| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Angel 1" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2004 06:03:43 PM |
| Object: |
Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
.
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 08:11:58 AM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny:
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life is too complex to have arisen by natural causes.
He now believes in the essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a
"limited God", based on scientific evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious
blow.
Well he can forget about an invitation to this year's Atheist Christmas
Party!
--
Gary Bohn
http://creativeexplore.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
11 Dec 2004 06:08:46 PM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny:
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life is too complex to have arisen by natural causes.
He now believes in the essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a
"limited God", based on scientific evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious
blow.
"Top atheist"? We don't have rank in our orgainzation. Hell, we don't
even have an organization in our organization. Personality means
nothing, it's the evidence that matters. If he claims to know that there
is a god, let him put forth his evidence.
--
Enkidu
"Yee-Ha" is not a foreign policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
11 Dec 2004 08:30:33 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <Xns95BCA6F508E55enkiduleaddogsorg@68.6.19.6>, Enkidu
lept out of the bushes shouting:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny:
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He
now believes in the essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a
"limited God", based on scientific evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
"Top atheist"? We don't have rank in our orgainzation. Hell, we don't
even have an organization in our organization. Personality means nothing,
it's the evidence that matters. If he claims to know that there is a god,
let him put forth his evidence.
Maybe they mean as opposed to being versatile or bottom?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
13 Dec 2004 12:03:15 AM |
|
|
In article <Qd-dnWYHLpETMSbcRVn-2Q@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <Xns95BCA6F508E55enkiduleaddogsorg@68.6.19.6>, Enkidu
lept out of the bushes shouting:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny:
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He
now believes in the essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a
"limited God", based on scientific evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
"Top atheist"? We don't have rank in our orgainzation. Hell, we don't
even have an organization in our organization. Personality means nothing,
it's the evidence that matters. If he claims to know that there is a god,
let him put forth his evidence.
Maybe they mean as opposed to being versatile or bottom?
I think that they call him a 'top atheist' only because he converted
(reconverted?).
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
in theVirgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
nation?-Garry Wills, New York Times 11/04/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
09 Dec 2004 06:16:19 PM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew
Never heard of him, but then again, I'm agnostic.
has finally admitted the obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Not really. Besides, his reasoning is based upon an argument if incredulity.
Maybe his "conversion" is nothing more than the onset of senility.
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Bravo" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
11 Dec 2004 04:15:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:16:19 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew
Never heard of him, but then again, I'm agnostic.
has finally admitted the obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Not really. Besides, his reasoning is based upon an argument if incredulity.
Maybe his "conversion" is nothing more than the onset of senility.
Or complete *****, like the supposed deathbed conversions of
several famous atheists.
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 07:28:48 AM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Not the first person who goes ga-ga with old age. Some find gods, some pee
in their pants. Different forms of senility. It happens to many. As Ingmar
Bergman said once: "I hope I never get so old that I get religious".
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
09 Dec 2004 11:24:17 PM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Yo! Dipshit!
There IS no "top atheist".
What someone .... ANYONE believes has NOTHING to do with the facts and
evidence. There is NO evidence for ANY god!
.
|
|
|
| User: "ur32212451" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 12:23:32 AM |
|
|
"Yo! Dipshit"" Writes Zeniswhen.
Where does this put you on the evolutionary ladder? No doubt well above
me, a Creationist. I take it you have a way to go in your mastery of
Zen (or, at least, the english language). Or is the above statement the
pinnacle of enlightenment these days?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 02:55:24 AM |
|
|
In article <10ridm02f1jl33d@corp.supernews.com>,
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Yo! Dipshit!
There IS no "top atheist".
What someone .... ANYONE believes has NOTHING to do with the facts and
evidence. There is NO evidence for ANY god!
"We have top men working on it right now."
"Who?"
"TOP men."
:)
- Double Felix
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sharon" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
09 Dec 2004 09:37:54 PM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
So obvious, he made a switch from atheism to deism at the grand age of
eighty.
If it were so obvious to the Professor that life was "created", why didn't
he make this change at 20, 35, 50 ... 65? For eighty years, he felt there
was no reason to believe I gather.
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Richard Carrier is recorded in this article to have spoke well of Mr.
Flew -- I gather Richard Carrier hasn't felt as if any "blow" has been
struck to the Secular Community -- and Carrier is himself either an atheist
or agnostic.
I hate to rain on your parade but Prometheus Press, which is printing Flew's
book produces books for atheists and agnostics and freethinkers -- perhaps
that's a little insight into the book's content. I don't think many hardline
Christians would read what Flew says, and come away as enthusiastic as you
appear to be in your post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 03:12:50 PM |
|
|
"Sharon" <mail@creation-vs-evolution.us> writes:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Richard Carrier is recorded in this article to have spoke well of Mr.
Flew -- I gather Richard Carrier hasn't felt as if any "blow" has been
struck to the Secular Community -- and Carrier is himself either an atheist
or agnostic.
I hate to rain on your parade but Prometheus Press, which is printing Flew's
book produces books for atheists and agnostics and freethinkers -- perhaps
that's a little insight into the book's content. I don't think many hardline
Christians would read what Flew says, and come away as enthusiastic as you
appear to be in your post.
Never underestimate the ability of a dishonest Christian to seize upon any
"fact" that lets them declare victory over atheists -- even if that fact
is a gross distortion of reality or an outright lie.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sharon" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
12 Dec 2004 08:03:48 AM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Famed Atheist Philosopher, Antony Flew, Now a Theist/Deist
by Edward T. Babinski
ED: Famed lifelong atheist philosopher, Antony Flew (age 81),has become a
theist / deist. The London TIMES had this to say about Flew's recent
conversion: "He [Flew] is unlikely to proclaim his faith from a pulpit. He
is still not a Christian and dismisses the conventional forms of divinity as
'the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam.'
He also stands by his rejection of an afterlife."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1400368,00.html
FLEW: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian
and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as
omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be
a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I
suppose."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=315976
In his lengthiest inteview thus far about his theism (an interview with
Liberty University Christian apologist Gary Habermas), Flew had this to add:
HABERMAS: "In your view, then, God hasn't done anything about evil."
FLEW: No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it....
HABERMAS: Are you any closer to thinking that the resurrection could have
been a historical fact?
FLEW: No, I don't think so... What we do not have is evidence from anyone
who was in Jerusalem at the time, who witnessed one of the allegedly
miraculous events, and recorded his or her testimony immediately after the
occurrence of that allegedly miraculous event. In the 1950s and 1960s I
heard several suggestions from hard-bitten young Australian and American
philosophers of conceivable miracles the actual occurrence of which, it was
contended, no one could have overlooked or denied. Why, they asked, if God
wanted to be recognized and worshipped, did God not produce a miracle of
this unignorable and undeniable kind?"... [According to Luke-Acts, the
raised Jesus' ascension into heaven was only witnessed by the eleven
apostles, and even Luke-Acts admits that there was no preaching of "the
resurrection" until seven weeks after the crucifixion.]
HABERMAS: Do you think that there is any chance that you might in the end
move from theism to Christianity?
FLEW: I think it's very unlikely, due to the problem of evil. But, if it did
happen, I think it would be in some eccentric fit and doubtfully orthodox
form: regular religious practice perhaps but without belief. If I wanted any
sort of future life I should become a Jehovah's Witness [because at least
their paradise involves corporeal persons; and Flew said earlier in the
interview: "I think those who want to speak about an afterlife have got to
meet the difficulty of formulating a concept of an incorporeal person... it
is simply impossible to create a concept of an incorporeal spirit...
Swinburne and I had been the only Gifford lecturers to treat the question of
a future life for the sixty years past. Even more remarkably, Swinburne in
his Gifford Lectures ignored Bishop Butler's decisive observation: 'Memory
may reveal but cannot constitute personal identity.'"]
http://biola.edu/antonyflew/page2.cfm
One should also note that in the realm of philosophy, many theistic
philosophers as well as Christian theistic philosophers, have been unable to
agree on quite a lot of questions. See Contemporary Debates in the
Philosophy of Religion (2003) by Michael Peterson, managing editor of the
journal Faith and Philosophy, published by the Society of Christian
Philosophers. Here are some questions from that book, questions on which
theistic philosophers disagree:
Can Only One Religion Be True?
How to Sink in Cognitive Quicksand: Nuancing Religious Pluralism: Keith E.
Yandell (University of Wisconsin)
It Is Not Reasonable to Believer that Only One Religion is True: Peter Byrne
(King's College, University of London)
Does God Take Risks in Governing the World?
God Takes Risks: William Hasker (Huntington College)
God Does Not Take Risks: Paul Helm (Regent College)
Does God Respond to Petitionary Prayer?
God Responds to Prayer: Michael J. Murray (Franklin and Marshall College)
God Does Not Necessarily Respond to Prayer: David Basinger (Roberts Wesleyan
College)
Is Eternal Damnation Compatible with the Christian Concept of God?
Eternal Hell and the Christian Concept of God: Jerry Walls (Asbury
Theological Seminary)
No Hell: Thomas Talbott (Willamette University)
Is Morality Based on God's Commands?
Divine Commands Are the Foundation of Morality: Janine Marie Idziak (Loras
College)
Ethics Is Based on Natural Law: Craig A. Boyd (Greenville College) and
Raymond J. VanArragon (Asbury College)
Should a Christian Be a Mind-Body Dualist?
Christians Should Affirm Mind-Body Dualism: Dean W. Zimmerman (Rutgers
University)
Christians Should Reject Mind-Body Dualism: Lynne Rudder Baker (University
of Massachusetts)
--------------
In a letter to Philosophy Now magazine (Issue 47, August/September 2004, p.
22) Flew noted that "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to
think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that
first reproducing organism." Flew then recommends two books: "The first book
is Roy Abraham Varghese's The Wonderful World: A Journey from Modern Science
to the Mind of God (Fountain Hills, Arizona: Tyr Publishing, 2003).
[www.thewonderoftheworld.com/] The second book is Gerald L. Schroeder's The
Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone, New York
2001)."
"Gerald Schroeder's" name also came up in Flew's interview with Habermas in
which Flew said: "I am open to [the notion of theistic revelation], but not
enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for
example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder's comments
on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate
raises the possibility that it is revelation." (La Mirada, Calif., Dec.
9/PRNewswire)
http://www.blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=274
QUESTIONING FLEW'S PRAISE OF THE WORKS OF "GERALD SCHROEDER"
Schroeder's attempts to discover direct concordances between Genesis and
modern science are far from satisfactory in the view of many of his fellow
scientists, so I hope Flew will look into such matters a bit deeper. For
instance, Schroeder's claim about how much genetic change it would take to
create human beings is wrong. According to the latest data, "The difference
between human and chimp genomes is only about 1.23%, rather than 1.4% as
originally thought."
(http://www.aar.com.au/pubspta/bt/15jan/bio08.htm) Even more importantly, if
man and chimp diverged from a common ancestor, you must half those
differences yet again. In fact the differences between human and chimp
genomes are less than that between the genomes of near identical sibling
species of fruit flies. And there is even evidence in human chromosome #2
that points to it being the result of a fusion of two chromosomes that very
closely resemble two chromosomes found in the chimpanzees, whose banding
patterns line up band for band to those inside human chromosome #2.
Moreover, human chromosome #2 still contains remnants of that fusion
process--in the form of a faint second centromere (there is almost always
just one centromere per chromosome, found in its middle, not two
centromeres), and reversed teleomeric sequences in the middle of that
chromosome (telomeres are almost always found at the tips of chromosomes,
not in the middle, and not in reverse order, hence finding them in the
middle of a chromosome means that portion used to be the tip or end of a
second chromosome).
Here are some reviews of Schroeder's books that perhaps Flew might like to
acquaint himself with before lending any more praises to Schroeder's work:
Frank Sonleitner,Department of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK
73019 reviews Schroeder's THE SCIENCE OF GOD:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol18/3004_ithe_science_of_godi_by_g_12_30_1899.asp
"This book is essentially an elaboration and update of Schroeder's earlier
book Genesis and the Big Bang published in 1990. Schroeder is an Israeli
physicist who has also extensively studied biblical interpretation. He uses
the arguments of the Anthropic principle (the Big Bang and the fine-tuning
of the universal constants) as evidence for God; but he also insists that
the Bible and science agree. Genesis is not to be taken literally nor
dismissed as poetry but must be interpreted correctly following the lead of
talmudic scholars such as Nahmanides and Maimonides. Although his
interpretation twists, stretches, and sometimes directly contradicts the
literal meaning of Genesis, it confirms all the findings of modern cosmology
and geology.
"Using a universal time clock based on the stretching of the wavelengths of
light as the universe expands, he concludes that the universe is 15.75
billion years old. The six days of Genesis consist of a nonlinear day-age
description of the history; day 1 covers the first 8 billion years, and day
6 only the last 1/4 billion.
"Schroeder accepts the standard geologic and paleontologic history of the
earth but he balks at evolution (although he admits some sort of genetic
continuity as suggested by the evidence of comparative anatomy, biochemistry
and embryonic recapitulation). He rejects all transitional forms among
higher categories such as classes and phyla, but later admits that there
might be transitional forms within classes. (He does discuss the recently
discovered intermediate forms of whales.)
"Schroeder rejects evolution because he considers its mechanism to rest
solely on pure chance. There is no discussion of natural selection; it
doesn't appear in the index although the term is used in passing while
discussing Dawkins. His "proof" that it is impossible for convergent
evolution to produce similar eyes in taxa which did not inherit these
structures from a common ancestor uses a mathematical calculation based on
two assumptions - (1) evolution is pure chance; and (2) the taxa have no
genes in common except those "inherited" from the protozoa. Yet in other
places he seems to be aware of the recent evidence that the phyla have many
genes in common; he discusses the Hox genes that determine body plans and
the Pax genes that are involved in eye formation!
"Schroeder admits that there were "pre-Adamites" (Cro-Magnon and
Neanderthals) living for 40 000 years prior to Adam, but questions the
existence of earlier hominid species because of the fragmentary nature of
their fossils. Again he uses a mathematical model to show that the evolution
of humans from an ape ancestor is impossible. This model also assumes that
(1) evolution would occur by pure chance and (2) one million mutations would
be necessary to produce the ape-human transition! "It takes more than the
Big Bang and the fine tuning of universal constants to demonstrate that the
creator is the kind, loving, personal God worshipped by Christians. And
there Schroeder's arguments fall apart. For example, he argues that quantum
mechanics provides the basis of free will and that the determinacy of our
genes does not prevent our exercising free will, yet later he says that
randomness in nature (including random mutations) is necessary for free
will! And natural disasters are necessary. We must suffer earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions that result from plate tectonics made possible by the
earth's molten core because the latter is necessary to generate a magnetic
field to protect us from the high energy radiation produced by the
life-giving sun. But then he says that the biblical Creator could have made
stars that didn't produce those lethal rays but "they would not be natural"
and would offer absolute testimony of the Creator's existence! And still
later he contradicts this principle (that the universe is organized
"naturally" to hide the existence of the Creator) by saying that the earth
is at an "unnatural" distance from the sun and hints that this may be
miraculous! (According to Schroeder some exponential law determines the
distance of the planets, and the earth's distance does not fit the pattern.)
"Evolutionists will justifiably criticize Schroeder for his simplistic and
inconsistent treatment of evolution while the real creationists will reject
him for his theology which includes rejection of the literal reading of
Genesis, acceptance of the Big Bang, an old age for the earth, existence of
pre-Adamites, a local flood, and ignoring Christ, Christianity and the New
Testament."
---------------
Victor J. Stenger, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of
Hawaii. Review of Schroeder's THE SCIENCE OF GOD:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/schrev.html
"How can both the Bible and science be right? Israeli physicist Gerald
Schroeder says he can show us how. Let's start with cosmology. The Bible
says God created the universe in six days and indicates the passage of only
about 6,000 years since then. Science currently estimates the visible
universe to be about 13 billion years old, give or take a few billion.
Schroeder reconciles the two, explaining that the six days of the Bible
refer to a different measure of time. He explains: "there is no possible way
for those first six days to have an Earth-based perspective simply because
for the first two of those six days there was no Earth" (51). "Instead, time
during this six day period was measured on a cosmic clock. And what else
could be used for that clock but the vibrations of light (electromagnetic
waves)? Today the light from creation appears as the cosmic microwave
background. This is now redshifted by a factor of a trillion (1012) from the
period of "quark confinement" when matter as we know it first began to form.
Thus the cosmic clock at that epoch ran off a trillion days for each of our
modern days. The six cosmic days of creation thus took about 15 billion
years earth time, give or take a few billion. So, according to the author,
Genesis is not only consistent with cosmology, it gives the correct age of
the universe!
"Each of the six days in Schroeder's Genesis actually takes a different
length of earth time. The duration D, in earth days, of each cosmic day t is
calculated from the formula D = (Ao/L)exp(-Lt), where Ao = 4x1012 (the ratio
of the frequencies of the cosmic microwave background at quark confinement
compared to now) and L = 0.693 (natural log of 2). More simply, cosmic day
one is 8 billion earth years long and you divide by two to get the duration
of each succeeding cosmic day. "Cosmic day one starts 15.75 billion earth
years ago and covers the creation of the universe, the "breaking free" of
light as electrons bind to atomic nuclei, and the beginning of galaxy
formation. This is described in Gen. 1:1-5 as the creation followed by light
separating from the darkness.
"Cosmic day two starts 7.75 billion earth years ago and lasts four billion
earth years. During this period the stars and galaxies are born. This
corresponds to Gen. 1:6-8, the formation of the heavenly firmament. "Cosmic
day three starts 3.75 billion earth years ago. During two billion earth
years, the earth cools, water appears, and the first life forms appear. In
Gen. 1:9-13, vegetation first appears during the third day. "Cosmic day four
starts 1.75 billion earth years ago and lasts a billion earth years. The
earth's atmosphere becomes transparent and photosynthesis produces an
oxygen-rich atmosphere. Schroeder says that this corresponds to Gen. 1:14-19
when "the Sun, Moon, and stars become visible in the heavens" (67).
"Cosmic day five starts 750 million earth years ago and lasts 500 million
earth years. During this period, the first multicellular animals appear and
the oceans swarm with life. Gen. 1:20-23 says the waters bring forth swarms
of living creatures and "birds fly above the earth" (94). "Cosmic day six
starts 250 million years ago and ends at the time of Adam. During this
period we have a massive extinction in which 90 percent of life is destroyed
and then repopulated with humanoids and humans. This, Schroeder says,
corresponds to what is described in Gen. 1:24-31. "Technically, Schroeder's
formula gives the present as the end of the sixth day. However, it could
just as well have ended a few thousand years ago and not affect the rest of
the calculation where things are rounded off at hundreds of millions of
years. Schroeder argues that after the six cosmic days of creation, Genesis
switches its focus over to humanity and starts measuring time in human
terms. The rest of the Bible concerns itself with the 6,000 earth years
since Adam and Eve, estimated from the Bible in Bishop Ussher fashion.
"Schroeder does not deny the existence of hominid creatures before Adam. He
talks about Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, and accepts that they had
developed tools, pottery, and many human-like qualities. In Lev. 11:33 the
Bible talks about pottery. But, Schroeder argues that since it never
mentions the invention of pottery, that event must have pre-dated Adam
(130).
"According to the author, the Bible has no interest in these pre-Adam
hominids because they were not yet fully human and had no souls. Thus they
are never mentioned. Adam represents the quantitative change to a large
brain, but more important, the qualitative change that makes us different
from all other forms of life: "our soul of human spirituality" (133). God
breathed this into Adam, the first real human, 6,000 years ago. "Schroeder's
attempt to connect 31 lines of Genesis to big-bang cosmology and earth
paleontology makes entertaining reading, but will convince no one who is not
already convinced or totally lacking of critical facilities.
"Let us return to the beginning. Schroeder's use of quark confinement as the
defining moment for his cosmic time scale is completely arbitrary. He seems
to have chosen it for no better reason than it gives the answer he wants.
The redshift from quark confinement to the present is of the order of 1012.
Multiplying this by six days gives 15 billion years, which is consistent
with our current estimate for the age of the universe. "Alternatively,
Schroeder might have chosen the moment in the early universe called
"decoupling," which represents the point where radiation separates from
matter. Indeed, he relates this event to the separation of the "light from
the darkness" described in Genesis day one. But the redshift from decoupling
to the present is only of the order of 1,000, which would give an earth time
interval of only fifteen years for the six cosmic days of creation. If he
had chosen some other moment, he would have obtained yet a different time
scale.
"Furthermore, by Schroeder's own formula the universe creation corresponds
to the time of quark confinement. Blueshifting back from that point rather
than redshifting ahead, the events prior to quark confinement would recede
infinitely into the past, in earth time, and we would have no creation at
all.
"Schroeder's use of an exponential function to give different earth periods
for each cosmic day is not justified by his argument that earth time is
simply redshifted cosmic time. While an exponential relationship would apply
for the inflationary epoch in the early universe, that has ended by the time
of quark confinement. Afterwards we have the almost linear Hubble expansion
in which the redshift varies as a power law with time, not exponentially. By
having each cosmic day half as long as the preceding one in earth years,
again a completely arbitrary, unjustified procedure, Schroeder is able to
vaguely relate events known from cosmology to those described in Genesis.
"In cosmic day two the "firmament" is created. Note that Schroeder excludes
from the "firmament" all galaxies more than 7.75 billion light years away,
of which there are many. Furthermore, he sees no problem with calling the
expanding universe a "firmament." Like all apologists, he selects his data
carefully, accepting only those which agree with his hypotheses and
discarding those which do not.
"Primitive life first appears in cosmic day three. Here again it takes some
mighty stretching to associate what is described in the Bible for the third
day, including fruit trees, with the primitive life described by
paleontology for that epoch.
"Schroeder has the sun, moon, and stars becoming visible in cosmic day four.
In fact, Genesis seems to say the that sun, moon, and stars are created at
that time - well after the earth was created.
"Cosmic day five has the waters teeming with life. But the biblical verses
imply birds as well. Schroeder says that "birds" is a mistranslation and
that the Bible here is referring to water insects instead. Translation is so
easy when you know what you want a passage to say.
"Cosmic day six contains the mass extinctions of life that occurred 65
million years ago. The biblical verses referenced make no mention of mass
extinction. The Biblical Flood occurs well after Adam, but Schroeder needs
to end the six days of creation with Adam for other purposes. This is one
event he simply cannot make fit, although he is not honest enough to say so
and leaves the impression that everything is consistent.
"At times you get the impression that this book is a parody, with quite a
few good chuckles when read in that context. However, the sections on
evolution soon convince you that no parody is intended. They are just too
unfunny, too dull. Schroeder trots out all the old, tiresome arguments about
why "life could not have stared by chance" and how the simplest forms, even
viruses, are "far too complex to have originated without there being an
inherent chemical property of molecular self-organization and/or reaction
enhancing catalysts at every step of their development" (85). He applies the
usual creationist deception of calculating chance probabilities as if chance
is the only operative mechanism, and then saying this "proves" that God
intervenes along the way when they come out very low. And, of course, the
"staccato aspect of the fossil record" refutes classical evolution. "These
rapid changes cannot be explained by purely random mutations at the
molecular-genetic level" (87).
"Notice how often theists tell us that something cannot be explained except
by God? They never seem to learn from history."
Revised Title: The Delusions of Gerald Schroeder, December 5, 1997
-----------
A young-earth creationist AMAZON reviewer of THE SCIENCE OF GOD:
"I find many of his interpretations manipulated to his own cause, e.g. Gen.
1:12 which he interprets: "and the earth brought forth life." A more
reliable interpretation of the text renders: "and the earth(or land) brought
forth vegetation." Further, he cites no credible Hebrew scholar who agrees
with his interpretation of day for order and night for chaos. He relies much
more for his case on the mystical kabbalah, especially Nahmanides, which can
only be explained at best as "opinion." This leaves him in positions which
do not square with all of inspired Scripture. . .For the exact opposite view
of Schroeder's key thesis: clocks ticking faster at the center and slow at
the edge of the cosmos--- see young-earth creationist, D. Russell
Humphreys's book "Starlight and Time."
-------------
Old earth creationist Hugh Ross reviews Schroeder's GENESIS AND THE BIG
BANG:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/p9401.html?main
"One problem with his view is that it clashes with the scientific data on
the timing of Earth's origin. Since the earth already exists on the first
creation day of Genesis 1, Schroeder's model would say that Earth began at
least 12 billion years ago. Scientific measurements, however, show that it
is only 4.6 billion years old. Our view is that Genesis 1:2 establishes the
frame of reference for the creation events: "The Spirit of God was brooding
(or hovering) over the surface of the waters." In other words, God's time
and space frame in describing creation is the earth's surface, a frame in
common with all readers of the account. The text gives no hint of
Schroeder's relativistically time-extended creation days. If one seeks
Jewish support for a day-age interpretation of Genesis 1, Nathan Aviezer,
another Jewish physicist, offers it in a book entitled In the Beginning:
Biblical Creation and Science (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, 1990).
Aviezer acknowledges that the six creation days of Genesis 1 must refer to
long time periods."
--------------
Amazon Reviewer of THE SCIENCE OF GOD: seapapa from Los Angeles "Schroeder's
thesis is that the author of Genesis is describing a 15 billion year history
of the universe and life, even though that was never his understanding or
his intention. The true meaning Genesis 1 went undetected until it was
discovered by the cabalist author Nahmanides in the 11th Century AD. It was
lost again until Schroeder rediscovered it. "Even accepting the dubious
proposition that people can write things that actually mean the exact
opposite of what they intend, the match between the Genesis timeline and the
scientifically proposed history of the universe makes an ill fit. Schroeder
tries to reconcile the two by focusing minutely on certain words in Genesis
that could be interepreted to allow for longer time periods, while totally
ignoring the text read in its entirety. For example, day three of creation
supposedly lasts 1.6-3.6 billion years ago. Genesis said "let the land
produce vegetation". Success, proclaims Schroder, that matches the plant
life on the planet, which is found only in the... water! He conveniently
ignores the rest of the verse which calls for fruit-bearing trees and
seed-bearing plants. There was nothing but protozoa and plankton back then.
This is typical of the book.
"The most absurd argument is that, if properly interpreted, the 6 creation
days correspond to 6 actual 24 hour days on earth AND 15 billion cosmic
years. How so? Einstein's relativity of time! Schroeder makes such an effort
to preserve the 6 days of creation and the order of creation. "This book is
ultimately a polemic. Although brilliant and articulate, one gets the
feeling that Schroeder cannot bear to have Genesis undermined. That
compromizes his scientific judgement."
-------------
A Reviewer of THE SCIENCE OF GOD (at amazon.com):
"contains a few good passages, but also some egregious errors, which are
puzzling when made by a PhD in Physics. For example, G. Schroeder completely
misinterprets the experiments with particles moving through openings,
invents some odd concept of heat diluting in enlarged volumes, misrepresents
the story of photoelectric effect, etc. One striking feature of this book is
that Schroeder suggests in it the chronological data , which completely
contradict his own data on the same subject, given in his first book,
without a word of explanation why he changed those data. A useless book."
--------------
A Reviewer of THE SCIENCE OF GOD (at amazon.com) wrote:
"His time dilation calculations are totally at fault. The factor of one
million million he uses is totally arbitery (nothing really special happened
at z=1 million million). His redshift/blueshift calculations are also wrong:
The background temperature (and the redshift) changed by less than 10% in
the last billion years. Nowhere near the rate needed to slow down from a 500
million year per day (Day 5, according to Schreoder) to 24 hours per day.
"Another serious mistake appears in his coverage of evolution: He says the
the evolution from chimpanzees to humans requires a million point mutations
because the difference in the active DNA between human and chimps is
1,000,000 bases.
"This is simply false. Schroeder himself says that the number of changes
needed is no more than 70,000. In most cases a single point mutation is
enough to complete a change.
"It would have been better if Schreoder, as a nuclear physicist, asked an
expert biologist before writing his chapters about evolution..."
----------
Reviewer: gsssew@m... from St. Louis, Missouri
I was intrigued by the title, but agitated by the contents. The entire book
is filled with completely preposterous assumptions and conclusions. After
reading such a book, I begin to question why someone, such as Gerald
Schroeder, view themselves as scientists.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/anthony_flew.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
09 Dec 2004 10:14:51 PM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
No matter what Flew's views on God, pro, con, or otherwise; they are not
scientific views at all. Science cannot demonstrate either the existence or
the non-existence of God.
Flew may believe in Intelligent Design, but he cannot believe in Intelligent
Design Theory, because there is no Intelligent Design Theory. A theory has
to be tested against evidence. Intelligent Design has not been.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Ized" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 12:21:51 AM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
The word god in the world of science is a technical term for saying 'I
don't know' without losing face.
LW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hiero5ant" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
09 Dec 2004 06:39:09 PM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
The greatest scientific deceit in history has been dealt a serious blow.
Wow. Someone doesn't understand X. Therefore I should believe Y.
Yawn.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 01:21:55 PM |
|
|
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
Damn, now we have to pick another Top Atheist!
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 01:36:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:21:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tracy Hamilton"
<DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
Damn, now we have to pick another Top Atheist!
I nominate George Carlin. <G>
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 01:47:20 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:1gvjr0prbjvaeihu7bfbibg9rkgbbikb5u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:21:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tracy Hamilton"
<DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
Damn, now we have to pick another Top Atheist!
I nominate George Carlin. <G>
He gets my vote ;)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hiero5ant" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 03:49:48 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:31udodF3g95rfU1@individual.net...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:1gvjr0prbjvaeihu7bfbibg9rkgbbikb5u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:21:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tracy Hamilton"
<DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in
the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
Damn, now we have to pick another Top Atheist!
I nominate George Carlin. <G>
He gets my vote ;)
We could run a George Carlin/Dan Barker ticket, and then oppose that
with a Christopher Hitchens/James Randi ticket. What a fun campaign that
would be (there is no evil atheist campaign).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tinyurl.com/uh3t" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 11:26:58 PM |
|
|
From: John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
Damn, now we have to pick another Top Atheist!
I nominate George Carlin. <G>
I thought Richard Dawkins was the incumbant??
If I had to choose between Dawkins and Carlin, it'd be a difficult
choice, because I like them both, but I'd probably stick with Dawkins.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
11 Dec 2004 12:56:46 AM |
|
|
"tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem642b@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
news:REM-2004dec10-009@Yahoo.Com...
From: John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
Damn, now we have to pick another Top Atheist!
I nominate George Carlin. <G>
I thought Richard Dawkins was the incumbant??
If I had to choose between Dawkins and Carlin, it'd be a
difficult
choice, because I like them both, but I'd probably stick with
Dawkins.>
I'd stand for election myself but I'm only an agnostic so Dawkins
would get my vote.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 01:43:20 PM |
|
|
In article <1gvjr0prbjvaeihu7bfbibg9rkgbbikb5u@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:21:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tracy Hamilton"
<DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
Damn, now we have to pick another Top Atheist!
I nominate George Carlin. <G>
Tracy P. Hamilton
I nominate Penn & Teller!
- Felix
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 04:45:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:21:55 +0000 (UTC), "Tracy Hamilton" <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote:
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> wrote in message
news:AY5ud.7187$_k.4765@news01.roc.ny...
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the
obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on
scientific
evidence.
Damn, now we have to pick another Top Atheist!
Last time, we left it up to Who Has The Most Sex Partners.
I say we choose by an essay-writing contest this time.
Topic to be assigned by the Vice-Top Atheist.
Tracy P. Hamilton
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil W Rickert" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
09 Dec 2004 11:08:22 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Angel 1" <Angel.1@apl.tae> writes:
x-no-archive:yes
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml
Top atheist and professor Anthony Flew has finally admitted the obvious--that life
is too complex to have arisen by natural causes. He now believes in the
essentials of Intelligent Design theory and a "limited God", based on scientific
evidence.
It seems that Flew has made a mistake -- or maybe the reporting is
bad.
There may or may not be a god. There may or may not be reason in
nature to believe in the deist's God. However, the assertion
ascribed to Flew in
Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the
almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are
needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been
involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science
Discovered God?"
is surely wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.91 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFBuTLIvmGe70vHPUMRAmKXAJ93lhp5KRCtbVf8RSssptEL0O24uQCfRM9+
WAjzN787pBUGd8xxGPAgTWY=
=vSTE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
09 Dec 2004 06:23:08 PM |
|
|
A logical conclusion that most honest people will reach when they actually
stop to look at the world we live in.
Richard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
09 Dec 2004 06:28:48 PM |
|
|
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cparn0$p2s$1@kermit.esat.net...
A logical conclusion that most honest people will reach when they actually
stop to look at the world we live in.
Not really. Can you present any argument that does not rely on argument from
incredulity, or any other logical fallacy?
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 06:01:39 AM |
|
|
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
news:6h6ud.51041$Ch2.31419@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cparn0$p2s$1@kermit.esat.net...
A logical conclusion that most honest people will reach when they
actually
stop to look at the world we live in.
Not really. Can you present any argument that does not rely on argument
from
incredulity, or any other logical fallacy?
Boikat
Something existing without being put there is the exception to the rule. Its
you who has the burden of prrof that there is no creator.
And if there was no creator and death is final, then why waste your time
arguing about it?
Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 06:55:22 AM |
|
|
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpc4l3$4pt$2@kermit.esat.net...
[...]
Something existing without being put there is the exception to
the rule. Its
you who has the burden of prrof that there is no creator.
In science the burden of proof rests with the claimant. If
biologists claim that life evolves over time they are bound to
provide evidence for it. If you claim there is a God who is
responsible for it all then you are bound to provide evidence for
his existence - if you want to persuade us you're right.
And if there was no creator and death is final, then why waste
your time
arguing about it?
It's fun And maybe - just maybe - a few believers might be
persuaded to apply the same standard of proof to the tenets of
their faith as they expect science to apply to its theories.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Top atheist Anthony Flew says there is a creator |
10 Dec 2004 06:23:18 AM |
|
|
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpc4l3$4pt$2@kermit.esat.net...
"Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
news:6h6ud.51041$Ch2.31419@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cparn0$p2s$1@kermit.esat.net...
A logical conclusion that most honest people will reach when they
actually
stop to look at the world we live in.
Not really. Can you present any argument that does not rely on argument
from
incredulity, or any other logical fallacy?
Boikat
Something existing without being put there is the exception to the rule.
Its
you who has the burden of prrof that there is no creator.
Do you have proof that there is? If so, please present it.
And if there was no creator and death is final, then why waste your time
arguing about it?
Because jerkoff theists come to a.a. and shove it in our faces. What are
YOU doing here?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
