http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5669

==================================================

[Tim]

The version of Occam’s razor which I’ve seen is “Entia non sunt multiplicanda proeter neccesitatum”, entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Now, rudely applying Occam’s razor, one would think that we should be forced to conclude the existence of a divine being who created the world and all gave us life.

[My response]

Occam's Razor principle, asserts roughly that one should not multiply hypotheses beyond what one needs to explain observations. Creationism violates this principle by postulating unnecessarily the existence of a supernatural creator, which obviously begs the question of who or what created the creator.

[Tim]

I’d prefer to let facts speak for themselves, and I note that the facts speak in favour of God, not atheism or evolution.

[My response]

Excuse me, which God ? In Greek mythology, the god of thunder is Zeus. To the Norse, he is Thor. We invent these etiological myths to appease our fear of the unknown. " Yet ignorance by any other name is ignorance nonetheless, even if we call it a "god." In Judeo-Christian mythology, there is a God who can say whatever He wants and *poof* - just like magic - it happens. He does not require any mechanism, for nothing is impossible for Him. Nothing makes Him do one thing instead of the other, because He can easily do anything, He is unlimited and infinite. Muslims believe in only one God but Hindus believe in thousands of god, goddess etc. How about Bishnu Brohmma, Kali ?  You see there is no proper definition about what actually this "god" means.

Unfortunately you also like other believer did not provide any proper definition of god. It is not surprising at all, cause, if you could define god, then we could set up a test to test for the existence of this deity. Since you cannot define it, and since we cannot test for it, it puts their god along with most of the other gods and goddesses, beyond the pale of meaning. They are meaningless constructs for the atheists.

One good reason to not believe that God exists is that the concept of God is incoherent. The concept of God is like a round square or the largest number :-). The Argument from Incoherence (AFI) can be a good argument for atheism :

According to one formulation of AFI, some of the properties attributed to God in the Bible (and other holy books) are inconsistent. For example, God is said to be invisible (Col. 1:15, ITi 1:17, 6:16), a being that has never been seen (John 1:18, IJo 4:12). Yet several people in the Bible report seeing God, for instance Moses (Ex 33:11, 23), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ge. 12:7, 26:2, Ex 6:3). God is supposed to have said "you cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live" (Ge 32:30), However, Jacob saw God and lived. (Ge 32:30). In some places God is describe as a merciful and in other places as lacking mercy, in some places as a being who repents and changes His mind, in other places as a being who never repents and changes His mind, in some places as a being who deceives and causes evil, and in other places as a being who never does, in some places as a someone who punishes children for their parents wrong doingand in other places as one who never does. If we have to believe in Islam, we find Allah said in Holy Quran, 'Wherever you are, there He is with you all the time (Sura Hadid -4). But Hazrat Muhammad himself violation Quranic verses undertook a journey into the sky riding a wonder horse called 'Borak' sent by Allah. This trip is called the 'Night of Meraj'. After traveling a immeasurable distance he is said to have reached the heavenly seat of Allah where he had conversions with Him and received from Him two precious gifts of Islam -'prayer' and 'fasting'.

Some incompatible-properties arguments, such as imposing divine attributes like  God is: (a) perfect (g) personal (b) immutable (h) free (c) transcendent (i) all-loving (d) nonphysical (j) all-just (e) omniscient (k) all-merciful (f) omnipresent (l) the creator of the universe have already been flawed :

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html

[Tim]

The actual facts that we have, as arrived at through legitimate scientific methods, points us to the likelihood of a creator, and away from naturalistic views of the universe.

[My response]

Please mention what facts you found which is convinced you that creationism is scientific ( "points us to the likelihood of a creator" ). In whole conversation in your article I found that you didn't give any evidence that supports the "theory" of creationism;  Not in any meaningful sense. Because creation, if you consider it as a scientific theory, does not have specified boundaries, just about anything could be considered "evidence" for or against it. Most of the your evidence like other creationists' is thus of the god-of-the-gaps nature, meaning that creationists try to poke holes in science and then stuff their God into them. This is essentially an argument from ignorance: "Since we don't know how this happened (such as condensation of amino acid in ocean), it must mean God did it." Yet ignorance is never an argument and cannot be considered evidence in any meaningful sense. An individual scientist can off course  hold creationism as a private belief, that does not make it scientific.

Creationism, if we critically analyze, does not even come close to meeting the requirements for a scientific theory. Although it does tend to be consistent, it is not parsimonious, it is not correctable, it is not empirically testable, it is not useful and it is not progressive. Many of these obvious failings are in fact admitted by leading creationists, thus undermining their claims to be promoting a "science" of creationism.

By the common definition of science, creationism does not qualify. Let's look at the identifying fingerprints of a "good" scientific theory (from Casti, p. 460) and compare them with creationism:

• Consistency - Good theories contain no self-contradictory statements. A good theory of genetics involves no situations where identical genotypes result in radically different phenotypes. The Biblical creation story, on the other hand, contains two contradictory accounts concerning the order in which things were created, and fails to explain physical contradictions such as days with no sun.
• Non-circular - Good theories contain no circular arguments. By contrast, many creationists often point to the Bible to support notions which originated there.
• Cumulative - Good theories explain all the phenomena that older theories explain, but add something new. For example, Einstein's special relativity contains all the predictions of Newton's laws of motion, but extends Newton's work to include special cases at near-lightspeed velocities. In a similar fashion Punctuated Equilibrium explains fossil record observations better than Gradualism, and Natural Selection explains speciation better than its predecessor, Lamarckism. By contrast, creationism holds fast to a fixed and unchanging hypothesis.
• Testable - The claims or predictions of good theories must be testable by experiment. Thus, we can make predictions about environmental effects on speciation, or about what we might find in the fossil record, and then observe the evidence that either supports or falsifies the theory. Creationism does make both testable and untestable claims; however, those few claims which are testable (like evidence for the Biblical flood) have been falsified. All that remains are untestable, unfalsifiable claims. Falsifiability is the line of demarcation between scientific and non-scientific theories; the absence of this quality prohibits labelling the theories of astrology, Marxism, parapsychology and creationism as "scientific."

Evolution, however, is science. At least the whole approach is scientific. Evolution can also be falsified - that is to say, we can imagine circumstances which, if true, would mean that evolution must be false. As to the other characteristics of scientific theories, evolution is consistent, evolution is parsimonious, evolution is useful and evolution is progressive. All are fulfilled. The general theory of evolution was arrived at using the scientific method and it meets the criteria for scientific theories. Yes, evolution is science.

You must know that about a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how god did things or how god created life. These creationists gradually came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. If Evolution is really “fairy tales”/ "non-scientific"/"only belief", you must have to go for another scientific theory that replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests. So any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so well. Creationism/ Biblical Myth/ Quranic myth , can never be a meaningful replacement.

[Tim]

The 2nd law essentially posits that the universe is inevitably and unalterably moving towards greater entropy in the sum total of all its parts. This is squarely at odds with the naturalistic idea of cosmology (Big Bang, evolution, etc.)

[My response]

In addition to misquotes of scientists, creationists also misstate or misapply scientific principles. The second law of thermodynamics is a favorite choice for them. Creationists always claim that the second law proves evolution can't happen. This is obviously not true. Their argument simply doesn't work. First, as many people realize, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which limits the ability of a natural system to have a decrease of entropy, only applies to closed system. When a system is open and can exchange energy with the outside, then that open system can have a decrease in entropy and an increase in order. The most obvious example of this is, coincidentally, a living organism. All organisms run the risk of approaching maximum entropy, or death. But they manage to avoid this by drawing in energy from the world - by eating, drinking, assimilating. Creationists have actually created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity. I won't go into details as to why here as it is somewhat involved. (Info on the second law and evolution can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html  and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html )

The creationists forgets that violation 2nd law can also be applied to their arbitrary assumption of God. From the law of Physics, which they occasionally claim  that order cannot come from disorder, then their god must be highly ordered rather than chaotic. Therefore, this god requires another god as an explanation. Of course, this once again drops us into an infinite regress of gods. If the believer wishes to exempt an ordered god from requiring explanation, then they will have to demonstrate that the universe cannot also get such an exemption and scientifically irrational.

[Tim]

Now, the evolutionist will rebut with the “Open-system argument”, that an open system (which the earth would be relative to the universe at large) can see localised increases in order as energy is input. However, this is only applicable in certain special cases, which do not apply to the earth system which evolutionists propose.

[My response]

Why  shouldn't it be applied in earth system ? Any real cause or it is just another form of Biblical belief ?

 

[Tim]

Miller-Urey experiment was completely worthless as far as demonstrating that evolution was possible through the initial synthesis of amino acids in the atmosphere and oceans. Why? Because the amino acids which the experiment yielded were completely worthless from a biologic standpoint.

[My response]

Miller-Urey experiment had several problems, I agree. They mainly created Tar ( 85% ), Carboxylic acids (13.0% ), Glycine C₂H₅NO₂ ( 1.05% ), Alanine C₃H₇NO₂ ( 0.85% ) and Glutamic acid, Aspartic acid, Valine, Leucine, Serine, Proline, Treonine etc. Everybody agrees that Glycine and Alanine are the simplest and most common of a group of molecules called amino acids, which are indeed the building blocks of proteins found in living organisms. But it is true that all living organisms have DNA, a very precise code of four molecules, each quite a bit more complicated than the amino acids created by Miller and Urey, I completely agree. But like you Nobody says that their experiment is entirely worthless (and all  evolution courses in college/University have included this experiment giving utmost importance)... but  of course those creationists who believes that earth was created at 9.30, on Tuesday 2004 B.C are always exceptions! What Miller-Urey tries to show us that life can be  formed following  laws of nature by chemical reactions from existing materials.  If this scientific theory is under question, it will be replaced by another theory. In fact in July 1999, Scientific American presented a new theory that life on Earth was seeded by comets which is nothing but remixing of Richter's "extra-terresttrial origin of life" theory. This theory is also under questions as the theory  just avoid the question of life's true origin by moving it somewhere  "extra-terresttrial origin" which is well beyond our grasp. But what I try to mention is that science itself is self-correcting on going phenomena. If Chemical theory of origin of life become falsified, it  does not make Biblical theory to be correct.  Simply the theory will be replaced by another scientific theory which will be better in explaining previous unsolved phenomena.

[Tim]

Hence, the evidence we have from the physical laws which we have delved points us towards the existence of God.

[My response]

Nope. There is not a single "proven"  example/evidence of the existence of God is found. If it did then it would be part of mainstream science, because science deals with the provable and proven facts. We won't have to continue any debate on God if God would already be an established scientific concept.  God would then become an important topic of a Physics text; no atheist would be here to argue with. I give a simple challenge for anyone to produce one "proven" example of the existence of God. In fact why the most reputed scientists still today  do not believe in God as is widely understood. You may check this Article : “Leading scientists still reject God” .

What I really found interesting there were the results categorized by field. Among NAS biologists, disbelief in God and immortality was 65.2% and 69.0%. Among physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. The lowest rate of belief was among biologists: 5.5% believe in God, 7.1% in immortality. The highest rate of belief was among mathematicians: 14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality. [From the most recent survey by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, was carried out in 1996, and was reported in the journal "Nature".]

Unfortunately, most of your arguments I found is Non Sequitur, (for e.g, as the maximum density of water is at 4 degree centigrade, hence God do exist, or as amino acid is the main constituent of life..thus it prove the existence of ...etc.) which can neither be actually a comprehensive proof of the existence of God.

[Tim]

Studies of what are often claimed to be “transition forms” (including but certainly not limited to archaeopteryx) show that these forms are not transitional at all. For instance, there is a wealth of journal literature which strongly demonstrates that Archaeopteryx was thoroughly avian, and hence, was no transition between Reptilia and Aves.

[My response]

Yes, Archaeopteryx is commonly cited as an example of a transitional fossil (i.e. a form showing characters common to two separate groups). Anti-evolutionists try to dispute by saying that Archaeopteryx is a complete bird and thus cannot be transitional. The problem is the creationists do not want to define which characteristics will satisfy them to believe that transition  has occurred. As they believe in only one theory "There is no transitional fossil" so any substantial proof evolutionists put forward, is being rejected by creationists but never mentioning which features will satisfy them. Anyway, Here are some more examples of individual fossils that show a change between one species and another :

1. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
2. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
3. Transition from fishes to first amphibians
4. Transitions among amphibians
5. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
6. Transitions among reptiles
7. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
8. Transition from reptiles to first birds

[Tim]

Evolutionists have failed to produce any forms which show intermediate stages of development, even though by evolutionary theory there should be a number of generations between the one structure and the completed other structure, generations which would show these half-formed structures.

[My Response]

On the contrary Evolutionists produced a lot of evidences of transitional fossils, which for some obvious reasons creationists do not wish to accept. Starting with the certainty that transitional fossils do not exist, any fossil that is too different from H. sapiens to be considered a human is an ape, and all others are humans. No creationist ever defines what would be acceptable as a valid transitional fossil, because examples could be found to fit any reasonable definition. The creationists do not want to accept because of their belief of creation in separate "kinds"  listed in Genesis, in six days, followed by a cataclysmic flood. The problem is they do not wish to understand that The Flood model is completely falsified, since the fossils appear in a different order than can be explained by any conceivable "sorting" model. Note that this is true not just for terrestrial vertebrates, but also for aquatic vertebrates, pollen, coral reefs, rooted trees, and small invertebrates. For example, ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers. In addition, countless geological formations seem to be the result of eons of gradual accumulation of undisturbed sediment, such as multi-layer river channels and deep-sea sediments, and there are no indications of a single worldwide flood. In addition, the Flood Model cannot account for the obvious sorting by subtle anatomical details (easily explained by evolutionary models), or for the phenomenon that lower layers of lava have older radiometric dates. These are only a few of the problems with the Flood Model. Creation in six "metaphorical" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days.

"Separately created kinds", but with an old Earth model is also falsified inm many times.

First, if every "kind", (species, genus, family, whatever) was separately created, there must have been innumerable successive and often simultaneous waves of creation, occurring across several hundred million years, including thousands of creations of now- extinct groups.

Second, these thousands of "kinds" were created in a strictly correlated chronological/morphological sequence, in a nested hierarchy. That is, virtually no "kind" was created until a similar "kind" already existed. For instance, for the reptile-to-mammal transition, God must have created at least 30 genera in nearly perfect morphological order, with the most reptilian first and the most mammalian last, and with only relatively slight morphological differences separating each successive genus. Similarly, God created legged whales before he created legless whales, and Archeopteryx before creating modern birds. He created small five-toed horse- like creatures before creating medium-sized three-toed horses, which in turn were created before larger one-toed horses. And so on. This very striking chronological/morphological sequence, easily explained by models 1, 2, and 3, is quite puzzling in this model.

Third, God did not create these kinds in a sequence that obviously progressed in any direction, as discussed briefly under model 3. This is not necessarily a fatal flaw (mysterious are the ways of God, right?), but it is another puzzle, another unexplained aspect of the fossil record.

Fourth, what about those species-to-species transitions? They appear to show that at least some species, genera, and families arose by evolution (not necessarily all, but at least some.) Let's say for the shake of argument evolution is wrong, BUT How can a creationist model be reconciled with this evidence?

[Tim]

Much of the evolutionists ”evidence” at this point is based on wishful thinking and inadequate research.

Java Man - Posited to have been the remains of a million year old hominid creature, on the basis of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth (none of which was found together). The discoverer, Eugene Dubois, admitted before he died that the bones belong to gibbons.

Peking Man - The only evidence for the existence of Peking Man is a few plaster casts, as the originals were lost some time ago.

[My Response]

"Wishful thinking", "Inadequate research" "laughably impossible", "hypocritically one-sided"..such terms may please you, but for me your attempt contains a Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule. Before putting your own concept about Java Man, Peking man and others, just briefly tell me why your two Creationist Guru Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans? Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.). Those creationists themselves actually cannot agree which fossils are humans and which are apes. This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. That's what I wanted to clarify Sajida.

[Tim]

Atheism is as much based on leaps of faith as any other belief. As demonstrated above, atheism is not any more rational than other beliefs because it cannot prove what it claims (and in facts, tries to abscond itself of the burden of doing so, while hypocritically holding theists to a burden of proof), and many of its beliefs are based on unproven and scientifically impossible foundations.

[My Response]

Sorry. Atheism is not  "based on leaps of faith", it is rather lapse (lack) of faith.  When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God [ In Greek also  'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god]. As long as the term "god" is proposed by theists, burden of proof should reside in their shoulder. No hypocrisy, no complexity at all. Other wise, you have to prove right now Ashraful Alam's "Dibba-debba-dabba" doesn't exist!

Regards.

Avijit