        5)Lysosome

        Lysosome contain enzymes that are used to break down material and get it ready for disposal. All of these enzymes work best at a low pH, reducing the risk that these enzymes will digest the very cell they are contained in should they somehow escape from the lysosome. Keep in mind that the pH of water, from which all life spring from (according to evolution) has a pH of 7. The cell could not house these enzymes without the membrane. The conundrum of getting the enzymes inside of the membrane, or the membrane around the enzymes, or the membrane evolving, then the enzyme getting on the inside, or the enzyme evolving, then the membrane around it, is a very far stretched possibility. This is so far stretched, that it is impossible.

        If the enzymes develop before the membrane, the membrane would be broken down by enzymes from the outside. If the membrane evolves before the enzymes, either the membrane is already closed and is consumed by the enzyme or the enzyme develops inside the membrane, at which point would contain water instead of cell fluid. The membrane, at that point, would be consumed from the inside out because of pH.

        7)The Digestive System

        If we were to take away the bile lining our digestive system, the stomach acid would burn through the cell lining, and thus leak into the rest of the body, and be detrimental to survival. The process of evolution takes billion of years. An unprotected cell, if dropped in this acid, would be instantly killed. Early cells that might try to contain this acid or who merely come in contact with this acid will be instantly killed. This instant kill leaves no time to adapt. A cell cannot adapt to something it does not come in regular contact with. Just one contact is enough to kill the cell. Furthermore, our stomach acid is weak when compared to other animals, such as vultures.

        Also, this is an issue similar to lysosome and their enzymes. Stomach acid would not be able to be contained. Evolution cannot explain how stomach acid ended up in the first stomach.

        8)The Probability of Cell Development

        A cell, at minimum, has 60,000 proteins of which there are 100 different configurations. There are, on top of this, very complex cells and an enumeration of cell types. The chance of the random, unorchestrated assembly of a cell is 1 in 104,478,296. This is so far stretched, that it is practically impossible.

        If I were debating mutation like I was in my last piece, you could find a way around my arguments. We both evolutionist and creationists would have been debating conjectures on how evolution would compensate for difficulties in generating positive adaptations. However, most of these are either facts or a science, not conjecture. There is no way to conjecture around these. Maybe, possibly, you could provide a far stretched explanation for lysosome and the digestive system because it is your arena on development of the organism. You might also debate your way around the big band explanation. However, the rest are facts and science that evolution cannot get around, and they are facts which make evolution an impossibility. However, if you do have observed facts that contradict what is above, please elaborate on these facts.

        Source: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923.html

      • agnophilo Says:

        “I began with a discussion on the engines which drive evolution. The one fact which prevailed in that discussion was the impossibility, near impossibility, of a positive mutation (the probability is so near that it is practically impossible).”

        Positive mutations are very unlikely, but mutations are much more numerous than positive mutations are unlikely. For instance the odds of winning a mega-jackpot are something like one in over 100 million, but people keep winning the mega-jackpot because millions of people play each week. There are about 7 billion humans whose genes mutate at a rate of (conservatively) a hundred mutations per person, per generation. So in this generation there are about 700 billion mutations for natural selection to work with. That is a tremendous amount of variation, to suggest that none of it would be useful is like suggesting it would contain no harmful birth defects. And of course we’ve found lots of isolated populations of humans that have apparently acquired mutated genes that give them resistances to local diseases, tolerances to new forms of food and even abilities to tolerate the environment like more or less skin pigment, and even genes that give a resistance to altitude sickness that are only found in tribes that live atop tall mountains just to name a few examples in humans. If you google “evolution experiment” you will find numerous examples of studies done which show predictable positive mutations in micro-organisms and insects as well. The claim that positive mutations do not occur is and has always been simply a lie.

        “1)The Structure of Protons in the Nucleus Protons, being of like charge, naturally repel each other. Speeds needed for nuclear fusion does not occur naturally in nature. We attempt to produce nuclear fusion, and even then, the process is not 100% efficient (during the process, protons bounce off of each other). Everything that is alive contains carbon. Period. Carbon has 6 protons. Those protons are held together by nuclear forces, which attract protons to each other when they are extremely close. Any one micrometer farther apart, and the protons split. How can, with repelling protons and with the lack of naturally occurring nuclear fusion, carbon have formed? In addition, how can anything with an atomic number (atomic number=number of protons) of 2 or higher have formed? The answer to this question is that it is frankly impossible.”

        The immense irony of this objection, which states that evolution can’t happen because nuclear fusion cannot occur in nature (the sun shining above you is an example of nuclear fusion occurring in nature, as is every star and supernova, not to mention asteroid (and larger) impacts which produce nuclear fusion) is that it is in complete contradiction with a later objection which states that “Based on the sun’s rate of nuclear fusion, the Russian scientists found the sun to be 10,000-30,000 years old.”

        It refutes itself.

        “Big bang attempts to explain this.”

        No, it doesn’t.

        “However, this is simply what big bang sais: nothing took itself, and made something from nothing. The big bang theory sais that a tremendous explosion began the universe.”

        No, it explains the expansion and cooling of the universe from a hot, dense state which is still observably happening right now – none of which has anything to do with biological evolution. The big bang theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe and was first proposed by a catholic priest who taught physics in a christian university. The evangelists who portray it as the atheist’s creation account do so dishonestly to try to drive a wedge between science and religion for the purpose of destroying one and replacing it with the other. And yes, I am using the language of the “wedge” document, the infamous leaked manifesto of the largest intelligent design organization in the US.

        “Where did those things which the explosion was composed of came from?”

        I haven’t got a clue.

        “And if from something else where did they come from? The eventuality is that it same from nothing, or that it appeared from nowhere. Everything has a source.”

        So where did god come from? And how did he create matter ex-nihilo? And assuming he did, why couldn’t he have created it in the form of a singularity?

        “Things dont appear from nothing, explode, and cause the universe to expand and heat, then cool, then randomly form the earth. This, in simple common sense terms, is impossible.”

        And all-powerful gods don’t grow on trees. It seems we’ve got a mystery on our hands. Also the formation of the earth is pretty straightforward and well understood.

        “2)The Age of the Sun (Russian Sun Study and Earth’s Magnetic Field) For the theory of evolution to be possible, the sun had to have existed throughout the duration of the evolutionary time scale. Life as we know it could not have developed or exist without the sun in tow. A study was done on the sun by Russian scientists. Based on the sun’s rate of nuclear fusion, the Russian scientists found the sun to be 10,000-30,000 years old.”

        There is no googleable or researchable or verifiable fact or claim in this, so I am going to have to skip it regrettably. Suffice to say this is not the generally accepted view of even a tiny percentage of christian astrophysicists.

        “Also supporting young age is the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. Scientists have found that the magnetic field is reducing in strength at a rapid rate, with a half life of about 1,400 years. If that rate is reversed, the strength of the earth’s magnetic field 20,000 years ago would be that of a magnetic star. This supports Earth’s young age, as appose to evolution’s over estimation.”

        Actually it’s been known for some time that the earth’s magnetic field is not weakening or strengthening, but rather that it simply periodically reverses polarity, and this can be verified by comparing magnetic minerals in rocks from different geological periods, glacial ice cores and other phenomenon which record these events – this is one of the discoveries that lead to the development of the idea of plate tectonics.

        “3)Population Statistics
        This science is above all the most convincing. As you can see in the chart of population growth, the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth. According to evolution, humans appeared 200,000 years ago, and the modern human 40,000 years ago. The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2%, yet it has been shown to be 1%. Every 82 years, one-third of the population is wiped out by disease, war, etc. If these rules are applied, over the course of 41,000 years, according to the observed science of population statistics, there would be 2×10^89 humans in existence today. In other words, 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The current population is 6900000. There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies. This is not conjecture. This is a science of population statistics. Evolution does not conform to this.”

        The rate of population growth is determined by a sum of everything that effects the rate of death (especially maternal fatality and infant mortality) and the birth rate. All populations of all organisms are capped by the amount of food and water available in a region which is why there are not a physically impossible number of people and never will be. The population size of humanity has exploded in the last several centuries due to, in a word – science. Women usually don’t die in childbirth anymore and children usually survive childhood, which was not the norm a few hundred years ago before vaccines, health codes and so on, and we can now produce more food than we currently consume, at least in the more technologically advanced countries. This was not the case until relatively recently. There is no mystery or problem, and this has nothing to do with evolution.

        “4)McFall & Taylor Trail Footprints
        These two trails have both dinosaur and human foot prints.”

        No, they don’t. Unless you think humans have three toes and no arches. Ironically when I first heard about this I was actually excited that it might be real, and disappointed to find out in one google search that it’s BS.

        “For one, dinosaurs are, according to evolution millions of years old. These fossils should be underground to coordinate with the evolutionary time scale. However, the very fact that these fossils are on the surface is cause for disproof.”

        They are found at the bottom of a river canyon (ie big hole) where nature has dug them up for us, they are not in the uppermost layers of the geological column.

        “Also, there is one particular footprint which has a human footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint. This shows that humans and dinosaurs existed recently and in the same period, which evolution is quite contradictory to.”

        Show me a picture that even looks remotely like a human footprint in those layers, I dare anyone.

        “5)Lysosome”

        I am skipping over this one for two reasons – one I’m no biochemist and I have no familiarity with these biological mechanisms to really get into any kind of mechanical hypothesizing about specific evolutionary routes or ways they could have evolved. And second, this is the exact same argument as the next one, just using a more arcane and less accessible (to the layman) example. It is describing the “chicken or the egg” question for what is called the “digestive system of the cell” before making the same argument for the regular digestive system. I will discuss the same principles in the response to the next one and explain why they are not problematic for evolution.

        “7)The Digestive System
        If we were to take away the bile lining our digestive system, the stomach acid would burn through the cell lining, and thus leak into the rest of the body, and be detrimental to survival. The process of evolution takes billion of years. An unprotected cell, if dropped in this acid, would be instantly killed. Early cells that might try to contain this acid or who merely come in contact with this acid will be instantly killed. This instant kill leaves no time to adapt.”

        One, evolution does not take billions of years, it happens observably in many species in a human lifetime. It takes place over longer periods of course but to say it takes billions of years as a general statement is misleading. Second, the human stomach does kill cells and is digesting itself perpetually. The author of this objection mistakenly believes that the stomach lining is like certain plastics which acids cannot break down, but it’s not. Every few days you grow an entirely new stomach lining because the old one is digested. It simply grows faster than it gets eaten through by the acids, cells are dying perpetually. This is why you can eat haggis, which is stomach, and digest it as easily as you can anything else.

        “A cell cannot adapt to something it does not come in regular contact with. Just one contact is enough to kill the cell. Furthermore, our stomach acid is weak when compared to other animals, such as vultures.”

        Would not the corollary also be true, that our stomach acid is likely very strong compared to other species? Why is it not possible that the first organism to digest organisms with some form of acid did not have a weak acid (even water is an acid) with a weak lining and any variations that made the lining stronger allowed for stronger digestive acids? I’m sure the strength of digestive acids and stomach lining varies from person to person, and both vary across the animal kingdom. I see no problem. Many of these chicken or the egg “problems” involve traits which are useful becoming necessary as they are modified and thus irreducibly complex. To use a technological example as a child I had an apple IIGS computer, an ooooold computer from the 80’s. It had no hard drive and you booted the operating system from the disk drive. Modern computers were designed by slow, gradual modifications of this design, yet the reverse is true today – modern computers absolutely must have a hard drive, and disk drives are optional. I cannot take my modern computer and, simply by removing parts, turn it into it’s predecessor. The reason for this is that as the modern PC was developed parts were not simply tacked on, they were added and modified and old parts that are no longer necessary were removed. If all I had was a modern computer to try to understand how the technology was developed it would be very hard to figure out for the same reason the evolutionary pathway of a particular trait is often hard to see. But google “evolution of the ____” and you will find we know a great deal about how traits traits evolved, often by finding more primitive versions in other organisms which give us clues.

        As for the general idea of irreducible complexity, here is an old blog of mine that explains how it was long ago debunked:

        http://agnophilo.xanga.com/728670894/evolution-and-irreducible-complexity/

        “8)The Probability of Cell Development
        A cell, at minimum, has 60,000 proteins of which there are 100 different configurations.”

        A modern cell, yes. A modern airplane is a lot more complex than an early one, and yanking out parts randomly would surely render it unable to fly. But that doesn’t mean a simpler design is not possible, or that modern jets were the first, last and only type of flying machine.

        “There are, on top of this, very complex cells and an enumeration of cell types. The chance of the random, unorchestrated assembly of a cell is 1 in 104,478,296. This is so far stretched, that it is practically impossible.”

        Setting aside that that is a made-up number it is also an extremely small number – by his logic cells should be popping up randomly all the time. I imagine there was an exponent in there and it was removed by the formatting. Either way the argument is irrelevant since it’s actually very easy to make so-called “statistically impossible” things happen and they happen all the time. Statistical impossibility refers to the likelihood of making something happen on purpose. If you threw a deck of playing cards out of the window of an airplane the odds that they would land exactly where they do is so unlikely that it would be impossible to replicate the results. But it’s effortless to do it the first time because you weren’t trying.

    • ChurchSalt Says:

      1) “The blog (and many other blogs feigning christian persecution)…”
      – This blog isn’t about Christian persecution. In addition, I find the words “feigning” to be extremely offensive, especially considering what’s going on in Egypt and much of the Muslim world even as I type this. Asked the raped women and fatherless children if when they discuss what happened to them they are “feigning”. Your hatred of Christians is robbing you of any decency you may have. Even if you aren’t a believer, do you have no heart at all so as to minimalize such events with trite dismissal? Please examine yourself in this matter.

      2) “Ah, I see – you merely said you read it but didn’t actually read it.”
      – So you come here and call me a liar…while lying? The entire conversation about science was done so under the umbrella of the question “Is there Proof of God”, even if it wasn’t specifically stated. So, yes, your entire conversation was apologetic in nature (or evidential, whatever term you prefer). To suggest it wasn’t is to attempt deception, all the while calling me a liar. Again you are offensive. And no, this isn’t an “intolerant Christian thing”. Nobody likes being called a liar.

      3) I see no point in discussing science with you, because anything or anybody that doesn’t agree with you is immediately labeled as not legitimate science (or scientist). There are an incredible number of scientists using real science that believe in creation, but you will discard every one of them because they don’t meet your standard, that being agreement with you. So why even discuss?

      4) “If god would punish me for honestly not knowing which version of which religion is correct (especially when there are so many) then he is a cruel, evil god and I don’t think I could worship a being like that even if I knew it existed.”
      – By your own admission you hate the God of the Bible. Lengthy conversation and scientific debate is completely pointless. If the God of the Bible showed up in front of your face, you would despise Him and call Him evil while calling yourself good. Think of the sins you have committed (and are committing this night) and try to maintain the position that you are good but Jesus Christ is evil. Unfortunately, you will probably do just that! And so I pity you more than you can even begin to realize.

      I hope that someday God opens your eyes and grants you repentance and faith. If this happens, please feel free to come back and talk. I will rejoice with you! But for now, I have no interest in spending any more time chasing the wind with someone who has no ears to hear and openly despises God. I also have no interest in allowing this blog to be a platform for subtle lies, accusations, and remarks of extreme offense (see item #1).

      Goodbye.


      “Ephraim is joined to idols…leave him alone!”

      Reply

  2. revivalandreformation Says:

    Nicely done my friend. You are so bang on with this one. I have been under the gun like crazy this last week with my work. I am so concerned with my brothers and sisters who are following after the Osteens, Copelands, Warrens…etc. They are blinded, fooled and thye have taken it upon themselves to attack me, call me judgmental, and yes, I was asked if I have been praying for them. Thanks for your work.

    Reply

    • agnophilo Says:

      I am always astonished how christians in the US think they’re the only ones who are ever treated rudely or condescended to based on what they believe, as if actual minorities don’t take any crap for their beliefs.

      Reply

      • The Master's Slave Says:

        Goodness you’re making the rounds, aren’t you? You obviously have no desire to change, so why don’t you go somewhere else rather than inciting others into argument and then ridiculing them for not agreeing with you? There’s nothing worse than someone that is full of arrogance and pride (such as yourself), who refuses to change and who looks for opportunities to incite strife among people. Got a lot of time on your hands is all I say…for anyone who wants to see what this joker’s been up to, visit this link before you allow yourself to argue with this know-it-all…

        http://thedaftmuffinblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/evolution-vs-god-video-from-ray-comfort/

      • agnophilo Says:

        Actually a christian blogger sent me the link to this blog. And I stand by everything I’ve said. I patiently answered many questions about complex science and explained how it works on the blog you link to, I see no reason that that is shameful in any way. As for having a lot of time on my hands the posts were made over a 16 day period.

      • ChurchSalt Says:

        Huh?
        Are you saying because certain segments of societies in various parts of the world are having problems, no intelligent discussion should be had regarding the relationships between other groups in other regions? For that matter, what does the arrogance found in post-modernity (the point of the post) have to do with the opression of any particular group, minority or otherwise? I am thinking you may have a pointed problem with US Christians so as to read that into the article. How does the “crap” handed to the minority somehow ascend in importance over the “crap” handed to the majority? Seems a bit bigoted to me to have a ranking level for “crap” based on whether they are a minority or not, and whether or not they live in the US…

        I did follow the link and read all the comments between you and the muffin. Please know ahead of time I have no interest in long, drawn-out conversations with someone who spends such an incredible amount of time trying to prove to others that something he doesn’t believe in really doesn’t exist. The intensity and endurance of the atheist is only matched by the fervor and devotion of the religious (indeed in my mind atheism and evolution have so many gaps that are bridged by faith…ahem…theory, that I view it as a religion itself). Not trying to be rude, but as a blogger I have been down that road far too many times and it has proven to be fruitless for all involved.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Post Modern Bloodhounds « Revivalandreformation's Blog - April 9, 2010

    […] To read the rest of this article, click HERE […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: