Where is the evidence? (Peter Jamieson)

I find it rather amusing that a person who believes in a majestic entity (created and manifesting itself within ‘ certain human beings ‘……called the birth of religion…a fantastic ideology in which to control the masses) which created everything we see in the Universe, but we are not allowed to question the so-called (imaginatively created) entity called God. Tell me Mr Jamieson, where is the evidence that God exists, but moreover, the evidence this entity created the Earth, Solar System, Galaxy and the Universe, Oh, yes, it is in your head (the imagination is an amazing concept……next you’ll be telling us Jesus is on the second coming and is going to create Hell on Earth to all the disbelievers) or is it in a ‘ man-made book ‘ called the Bible, which, like chinese whispers (call it a mild form of evolution call it what you will) has changed with the times to suit the social development of the time. Religion, like politics today, is nothing more than a social ideology in which to maintain control of the people. It is rather amusing that ‘ Intelligent Design was not mentioned 30 or so years ago…….why……because it is just a rather pathetic and weak attempt by the brainwashed followers into comparing evolution with their own laughable attempt to justify scientific analysis and more likely theory of how life began, and the Universe and other scientific theory to answer the relevant questions……..Oh, sorry, God created it …..and we are not allowed to question…..you will be branded a witch, heathan or disbeliever and will subsequently be killed……sorry, wrong century.

Wow talk about misrepresenting scientific FACT.

But really, you disagree. You’re allowed to, so be happy with your faith. Faith is about the person not about the community to why so threatened by one posh man. True belive would not have you so rattled. True faith would not reuire you to write such defensive letters.

Be content in your belief. I’m content in mine and they don’t include cavemen sharing a cigarrette with a dinosaur.

Live life and be happy. We are all different.

Dear All
As a society we treat people who hear voices and claim to talk with gods in one of two ways depending on the amount they shout in the streets. Mr Jamieson is still restricting himself to rambling in the newspaper so we should not try and talk him out of it. Suffice to say that his fellow believers until recently claimed the earth was only a few thousand years old and that dianasors where a test of faith. As usual religion has been playing catch up to science and reason.

If god created us. Then who created God?

Trolling in the Shetland Times – Who’d a thunk it?

I can’t see any point in this parading of passive aggressive, scientific illiteracy other than to goad athiests and I’m currently too tired to be goaded. Maybe a good night’s sleep will get my dander up. Or maybe not.

Typical for bloody Shetland though, even with a venue like Mareel you can’t get the big acts and have to settle for the cover bands….

This man clearly knows nothing about the subject. I too find Dawkins sometimes too abrasive, but he is absolutely right on evolution. Even as a layman I picked up on several inaccuracies in this author’s arguments. For example nobody claims whales evolved from hippos. What is theorised is that they share a common ancestor.
The fossil jawbone from Antarctica does NOT predate the transition to water, if found accurate, the jawbone merely shows that one of the semi aquatic whale relatives existed alongside fully aquatic whales for some time.
The arguments about so called irreducible complexity are laughable. It has been shown time and again that all the arguments put forward by religious extremists, from the eye to the bacterial flagellum can exist in what creationists would call “incomplete” forms.

There are, roughly estimated, 100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy, there are, estimated again, 6,000,000,000 galaxies in the ‘ known ‘ universe. It is, based on limited observation, estimated there could be a high probability that many stars have planets revolving around them/ Why would god create over 600,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and yet only put life, human beings as well as other species, on 1?

I am going to keep this brief (you will no doubt be glad to hear) but feel I should at least reply to some of the critics above as I see a number of obvious flaws.

Firstly David Spence suggests that you are not allowed to question the fact that some people believe that God created life etc – since when?

David, the very fact you have posted your response to my letter on this forum shows that to be false. Sorry, but i’m not getting you here. It is more likely questioning Darwins theory that will land you in hot water, especially in the science class where at one time pupils were encouraged to use critical thinking methods. Sadly however for many teachers they are not allowed to mention competing views, it can even result in being fired. Did you know that Darwins theory is the only scientific theory protected by law?

Secondly, Sandy lamments that I am a ‘crack pot nut from the CID’ … what does this mean?.

And lastly, Michael Hester suggests that I know nothing of the subject. To be fair to Michael I have been a little playful with my wording, especially regarding the Hippo to whale transition, but I have actually studied this at some depth for almost 5 years and actually do know quite a bit about it.

For instance i said in the article that not all scientists agree on whale evolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2007/12/071219-whales-evolved.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1553008.stm

http://ncse.com/rncse/21/5-6/tale-two-entities-whales-hippos

The links above are just some of the views that are more commonly held.

Do I believe that the whale evolved from the modern day hippo that we find swimming around today, no. I no more believe that than I believe humans evolved from chimpanzees. But do I believe that whales evolved from a Hippo like creature, which of course is what Richard is suggesting, well again the answer is no. I don’t believe that any more than I believe the dolphin evolved from the bat because they share sonar vision.

Here is a little clip from a documentary on whale evolution, whith a very revealing interview with Dr Gingerich (the leading authority on whale evolution)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zio1ttlDjlM

I would just like to finish now by offering any of the above an opportunity to meet with me and discuss ‘evolution’. I would galdly come to your house, with my laptop, and look at what you think is evidence for ‘common descent’, and what makes you hold that Darwins theory is true, and I will in turn show evidence as to why I believe it is completely false.

This is not a challenge, as such, but more an honest attempt to look at our opposing views in a dignified manner. It is an interesting subject so please, email me and lets have a talk.

Failing that, why not come along to the Museum auditorium on Saturday 27th February at 7pm, for the screening of ‘unlocking the mysteries of life’ followed by a question and answers forum with Dr Alastair Noble.

Unless of course you are not so sure about your theory and would rather not be challenged on it? ;o)

peter.jamieson@inbox.com

Maybe “something” created this universe sometime in the past.

However, the chance of it being a man-like creature, with supernatural powers, that’s bothered whether folk on this planet say “thanks” every night before bed, is fairly tiny.

I’m fairly sure there’s more chance that we (humans) got where we are because (generally) strong/clever things have a better chance of surviving & breeding than weak/stupid things.

Even most religious folk, whether they follow a fat bloke, a water walker or a many-armed elephant, usually agree you inherit traits of your parents.

Hi George, I was only going to post the once on this particular forum but seeing as how you have asked a very honest question I will try and answer it as best I can.

Before I begin however take a look at what David has just posted above.

David begins with making a claim from known science about the vastness of the universe, something quite incredible indeed, but makes the mistake, and rather clumsily too I must add, of trying to use this as an argument against the existence of God ‘Why would god create over 600,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and yet only put life, human beings as well as other species, on 1?’ (David should really know that there are no life forms on stars)

The problem here as you can see is that as David tries to appeal to our sensibilities he is making a claim that is unknowable. How does David know that only 1 planet has life on it? Well, he doesn’t of course, but that doesn’t stop him using it as evidence.

And that is just how it goes. People like David find it incredible that an all loving, all powerful God would create this that or the next (usually digging up the most disturbing examples they can find, as in Ian Tinklers post) and somehow expect believers to give an explanation that will suffice. But sadly, as has been my expereince, they very seldom want to listen.

I think a better question David could have asked is ‘how did 600,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, at least 1 of which has a planet with life on it, come from an explosion?’ Now that would be worth discussing.

Unlike David I can give an explantion for what I believe, not from incredulity, speculation, or theory, but from personel experience. I don’t know if you know that I recently published a book called ‘Design for Life’. It took me nearly 5 years to write (although somewhat on and off) and since its release in November has almsot sold out.

It tells the story of my life, from my humble begiinings growing up in shetland, to becomiing a drug addict/dealer, and a miraculous encounter with Christ in a Christian rehab. And of course how this changed my life, and quite dramatically too I must add.

As you are no doubt aware ‘proof’ of God is not something anyone can produce in a material sense, at least not in any way that can be tested, but comes largely from experience, like divine revelation perhaps. I personally was visited by christ, saw Him in the flesh, spoke with Him, although very briefly, but having such an experience changed everything for me – just knowing that He was real.

As i have said it has taken me almost 5 years to write about this, I have also been very busy with various different ministries ie. working with local drug users, I have had food stuffs thrown at my windows, have just this last week had a mystery person use a black marker to write anti God slogans on my front door and window (before letter in Times), so to put myself through this, in the 6 years I have been saved, unless I trully believed what happeneed to me was real I very much doubt I would bother with it all.

I have also over the years spoken with many people, ex drug users, alcoholics, even many people who have led more normal lives, who have told me some amazing testimonies of how God became real to them also.

Hope that helps.

Sandy, as you should know everything that exists supposedly arrived as the result of an explosion, once upon a time. Is that not so? Or do you have another explanation.

Secondly, whether or not David finds it incredulous that life should be limited to 1 planet is neither here nor there, after all why shoud life only be limited to 1 planet? It’s not as if the bible makes any statements about this. What he should be more concerned about is why there should be such a thing as life in the first place, wherever it might happen to be.

Here’s an interesting debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, for anyone interested in the big questions regarding this article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2OcIIkpPo

Just because evolution “can’t explain where birds came from in the first place” doesn’t mean there isn’t a rational logical answer. You can’t just fill gaps in existing theories with some supernatural deity and expect to get away with it. Science doesn’t know everything and doesn’t pretend to know everything – if it did it would stop doing what it is doing. To deny evolution and replace it with childish fictitious nonsense is to the detriment of no-one but yourself. Some humans have trouble with evolution for two reasons: 1] it contradicts their faith, 2] humans are terrible are contemplating the long-term. Evolution happens rapidly at a micro-level and that has been witnessed. Changes on the grand scale take millions of years. We estimate life in some form has existed on earth for ~4b years. Ever felt an hour has dragged on? What about a day? Longest week ever? We’ve all felt that. Life has existed on earth for about 208,709,828,040 weeks. Yeah. Life changes over long periods of time.

Your answer about proof of God is insufficient, entirely. Personal experience is just that. It’s not transferable or measurable or usable to anyone by yourself. People justify holding racist or sexist beliefs based on personal experience. It’s not a satisfactory explanation. If the existence of some deity character cannot be proven in a conventional sense which has bearing on the real world then I am simply not interested.

Well, Peter, if you believe the bible is the word of god – as opposed to stories written by man about god – then there is life on only one planet.

The bible says god made the heavens and the earth. Then he put man (among other things) on it. So, there isn’t life elsewhere and that is certainly the orthodox view.

You’re not one of those dangerous revisionists, are you?

‘I will not point you in the direction of texts or papers as there is no point, just as i will not listen to religious dogma I doubt very much you will listen to scientific rationales.’ Sandy.

That’s a pity, I am more than willing to look through any papers you suggest. It may even be that I have come across those same papers already.

Look I am simply responding to the arguments set against me. And I am certainly not so closed mind, as some may believe, but have come to this level of understanding from years of research. As i have already said I would be more than willing to spend some time discussing thses topics face to face with anyone on here.

‘I do have a question though, do you believe that human beings are somehow special compared, say, to a tube worm?’

As a human being of course I do, but as a Christian – certainly.

What is your view?

The just departed Archbishop of Canterbury and even the Pope have managed to square their beliefs with the fact of evolution. Maybe Mr Jamieson has a more direct line to their boss.

I am a fully blown Alcoholic, 22 years ago I stopped drinking receiving absolutely no help from man or beast, had there been a god or the like I may not have gone through the months of pure hell while coming of Alcohol, back in the 1970s our house was flooded we lost all our down stair furnishings, at that time I was a drunkard, and own to my drinking habits our house contents were not insured, I approached the council for help, There reply to me was it was a act of god, I then asked them if I could have a meeting with this guy god, of course this was not to be, but two week later the council installed a larger rain water pipe, and to my disgust I never meet god, so then Peter where can I meet this god.

Is it just shear coincidence that once you give the general population the ability to read and write (during and after the Industrial Revolution) as a consequence of the advancement of technology, the changing shape of society, giving people greater power over their own future etc etc that having the ability to read and write and share information, the question of the validity of religion and this of god should indeed be questioned…….for the past 1,700 years, this question has been denied to the general population on the condition and terms of very severe punishment or even death.

It is not surprising that huge advancements in technology over the past 150 years are a direct result of giving people the ability to share information and subsequently scrutinize other forms of information which has been passed down through the ages (usually without question under the direct control of the church) this also includes the validity of religion and this of god.

Yes Mr Jamieson, many sciences are based on theories, but theories which can be deduced from scientific evidence and analysis, unlike the bible, which is nothing more than a collection of stories passed down through the generations (and no doubt embellished to suit the social or political climate at the time) without one iota of evidence to justify its existence.

Religion, like politics today, is nothing more than a system of control and that people should be subjugated to precise modes of behaviour to suit those of a greater power (royalty, the rich and the church) and like politics, the driving force for many christian denominations (especially the Mormon Church) is based on monetary value and not faith or the divine belief of a greater creator.

“Can you provide any solid evidence that He doesn’t exist?”

I was wondering how long it would take for this hoary old chestnut and totally nonsensical illogical and irrational last ditch quip to raise its ugly old head.

Evidence that anything doesn’t exist is a fundamentally flawed concept, there is always the possibility, however unlikely and however far fetched it may seem, that it *might* do so, but just hasn’t been detected or located in a way to conclusively prove its existence yet. However when that hard evidence of existence has been sought by innumerable individuals over throusands of years and has always come back with a big fat zero, rational reasoning can only conclude that on the balance of probability any hard evidence ever being found is miniscule.

To have and maintain any credible agrument for the existence of anything, the onus is always upon the believer of any particular theory to provide the hard evidence to do so and break the status quo, the unbeliever only needs to sit back and judge the believability of the believer’s evidence. Anything else is to create a farcial situation, for example I could claim that I believe in the score of twelve armed invisible purple Gods that live on Mars, and that as I have hard evidence that proves to me they exist, it is up to you to provide evidence that they don’t.

I’ll never understand why people keep bringing up these debates. Both sides are so entrenched in their own opinion that neither are going to budge, so airing them like this achieves nothing except acrimonious exchanges between the parties.

Might as well read the comments threads under youtube videos. The conversations there are less erudite, however it amounts to the same thing:

“You’re an idiot”.
“No, you’re an idiot”.
“No, you are…”

And Jesus asked them, “Whom or what do you say that I am?”

They replied, “You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.”

And Jesus replied, “What?”

Thank you for your reply,i am glad we can debate this reasonably.

I am curious as to why you think it is important to disprove evolution? I will not debate evolution itself,as I feel ..well unequipped to do so,at least at a level that might change your mind.

In fact I have no desire to change your mind,you may believe what you wish to believe,however,I do not wish to have your beliefs foisted on me.

I worry that your next step maybe demanding “intelligent design” is “taught” in our schools….especially as you seem to feel it has dangerous consequences….is this the eugenics canard?

I ask you Peter..again..why does god not intervene in the life of amputees? is there not a christian with a personal relationship among them?

lastly…it is not possible to prove a negative…please give me your evidence that proves there is not a Trow living in my byre.

These points are old hat,and again I have no desire to turn you away from your god…if that’s what has got you through your tough times.

So why then do you choose to debunk my scientific view of the world? it is not very…well… christian or respectful and tolerant..both words often bandied about by the religious as a means “warding” of of criticism of them.
laura jamieson

I agree with Robert Lowes, who has been criticised by Robert Sim, truly a miracle; John Kryton has spoken in words. I think I am going to hit the Tenants now, all too much for me. Happy New Year to all, Colin and Gordon all is forgiven, lets hit Mareel soon and get smashed, who knows a divine vision may convert us to something, perhaps hail King Salmond and Viking Heaven. (Not Valhalla, the green Taliban thingy!)

I have sat through many conversations just like this thread of comments and the only opinion I ever come away with is “what’s the point?” Why can’t the atheists be happy in their supposed self-righteous superior evolutionary intellectualism and the religious believers be happy in their supposed self-righteous salvation guaranteed life affirming supreme being? Why do both groups not live and let live safe in the knowledge they are right in their own mind without preaching, challenging or demanding proof from the other group that they are right or wrong? It just ends up sounding like idiots fighting over what soccer team is best. Whatever gets you through this journey is right for you and not for someone else, get over it.

It is a shame that Ali Inkster has lower the tone of the debate with personal insults – if he cannot contribute in a civilized sensible manner towards the debate I would prefer he does not comment at all. By the Way, since when was a social/poltical ideology a form of religion? I have searched the web, books and other sources but alas no mention of socialism ever being a religion or Lenin, Trotsky ever being worshiped as a god or deity…..most strange.

There are many aspects of life and the environment in which life exists that have still not been answered by science or by other methods pertaining to an answer. One example question many people may have asked :

‘ Why are human beings the only species to, as may be perceived, dominate the planet so successfully? ‘.

Another question which could also be asked :

‘ Is it part of evolution for 1 species to dominate over all other species on a planet, and is this a common factor in terms of a planets future, whether in our solar system or other solar systems which may be in our galaxy or afar? ‘.

Certainly one can wonder in the beauty and complexity of life on our planet, and the processes involved in which contributes to a varied range of species, environments and the circumstances in which such variety of life can co-exist.

Certainly science may not have the answers to the most important of questions ‘ What is the meaning of life ‘, ‘ What is the purpose of life ‘ etc etc but just as science may not be able to answer these questions, religion, I fear, does not have the answers to such questions as well, not if you take into consideration the quantities and numbers involved in terms of chance.

Remember, Christianity really started at a time when our knowledge of life, the environment, the planet and the celestial bodies (we now know as the planets, stars, galaxies etc) was, literally, none existing in terms of benefiting us as a species, and knowing our place in the greater picture.

Just because we may not know the answers to many aspects of life, the environment, our place within the celestial environment of the galaxy and universe, does not justify religion by saying ‘ God created it for the greater good and thus we should not question his greater plan (whatever that may be) ‘.

Many religions started at a time where our knowledge of who we were as a species and our connection between us as a species in relation to other species and the environment was, literally, none existing……..does this give greater credence to the values of religion and their answers to the questions, at that time, which could not be answered?

Apologies – no offence intended. That should read SPAGhetti.
I have of late been disturbed by a manifestation in the structure of sphagnum moss.

Why is it that all contributors in this debate take almost opposite views? I suggest that for those of who do look at the shared facts concerning evolution, we must agree on this at least, – that the facts are the same for all of us.

However, what each of us does is interpret the facts according to the ‘world-view’ we hold. Intellectual honesty requires me first to recognise the world-view I hold, and notice how that world-view skews my interpretation of the facts one way or another.

Second, evidence is not facts, evidence is the result of argument, deduction, or induction, or interpretation of the facts. Your evidence is not always mine, but your facts will always be my facts too, as facts are absolutes.

Accusations of bigotry, intolerance, etc then begins to appear on these responses because (I suspect) the writers are not recognising their own pre-suppositional beliefs (world-view), whilst rejecting out of hand those with a different world-view.

In terms of Christianity, the Bible does teach that although human-beings are capable of great creativeness, inventiveness and intelligence, they are by nature blinded to the spiritual and absolute truth of God, Christ and the Gospel.

The Bible also claims that this spiritual blindness is taken away by an act of Sovereign grace (favour) by God alone.

Now if these claims are true, then it is no surprise that Peter faces such opposition from others who simply can’t see what he sees.

I thank God that by His grace He has Sovereignly enlightened Peter’s mind to enable him to make the case for God, and to expose wrong-thinking in terms of the evolutionary debate.

Does it make Peter better than these other respondents, or someone of a higher intellect than the others. No, of course not. We are what we are by birth, culture and of our own choosing.

But are you willing to honestly engage with the Bible, or is this something you will never do?

Both Peter and I came from backgrounds that were pretty much the same as each of you, where we believed mostly what we were told to believe, or what others believed and constructed our own internalised belief system that excludes God, Christ and the Gospel. Now, by God’s grace, we stand opposed to all that exalts itself against the absolute truth contained in the Scriptures.

Andrew Shearer

Peter,I am not offended by anything you have said. What I meant in broader terms was that,what I often hear from religious people,is that I must respect their views. Which should work both ways. You brought the issue into the public domain, I assume with some point..intention?I would not write to the paper,out of the blue,to make some atheistic point…as I have no desire to convert or deconvert anyone. Each to their own, as long as they do not attempt to influence secular areas of life eg schools.
In fact my own view is that I admire people who “witness” their faith,it must take an awful lot of courage. When anyone turns up at our door to witness, I am polite,and invite them in for debate.
Andrew,you are correct,in that we all view our worls through certain filters, conformation bias ect…and I repeat,I did not mean to accuse Peter of bigotory. I also do not believe humans are the pinnacle or centre of anything…quite the opposite,as I see what we are doing to the planet,and how we behave to each other.
You say “In terms of Christianity, the Bible does teach that although human-beings are capable of great creativeness, inventiveness and intelligence, they are by nature blinded to the spiritual and absolute truth of God, Christ and the Gospel.
The Bible also claims that this spiritual blindness is taken away by an act of Sovereign grace (favour) by God alone.”
If this is so..then surely your god would appreciate the fact that he caused my spiritual blindness, and that I am willing to debate it!…
I do not feel superior or inferior to Peter,I do not know him.
Lastly,I have “engaged” with the bible,I n that I have read it twice ,and I am on my 3rd reading. I have also “studied “ it with various bible study groups. I find it contradictory, cruel, ridiculous…and often beautiful, and profound. This work being no different to any other work of literature.
I am happy to continue this debate without sinkng to name calling.

The Bible never speaks about God as existing, but always as God who simply IS.

The name of God from the original Hebrew is YHWH, or (YaHWeH) meaning, ‘I AM’

The english word ‘exist’ is from two latin words ‘ex’ meaning ‘out’ and ‘ist’ from ‘sisto’ = meaning ‘to stand’ – cummulatively the word means ‘to stand out’.

This definition of existence implies beginning, but the Scriptures describe God as ‘I AM’ or as the one who is from everlasting to everlasting, or as ‘was, is and is to come.’

According to Biblical thought therefore, God is eternal, without beginning. To exist, would imply not just a beginning, but having been created. We exist, the universe exists, but God simply IS, is the conclusion of Biblical thought.

Indeed, according to Biblical thought, existence of the universe and us, is derived from God, and depends upon God upon its continued existence. Whilst God on the other hand is neither dependent (upon anything else) nor derived (from anything else).

Equally, the first line of the Bible makes this startling assertion of time, force, action, space, and matter. ‘In the beginning, (time) God (force) created (action) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

And Laura, thank you for your honesty, and your contributions, and I would gladly meet with you to discuss issues YOU wanted to raise.

Which God, Peter, which sections of the human race and with devout beliefs have got it so wrong, Hindu, Buddhist, Islam, Catholic, Judaism, and Pagan? Chinese folk religion, Vaishnavism Shaivism, Zoroastrianism, Yazdânism. Khoisan, Akan, Nupe Sanitaria, Voodoo, Candomblé Raëlism Noahidism Scientology and Satanism. Is your God the only one? Do you dismiss the beliefs of all who do not agree with you? Are all those who disagree with you wrong? Do you regard them as misguided and ignorant? My list above is far from comprehensive, all have devout and hold honest beliefs; all have followers whom claim visions and miracles. Many will become martyrs and killers to apostolate their beliefs. How can you claim you know you are right and they are all wrong? The simple truth is, in all rationality science renders us all agnostic, no proof one way or the other. Science and religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive only dogmatic denial of one belief or another is wrong. It’s about time all this gibber now stopped, now, let’s just live and let live, without forcing our own narrow opinions on others…

Science itself is not free of religiosity witness talk of “Gaia” and the dismissal by the faithful of sceptical scientists as “climate change deniers.”

An Austrian university professor recently asserted on his blog that such heresy should be afforded the death penalty!

Now we hear that the Met Office, who previously predicted record temperatures for many years in this decade, has taken advantage of the main Christian festival to sneak out its new forecast which is that no further global warming is expected in the next 5 years.

i.e If the new forecast is correct that will be two decades with global temperature standstill.

Yet all the time more and more CO2 has been finding its way, one way or another, into the atmosphere?

Given that catastrophic man-made global warming was unequivocally “settled science” (“97% of scientists can’t be wrong,” was repeated ad nauseam), it’s clear that science isn’t always right – sorry, I’ll rephrase that “it’s clear scientists aren’t always right.”

Richard Feynman was mentioned earlier, here’s a snippet form his address to Caltech students in 1974.

“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of
the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the
charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and
got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a
little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the
viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of
measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you
plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little
bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than
that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until
finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away?
It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of–this history–because
it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a
number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something
must be wrong–and they would look for and find a reason why
something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to
Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated
the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that
kind of a disease.”

I’m afraid it looks like the catastrophic man-made global warming fraternity have had a relapse of “Millikanitis” and are only gradually inching their way towards the sceptics’ position – understandable, after all they’ve said in the past.

Ian Tinkler … “The simple truth is …” Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life…” In response, Pontius Pilate, (the Roman Governor), asked of Christ, ‘What is truth?’

The truth has certain qualities or attributes. It is rational and therefore reasonable. It is not self-contradictory. Truth is absolute in terms of its ultimate and final reality however well known, or unknown to us.

Is it rational to believe that the universe has an ultimate cause? Is it rational to believe in an infinite number of causes, infinitely? What was that cause? Is it rational to believe that the universe is the cause of itself? Is it rational to believe that claims to truth that contradict each other (ie Hindu claims to truth, v Christian claims, or Christian claims v all other claims) can all be equally and absolutely true?

The universe must have an ultimate cause as the universe (this one, or prior universes to this one) cannot be its own material explanation as an infinite number of causes going back infinitely is a self contradiction. Infinite causes going back infinitely must mean there is no beginning, no first cause, therefore there can be no present if there is no beginning or first cause. However, we live in the present.

God is real or He is not. The Bible is true, or it is not. If the Bible is true, then Hinduism, Islam, etc is not.

What I am concerned with is whether or not my beliefs, (my internalised version of reality) actually matches what is ultimately true. Beliefs are not just a matter of personal faith, but should be concerned with what is ultimately true or real. I commend Him who made the claim to being the truth to you.

Andrew, I see no proof whatsoever of the statement “Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life…” In response, Pontius Pilate, (the Roman Governor), asked of Christ, ‘What is truth?’”. Just a 2000 year old story passed on by word of mouth, written without evidential analysis into the bible, translated by unknown people from Hebrew into Latin into English and interpreted always by prejudiced people. Hardly evidential proof of fact, just hear say at best. Do you really belief only you and fellow minded are right, so out of hand you dismiss all who disagree listed below. Is that not a tad arrogant.? (Hindu, Buddhist, Islam, Catholic, Judaism, and Pagan? Chinese folk religion, Vaishnavism Shaivism, Zoroastrianism, Yazdânism. Khoisan, Akan, Nupe Sanitaria, Voodoo, Candomblé Raëlism Noahidism Scientology and Satanism.)

Sandy,

You wrote above (Jan 7th) “My god is Richard Feyman.”

You are obviously poorly-acquainted with your “god’s” parables – I didn’t say scientists were embarrassed by the lack of scientific rigour deployed when trying to calculate the electrical charge on an electron, RIchard Feynman said it!

And you have said in your last comment that “no-one was embarrassed” – sounds a bit like heresy to me? I suggest as pennance you write out Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science” address to Caltech students (1974) fifty times and then recite it at the Market Cross on Saturday afternoon (and no going to the Lounge first!)

Feynman would have been the first to point out that science is NEVER “settled,” it is simply the best guess at a theory of how things work which must be seen to hold true within its defined limitations, e.g. Newton’s laws of motion are believed not to hold when bodies are moving at very high speed.

Furthermore, the laws of physics break down at the “Schwarzchild Radius” of “black holes in space” where science tells us that “time as we know it stands still” and nothing, not even light, can escape.

Yet science also tells us black holes can explode like mini “Big Bangs”- how so if time stands still at their circumference?

Thus any talk along the lines of “believing in science,” as opposed to Peter’s version of events, is turning science itself into a religion with “faithful” and “infidels” (e.g. “climate change deniers”) hammering away at each other in a similar way to which people have been doing above.

The point I was trying to make is that if Feyman could see the shenanigans at the Met Office, IPCC, University of East Anglia, etc. during and since “Climate-gate” (“hiding the decline,” etc), he would be spinning in his grave.

Many scientists are extremely clever and worth listening to however let’s keep “belief” out of science otherwise we’re in trouble.

There are obviously many intelligent people posting here… of whom in that respect I am probably the least. However, maybe my simple mind can scale the questions back some. I’ll keep this brief.

1. Can I see design in nature?
2. If there is design, who or what designed it?
3. Why do I exist?

Let me first give you the filter. I became a follower of Christ 7 years ago (I’m 37 now). I spent most of my life as a skeptic / agnostic.

1. I see design. The human body itself is an incredible machine. Romans 1:20 – (states in effect that no one will be able to stand before God and say that they had no way of knowing He exists. His design can be clearly seen in the things that have been made.)
2. Once I determined that there was a creator, I reasoned that my life had purpose and I began searching for that creator.
3. Ok… this parts a little deep. If all this is just one big accident that miraculously had no cause or came from nothing… then there is nothing. If there is no consciousness after death, then there will be no memory – no knowledge of existence. None of this matters. Our lives are nothing. But I don’t believe that. Not because I don’t want to, but I believe there is enough evidence to lead a person to the reasonable conclusion that there is design, a designer and purpose.

Also, If macro-evolution was true, it seems like there would be so much evidence in the fossil record that there would be absolutely no question about it by now. If there really has been billions of years of transitional (species to species) life forms on earth, wouldn’t we have found hundreds of thousands of fossils of these creatures? Each of these transitional forms should have been around for millions of years leaving plenty of time and opportunity for thousands of fossil specimens to be laid it seems.

David Spence – whereas Socialist states like the USSR, Red China, East Germany, Zimbabwe and North Korea have proven to be some sort of gardens of Eden?

Gregory Miner has made an excellent point, and one that I have used on occasions on various debating forums “If there really has been billions of years of transitional (species to species) life forms on earth, wouldn’t we have found hundreds of thousands of fossils of these creatures?”
It is indeed a very simply observation to make, that the fossils of the earth have yet to yield what could be termed ‘transitional’, but it doesn’t seem to make any difference to ‘evolutionists’. When you point this out to them they will normally give you 3 very good reasons:

1. The fossil record is incomplete
2. All fossils are ‘transitional’, even if they don’t show a steady line of transition leading from one creature into another.
3. Or, you don’t understand how ‘evolution’ works (normally calling you an ‘ignorant creationist’)

But you are right Gregory. There are no transitional fossils for us to look at, and if you ask me that is a major problem for the theory.

Darwin himself acknowledged that this was one of the biggest problems with his theory, the lack of fossil evidence, but he believed that over time these fossils would turn up. However, what we find in over 150 years since he proposed his theory is that the fossil record has actually caused more problems that he could have imagined possible. If Darwin had been alive today he would have scrapped his theory on those grounds alone. He wouldn’t have had any choice.

When I first began to look into this I believed, even though I had become a Christian, all life evolved from less complex ancestors. But I soon began to discover that the actual evidence for this doesn’t actually exist. In most cases the actual evidence is ‘hypothesised’, for instance like the imaginary ancestor to the whale. Some scientists believe it was a ‘wolf’ like creature, others that it was a ‘deer’ like creature, and others still believe that it was a ‘hippo’ like creature. Whatever these scientists believehowever, and as different as their beliefs may be, they do at least have one thing in common – they lack any real evidence. And it is exactly the same for every creature that has ever swum, crawled, walked, and flown upon this planet. As it says in the headline – where is the evidence?

Hi Luke,

I hadn’t seen that particular clip before, it really is very disturbing to think that the voices you can hear coming from her might actually be the voices of real demons (ps. that clip is not for the faint hearted).

I have had many experiences with dark forces, some from my child hood, right through my adult hood especially to do with drugs taking, and some are still going on today. There are some things that I can never deny – God is real, and demons exist. A lot of people just don’t realise what surrounds us, and maybe it’s just as well for them.

Here’s another such case for you to look at.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/58835/

Thank you for your words of encouragement Luke. It really has been much appreciated.

No Chris Firman, I am not saying that socialist state run countries are ‘ gardens of Eden ‘, but if you want some figures regarding my previous statement and looking at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of social and political run systems,

there is a country, not that far away, that is 4.5% of the worlds population,
consumes 31% of all global resources
produces 24.5% of the worlds pollution
Is directly and indirectly responsible for 78 conflicts around the world in the past 100 years (mainly due to arms sales and this countries banks providing loans to the devastated countries thereafter, WW1 and WW2 being prime examples)
Is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of over 51 million people and keeping over 1.8 billion people in poverty
This country made over £67 billion in arms sales in the year 2011
This country is one of the worlds biggest arms dealers
This country has been responsible for the deaths of 47 Presidents/Prime Ministers, Diplomats, Royal Heads of State
Has provided Financial and Military backing (selling of weapons) to, what we would now call, 31 Terrorist Organisations

What a lovely garden this country portrays in the name of Capitalism – What is it? Oh, yes ‘ For the Love of Money is root of all EVIL ‘.

I totally agree with Robert here. I would add the following, how and why would any benevolent God intelligently design and create Onchocerca volvulus? Please will anyone who advocates intelligent design answer that question. (Onchocerca volvulus is a human parasite that slowly eats the eyes of young children causing blindness “River blindness”). Also what is intelligent in the design of Childhood leukaemia, Osteo sarcoma and human papilloma virus? These hardly appear to follow the teachings outlined in “New Testament” of compassion, kindness and a forgiving God.

Ian Right, which translation of the bible, Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English?

“What would you say to the argument that if there are a trillion stars, each with a dozen or more planets, amidst (“scientists say”) possibly a trillion or more universes that we know nothing about, that by the law of averages, life would have accidentally evolved in varying degrees of sophistication in at least a few places, possibly too distant in both space and time to ever know each other existed; and that the only reason we are discussing it is because we happen to be in one of those few lucky places (and times) where local conditions favoured our development?!”

Well John the first thing I would ask is how that causes a problem for the belief that God created everything, out of nothing, so to speak. And secondly I would ask but what if there is only this universe and life is exclusive to this planet? Would that in your eyes prove God’s existence.

As we have already shown there is at least some evidence that God exists, plenty of it in fact. But there is absolutely no evidence that He doesn’t exist, just like there is no evidence for life on other planets, or for that matter for the multiverse hypothesis (M-theory) that you have rather finely described above.

The multiverse was a concept contrived to somehow offer an answer to the fine tuning problem that scientists face. As you are well aware the fine tuning of this universe is something that can’t be dismissed, it is, as many scientists have described, something that appears to have been deliberately designed, and that it somehow had life in mind.

Robert Lowes,

You seem to have thrown together so many inaccuracies about ID (Intelligent Design) that i wonder if you really know what it is?

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Here is a link to site that will give you a good understanding of what ID is, and what it isn’t.

As for your attack on the ICE, well I’m sorry but I have no comment really. I mean there are quite a number of institutions of this kind, some good, some not so good, and i simply don’t know enough about this praticular group to offer any opinions on it.

Mr.Tinkler, I didn’t take you for an old testament scholar, but i am sure your friend Mr Lubbe would be only too helpful if (you are truly seeking) in getting you to the ‘root’ of it.

Peter, I could give any number of reasons as to why the statement “apartheid was beneficial to South Africa” is completely false. Or, you could go and ask a black person. But don’t be surprised if you get a short and pithy answer.

Mr.Tinkler, was I trying to answer your question?
Maybe I was just giving you a few pointers ‘perhaps’ its all about faith. If I remember correctly the Bible as you call it or as Christians call it ‘The Word of God’ says in the book of Hebrews in the new testament chapter 11 and verse 1..”Now ‘faith’ is the substance of things hoped for, the ‘evidence’ of things not seen.” …they obviously have a great faith and a great hope set before them don’t you think?
I do wonder if there are really any intelligent Atheists out there that can prove to us, without any doubt, that the God of the Christian does not actually exist…anyone?
What we probably need is the wisdom of someone like Solomon to understand it all,( that’s assuming that he did actually live), someone commented on a verse in Proverbs which they said summed up the wisdom of mankind, Proverbs chapter 26 and verse 12 (that’s if you believe it).

I am thrilled for Peter, and for Christ, that Peter’s original letter has generated such an amazing amount of responses, however hotly argued against or for.

May God grant wisdom, discernment, love and minds that are open to objective truth in any continuing discussion.

May contributors be seeking truth humbly, as we are all students in the school of life, we all know so little of in terms of what is ultimate reality. What each of us have in common is our shared ignorance of this universe.

Interesting conversation and having known Peter for many years, knowing him to be a likeable, intelligent and good hearted friend I fully concur with and would echo Ali’s comment;

“It does not matter because in this instance Jesus really did save Peter, and having this faith has enabled him to give up drugs and make a contribution to society both through his work in a care home and his work with drug users in society helping them try and kick the habit, or with his book that if it persuades just one youngster to give the whole drug scene a miss will be worth every word. So well done PJ here is one atheist at least that is glad you have taken the path you have, and that you are still with us on this journey through life” Amen to that.

Having said that, regarding evolution, from my personal perspective I find it difficult to see how anyone reading the Old Testament could come to any other conclusion than that Yaweh, if he/it exists, is far from a pleasant entity and could not possibly have created the universe because this diabolical, dumbed down “literature” is full of rape, murder, genocide, war, gross intolerance and other horrors – supposedly in his name.

The whole defining point of the Abrahamic religions – that Abraham was prepared to murder his own son to prove his devoutness is to me an utterly evil abomination which I very much resent being taught or rather indoctrinated into believing as something “good” as a child. What sort of twisted, evil monster would deliberately cause this trauma to a young boy, (whose perspective is conveniently ignored) never mind his (I would presume actually bi-cameral, delusional) father for such a trivial purpose? An “all knowing” being creating the universe, knowing how things would unfold, would bring about such a situation never mind a “creation” in which souls burn in hell for eternity? I don’t think this is in any way reasonable – hence the whole creationist rejection of evolution is for me a fallacy. While some studies are beginning to indicate that there is more to evolution than Darwin’s theory, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the universe is evolving in some sense and is in constant flux.

While the very limited account of the life of Joshua Ben Joseph (AKA “Jesus”) indicates his teachings were moderate and “good” promoting the reformation of Judaism and encouraging the higher aspects of human nature, this account (which varies from one book of the new testament to another) also indicates that he nevertheless claimed he was the son of the abominable narcissist, “Yaweh” the “jealous” war god of the Jews, proclaiming his greatness. For me this philosophically deeply negates “Jesus” worthiness as a man or being of integrity.

Regarding the many commendable, moderate, live and let live comments above or those who would shut down the debate I have to admit to personally holding a different possibly less tolerant view;

Having been raised (or should I say indoctrinated without any choice in the matter) in the Protestant tradition I see manyfold issues with parents teaching children their irrational personal beliefs – in other words “Faith” – particularly when this includes concepts such as fathers preparing to murder their children, burning forever in hell etc. This is arguably tantamount to child abuse by modern standards, and it is easy to think of many similar actions that would have the social services at your door….

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
― Albert Einstein

“Religion is like a pair of shoes…..Find one that fits for you, but don’t make me wear your shoes.”
― George Carlin

Ah PJ here are a few links to articles on the very things you claim do not exist, it wasn’t too hard to find and I will leave you and others to read them at you leisure

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=g3

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=transitional+fossils&hl=en&tbo=u&rlz=1C1GGGE_enGB407GB413&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=vDX5UK2cJMa-0QX65ICYCQ&ved=0CFkQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=513&sei=sjb5UOyLGuiI0AWC5oG4Dg

yet again blyde du’s still we wis

Hi Alistair,

Thanks for your contribution. But as a one time evolutionist myself, resources like you have just postd are the very things that confirmed for me that ‘evolution’ was indeed true.

However, as I have already mentioned on here Idecided to look at the so called evidence myself,to see if it really does corroborate Darwins theory, and after 5 years of doing so i can quite cofidenly day that it doesn’t.

I am well aware of various ‘evolution’ sites, that display all sorts of so called ‘evidences’, for instance Talk Origins and bird evolution. But when you dig a little deeper you will find that the supposed evidence is greatly conflated.

As I have said I would gladly come and discuss this with you. It won’t take long for you to find ‘evidence’ that supposidly supports ‘evolution’, and in turn I can show you many ‘peer reviewed scientific papers’ that after further analysis of the said ‘fossils’ show that ‘evolution’ has not occured.

Why don’t you site, for all to see, 1 such example of what you consider conclusive evidence for ‘evolution’?

Have a look through some of the resources you have sited and choose 1 that you think proves your point.

Peter J,

It is said “God created man in His own image” and indeed the omnipotent God of the Old Testament reminds us of many leaders in human history who, having acquired total power, used it vengefully and cruelly to advance their own “purpose.”

Isn’t this model more in line with the reciprocal phrase “Man created God in His own image”?

Alternative schools of thought exist in which “God is love” and found in everything and everyone – clearly incompatible with the acts of violence and genocide and creation of the scourges of humanity to which Ian Tinkler refers; others such as Buddhism do not accept the existence of a “creator” however they insist that everything in the universe is inextricably connected and indeed, a gentle, caring attitude not dissimilar to Christian ideals, is recommended for adherents.

Do you believe the Bible, literally, as written i.e. where God is represented as an egotistical old man who sits up in the sky directing thunderbolts towards opponents and detractors or do you think any of these other interpretations are valid?

In particular, is your God a vengeful one or a forgiving one?

Kenny Gear, I note and appreciate your comments regarding YHWH, and your account of His actions both in terms of His Abrahamic covenant, and dealings with Abraham and Isaac, also the concerns raised about the Biblical witness of rapes, genocide, etc.

Also appreciate your acknowledgement on the one hand of Christ (as far as can be gleaned from historical witnesses) represented some progressive teachings, but on the other hand, His worthiness as a man of integrity is negated with His attachment to the abominable war god of the Jews.

And finally, your point about parents passing on their faith to their children being tantamount to child abuse by modern standards.

Please, this may seem like a long-winded reply, but I graciously ask your favour to recognise that these important issues raised in your response cannot be dealt with whimsically, or briefly. Please indulge me.

If I may address your last point first. You may be absolutely correct in your conclusion here, but knowledge, as with many other things, abhors a vacuum. Our lives, belief systems and world views are all based upon some form of knowledge that is related to us, first by parents, then by other adults, teachers, peers, etc. In any young life, there is a range of sources that compete for a place in that person’s world-view. At a practical or pragmatic level, how do we choose which knowledge is relevant, and who will approve that knowledge base given to every child? The Nazis, and state educators of Stalin’s USSR, and Mao’s China, or Pol Pot in Cambodia? Perhaps these are bad examples, but it seems to me, that humanity still insists on some freedom of choice, both in terms of what a person ought to know, and what a person can choose to know. Now for everyone, (at least very many people) knowledge is ‘value-laden’ and therefore some knowledge is more important than other knowledge. Is this morally wrong?

Your first point about this aggressive, etc YHWH of the Jews. If your understanding (interpetation) of the sacred texts of the Old and New Testaments is correct, then you make a good case for your atheism, and I ought to be an atheist with you standing against such a god.

However, a mistake made by many when they approach this text (sacred or not), is to see what these writings says for itself. How does the Bible (Greek for book) itself generally give us understanding as to how to interpret correctly? But of course, we should first understand that the Bible was not a book that was written over a few weeks, but written progressively over a few thousand years, by many different authors from many different locations, and in many different situations.

Their method of interpretation included some key rules. First, that an authentic witness or contributor (or prophet) to this book we call the Bible should never lead people away from YHWH, whom they believed was the one true and living God as revealed to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses. (Deut ch13)

Second, the Sacred Texts should be interpreted ‘existentially’. That is, what it says to me personally, or to the nation, in terms of the immediate situation or crisis. The crisis for example facing the youth being offered for sacrifice by his father Abraham. On the contrary to your assertion, the Bible does say much about young Isaac and his perspective. We see in this drama, the young boy or adult, particularly if we take some time to dwell upon Isaac’s response to this dramatic crisis unfolding before him. “And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” We notice in the unfolding crisis that Isaac is a willing participant in this drama, and is commended by later writers for his faith, as is Abraham, whom (if you read the passage closely) left his servants at the foot of Mount Moriah with the promise that he and his son would soon return to them. Again later writers commend this faith of Abraham.

The point is that faith is both reasonable, and at the same time existentially testing. If we are to believe the earlier accounts given to us by Abraham, then his faith is based upon a number of real and dramatic personal encounters with YHWH, that sustains him in this time of crisis.

Third, the Sacred Texts should be interpreted ‘prophetically’ in terms of what it reveals about YHWH, Christ, ourselves, or the situations they encountered.

Your case in point about Abraham and Isaac is interpreted prophetically (not on a mere whim by me or others) but because we take our lead for interpretation from the book itself. That is, how does it understand this drama? We find that the texts progressively reveal prophetic truths about Christ Himself, both in terms of Christ as the Son of God (whom Isaac portrays), as the ‘willing’ sacrifice, and God the Father (whom Abraham portrays), as the Father who is willing to give of His Son to save sinners.

Indeed the whole sacrificial system pointed to the horror and bloody consequences of sin, and the love of God that in the dispensation of the Old Testament allowed a way of escape from sin through the blood of animals, and pointing to Christ who became that ultimate lamb of God who would take away the sins of His people.

What we see consistently in the Old Testament is a God of grace, in terms of His moral law, and the limits he placed on punishment, ‘an eye for an eye’, whilst at the same time, reminding the people that ‘vengeance’ is the sole prerogative of God, not man. In case someone did take vengeance, provision was provided for the innocent by retreating to a city of refuge. Again, these were to be understood ‘typically’ and ‘prophetically’ of God’s provision of salvation through Christ.

Personally, I only see the love, goodness and grace of God in these texts you mention, and supremely in Christ who claimed to be God. Indeed, He said when you have seen me you have seen my Father, and I and my Father are One, and He is in me and I am in Him. It is God, I believe, who loved me and gave His life (human life) for me, so that I might be saved from the consequences of my sin, in terms of my unbelief, rebellion and moral declension.

Mathew before you swallow everything your teachers tell you please compare the conditions in Soweto and the other townships of South Africa to the slums of Luanda and Bulawayo, while the treatment of the blacks in South Africa may have been below that of the white population it was considerably better than the treatment they received at the hands of their fellow blacks in the rest of Africa.
In fact ask a resident of Soweto today if his lot has improved or gotten worse since the end of apartheid, you may be surprised at their answer.

What Cain said to God after he murdered his brother Abel. “Am I my brothers keeper?”

Looking at Ian Tinkler’s post about the supposed variations in meaning between different translations of the same Biblical text, I have to disagree with the point Mr Tinkler is attempting to make. The two English texts are clearly completely consistent with one another and in turn with the Latin. My Ancient Greek is too rudimentary for me to pass comment.

Re-reading Mr Tinkler’s post, it seems to me important to understand that while the Bible may be in one sense “just opinions or beliefs of long dead scribes”, the interesting point about religions is the fact that believers treat these texts as relevant and influential in their lives now. Faith is part of human nature and continues to exert a powerful influence, for good and sometimes evil, in human society. That is of course irrespective of the “truth” or otherwise of any particular religion’s teachings. Because it isn’t the truth that’s important: it’s the believing.

This first letter on this page from the Herald’s letters recently is worth reading: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/faith-still-persists-because-we-cannot-rebel-against-religious-conviction.19770548

The English language has many words for the same meaning. There are lots of Bible translations and versions. Niv,etc. As long as people believe the message in the 66 books does it really matter?

Thankyou Andrew and Peter for your considered and polite responses – certainly I have no intention to offend. Indeed, I acknowledge that you and many others find comfort in their faith.

Andrew I concur with your general point regarding knowledge, however I am of the belief that taking advantage of the vacuum to indoctrinate for life our children with our religious beliefs is morally wrong. Rather, children should be taught that there are many different religious views and allowed the opportunity to take these on board or not when they mature and possess the mental ability for in depth analysis.

Regarding the Abrahamic sacrifice question, why would the creator of the universe require any kind of physical sacrifice in the first place, and I would suggest that there are other equally or more plausible interpretations of Isaac’s words which do not support this stance – as is the case throughout the whole biblical discussion. You will no doubt also be aware of the different account of this event rendered in the Koran. Additionally I would suggest that the religious scholars you mention had a somewhat one sided approach.

I agree with your point regarding “the book” being a collection of writings put together over many centuries, but would question the evidence that everything in it can be proven as witnessed and authenticated. Rather there are many motivations for the (selective) content, many arguably political and to maintain the authority of certain groups, and there are many major inconsistencies with other historical evidence and texts delivering arguably less biased accounts of the same history.

I would also point out that the original custodians and authors of the old testament – the Jews – “God’s Chosen People” no less – reject Christianity, and are still awaiting their Messiah – Jesus was not he.

As you point out Yaweh reportedly promotes “an eye for an eye”. Of course Jesus later promotes the very different philosophy of “turn the other cheek”. How you reconcile either of these positions with burning in hell for not believing, or indeed for any possible evil perpetrated in this life is beyond me – this is not representative of a god of love and mercy but of a “don’t do as I do, do as I tell you” wrathful war god ruling by fear.

Also I find the whole question of “Salvation through Christ” in the biblical sense to be logically very deeply flawed indeed. When we cut through all the mumbo jumbo what this says is essentially that an all knowing “God” created a universe. Being “all knowing” he knew perfectly well this would lead, owing to the built-in very severe justice system, to many, many souls burning in hell in unimaginable suffering. Not to worry tho; he had a plan; because of his infinite mercy he would later sacrifice his own ‘son’ (or perhaps not really a sacrifice, just a very short visit culminating in a day or two of – compared to eternal hellfire – mild suffering on a cross before going home again) and this would somehow mean that those that came after wouldn’t necessarily have to pay this extremely disproportionate price for their sins – assuming of course that his “grace” allowed it. This makes no sense whatsoever and is not indicative of a just, loving or kind being in any shape or form.

Peter, I would suggest that the reason people take umbrage with the teaching as fact to children of 3000 year old ideas about the creation of the universe and the origins of life is that they are manifestly incorrect. These ideas are simply a record of one theory that someone came up with at the time, when they still believed the earth was flat, orbited by the sun etc, and most rational people find the teaching of this fundamentalist nonsense to children as the indisputable truth at best very backward from all sorts of perspectives, and at worst tantamount to child abuse. All of the science that has brought us the technology and medicine around us today, indeed allowing you to conduct your (somewhat suspect) research, lead the relatively comfortable life that you do, and us to have this conversation is in essence the same science that has led us to our present – albeit incomplete – state of knowledge about the origins of life and the universe. To me it is not rational to accept one and reject the other.

In addition what possible need would the creator of the universe have of our “worship”? This to me indicates a delusional being in dire need of counselling, and merely reflects the submissive nature of 95% of mankind. Personally, if anything I would go with the Illuminatus view that if he exists he is the Demiurge; a disturbed and deluded narcissistic entity leading us away from the truth. Perhaps I did not really explain my logic regarding how this refutes the creationist view; however it is simply that for the reasons outlined above I see the ‘God’ depicted in the bible as, if he exists, an evil and deeply flawed impostor, and find the amazing universe we observe around us incompatible with such a twisted monster; maybe it was intelligently designed, maybe it wasn’t, however absolutely not in the biblical sense and not by the war god of the Jews.

Perhaps a supreme being did indeed create the universe, however it was a lot, lot more than 6000 years ago my friend, and if so his design was a lot more sophisticated than that indicated in the bible; an evolving universe.

With regards to the education provided down through the ages by the church this is indisputable, however the church can equally be fairly charged with very severe suppression of science and knowledge.

The fact is that none of the Abrahamic religions can withstand rational review; if they could there would be no need of “faith” and the dire warnings to believers of people like me leading them away from God. This is clearly demonstrated in the story of the garden of eden and the Tree Of Knowledge. I can only thank my lucky stars that I was born into an age and part of the world that allows me the freedom to express my own view without some evil, murderous, hypocritical religious zealot unable to defend his position rationally, burning me alive or otherwise delivering imprisonment, torture, and a gruesome death.

In any case, I realise that you both have a very different view indeed, and have no wish to offend or to turn you from that which brings you comfort or helps you through your life, but rather to contribute an alternative view to the discussion. May your God be with you, and I wish you success, (other than perhaps in the teaching to children of irrational nonsense 😉 ) health and happiness.

Ian Tinkler says: “Try Biblical Hebrew, Robert Sim, that was the original text of most of The Bible. If your ancient Greek is a bit rusty, just how you can possible believe the accuracy of translations of the bible into Latin and English.”

Ian,I can only base my comments on what is in front of me. Three out of four of the texts you presented concurred perfectly. I therefore have to assume that the Greek aligns with the others. Are you saying it doesn’t?

Are you further saying that the Hebrew text does not match with the Greek or any of the others? If so, why have you not quoted it?

This article, found very quickly, on the evidence base for the transaltions of the Bible, is interesting: http://www.christianity.co.nz/bible-3.htm It demonstrates that the New Testament we have now is in all probability very faithful to the original manuscripts.

It does not seem to me that this is a big deal. I appreciate that you were trying to dismiss Christianity on the basis of the idea that we could not be sure that the texts we have now are true to what was originally written. I was merely pointing out that, on your own evidence, your assertion was not true.

You would however be right if you said that the interpretation of what is going on in the Bible, as opposed to the literal meaning, varies significantly. I am no scholar of this area; but I know that over the centuries Jesus’ teachings have been interpreted in many different ways, depending on the needs of different societies and groups. Thought For The Day on Radio 4 illustrates how Biblical texts can be adapted to any given situation!

The interesting question for me is not whether God exists, or how the world was created or how life evolved (science gives us the answer to the last two); but what is the role/significance of religious faith in society now, including Shetland society? Here is another interesting article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7302609.stm It reports on a study which concludes that religious faith can enable people to better cope with shock or change in life. If we don’t believe in God or a supernatural world (and I would count myself in that group), what significance does that finding have for us?

Some religious faiths have developed meditation, which is akin to prayer, and that is also linked with wellbeing. Should that be promoted more widely in society?

And that is my thought for the day!

Kenny says “Peter, I would suggest that the reason people take umbrage with the teaching as fact to children of 3000 year old ideas about the creation of the universe and the origins of life is that they are manifestly incorrect.”

I have to disagree here. I think God’s word tells us many things about the creation of the universe, a lot of which is being verified by scientific discovery almost on a regular basis.

For instance the bible says that God created everything out of nothing, and that is indeed what scientists have discovered: the universe had a beginning and something had to cause it to happen.

Stephen Hawkins has of course made the claim that certain ‘laws’ (like gravity) made it inevitable that the ‘universe should pop into existence’, but this doesn’t answer the question about where those laws came from in the first place. You can’t have an uncaused cause, something had to be there to kick it all off.

I personally have no problem with the evidence for a young earth, although it is not a line of argument I particularly involve myself in, but through research I have found the evidence for creation far more compelling than that of ‘evolution’.

As you may have seen Alistair must have made a search for himself of evidence for ‘transitional fossils’. The links he then posted as a result are what you would expect to find when running a Google search, mostly ‘pro-evolution’ sites such as Talk Origins, Panda’s Thumb, Why Evolution is True, etc., that bombard you with so called ‘evidence.’ And because they make such a convincing case, showing all these diffefernt fossils, it is easy to believe that the ‘no transitional’ argument has been refuted. However, the reality is very different from the claims they like to make.

What I would advise Alistair to now do is go into one of those sites, pick 1 transitional fossil, say Archaeopteryx, for example, read what they say in defence of it being a ‘transitional’, then do a search of all available independent scientific literature to see what science in general has to say.

What you will then find, in every case you look at, is that the actual evidence for it being a ‘transitional’ is highly questionable, or in some cases even fraudulent.

When I say that I have researched this subject for 5 years or more I am not joking. And it is because of this that I can quite confidently say here in the public domain that there is no such thing as a ‘transitional fossil, linking one species to another. I’ve looked, and I would suggest you do the same.

After all, you do seem very concerned about what we teach our children.

I guess that the experience of the people of Zimbabwe over the last 34 years or the experience of the peoples of Uganda and Rwanda over the last 50 years mean nothing, all Marxist states. I guess those same Marxist writers you mention Mathew will tell you they are states of bliss in Africa. like religion, politics relies a lot on faith and a suspension of rational thought. but never mind Mathew just parrot back what your teachers want and you will pass your exams don’t try and find out the truth for yourself. And if you think a black South African today has any more right to protest than they did under Apartheid then you are seriously flawed in your thought.

“but it cannot explain why the horse shoe crab in comparison has remained unchanged for over 300my (millions of years).”

I think you’ll find the Earth is, at most, 5000 years old.

Also, you state there is no real evidence for evolution, so where’s the evidence for intelligent design?

In response to Matthew Simpson,

What evidence do you have to prove that the Earth is 5000 years old?.There seems, in fact to be evidence to prove otherwise: fossils dating back millions of years?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/22/luoping-fossils-discovered-china http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/16/new-to-nature-culiseta-lemniscata

I am afraid I am going to have to wade in here. The Earth is not 5000 years old. There are traces of human civilisation going back at least 20000 years and remains of old stone axe factories in east Africa that date back hundreds of thousands of years. And that is just humans.

Our sun is at least a second generation star, the solar system started coalescing around 5 000 000 000 years ago after a nearby supernova disturbed a gas cloud and seeded it with heavy elements, the earth was pretty much fully formed around four and a half billion years ago.

If you truly believe that the earth is 5000 years old then i am afraid to say you are away with the fairies. Get out there and read some books, proper books written by scientists and not mad hermits. Please do not teach children this drivel.

Also someone said earlier that if English was good enough for Christ it was good enough for him. I highly doubt there was anything resembling the English language 2000 years ago when said person is alleged to have exsisted. Maybe Iain Tinkler could confirm this as he seems to be the language expert!

Mathew,

After having read the above link and discovered what Intelligent Design is, read the following article, and watch the video.

This is the argument for design in nature.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/spectacular_new_1068501.html

I’m pretty sure that, if God is reading this, He (or She) would be sad that people don’t have better things to do than argue on message-boards about issues that ultimately boil down to a “point of view”.

Likewise, I’m sure that Darwin would be disappointed that people are more interested in using their opposable thumbs to press space bar while typing self-satisfying retorts, rather than going out and learning about the world around them.

Perhaps we should just accept that people believe different things and leave it at that.

Ian right. I cannot argue against a closed mind. A pointless exercise trying to rationalise the irrational and blinkered. I, for one, hope not to see you in heaven, I would be bored silly being good , sitting for eternity on a cloud being self-righteous. I think I would prefer a bit of mayhem in the other place, more of my sort of people would be there. My last entry here, honest, honest in this tiresome debate.

Mr.Tinkler
Thanks for your reply and ‘answer(s)’ and I take no offence in your ‘last entry’
Eternity is apparently neverending and those who are Christian’s and believe the God of the Bible’s account know that they will not be sitting on clouds (this is perhaps a ‘blinkered’ view of Heaven) but will be busy doing more important things.
You say you would rather be in ‘The other place’ (as you call it) as you prefer a bit of ‘mayhem’, definition…”A state of violent disorder or riotous confusion;havoc”
REF:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mayhem,
Perhaps the God of the Christian would have stronger word(s) for it.
With respect I would suggest that perhaps the person with a blinkered and closed mind is you yourself Mr.Tinkler and something you will not be able to ‘rationalise’ this side of ‘eternity’ as you yourself called it.
You stated …”I, for one, hope not to see you in heaven”, I have yet to say I am a Christian or even going to Heaven…you again are being presumptuous as usual,
also your other derogatory remark of Christian’s being “self-righteous” and sitting on clouds from a Christian perspective is wrong, in the words of a book called Revelation chapter 21 verse 27.
I leave you with a question before I go….do the choices and decisions in our lifetime have any effect on where we go from here when we die physically?

“Just because you don’t accept them doesn’t mean that it isn’t proof”.

What, like the Darwinian model of evolution that every credible scientist (i.e. not crackpots trying to pass off intelligent design as a real science) accepts as the most likely and valid explanation for the formation of life on earth?

Are you even listening to yourself?

Thanks for your comments Robert “What, like the Darwinian model of evolution that every credible scientist (i.e. not crackpots trying to pass off intelligent design as a real science) accepts as the most likely and valid explanation for the formation of life on earth?

“Are you even listening to yourself?”

Well in a sense, yes! Belief in God, just like belief in Darwinian evolution, are almost identical in that it takes faith to believe.

The reason I say this is quite obvious 1) Faith, in regards to God, is what the bible teaches. 2) evidence for Darwinian evolution is not fact based but merely based on a hypothesis.

Many of the worlds leading scientists however don’t agree with you Robert.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Out of those who wished to be named over 6,000 to date have signed a declaration declaring their dissent from Darwinian evolution. And every day that list grows longer.

I know, your next line of defence will be to google it and then you will no doubt site articles from Talk Origins or Panda’s Thumb trying to counter argue this claim, but it stands regardless of the ridicule that they, and perhaps people like you, will aim at it.

I am not anti-Darwinism because of my faith in God, I dissent from Darwinism because I don’t have enough faith to believe in it. The evidence for it is simply not there.

Look for yourself, search through the literature for what you have always believed supports Darwinian theory, and when you begin to scratch even a little under the surafce what you will find may just astonish you.

Thanks David for your comments. I always find them very interesting. And yes i do see your point. However, I unfortuntaley don’t have the time to respond just yet but will hopefully manage later in the day.

“No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible.
The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.

“How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question. . . .” 12

Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!

“. . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not.” 13″ Taken from icr.org artictle 260. Thanks Peter for refering to Bibilcal reference and Science in an earlier comment. Until there is Solid proof that Design by God is not in Union with this world then i refuse to belive that God created me an Ape like creature!

What a great discussion!

My issue with religion is that I don’t want to live forever. Given the option, I will take nihility (i.e., peace and quiet) over eternal life. I don’t think I need to go to church or pray for that. If there is a reasonable God (just half-decent), I expect that on my day of reckoning He will forgive me for my lack of faith and let me have my wish. If I were God, I would make that option available to everyone, and I don’t consider myself to be especially forgiving.

If, on my passing, God decides that eternity in a furnace is a more appropriate direction for my afterlife, then I think He must be rather unpleasant. In that case, the “smoke of my torment” will surely make me regretful that I was not holy when I had the opportunity. But I will try to console myself with pride in not having been part of His dreadful cult.

For the record, I am an atheist and I am not actually concerned with the scenario outlined in the previous paragraph. Also for the record, I have both feet firmly in the evolution camp.

It is interesting to note that religious belief is of course itself clearly a product of evolution – like everything else in human life today. The question is: what advantage does it confer? The topic is discussed in these articles, to select only two: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-alleyne/6146411/Humans-evolved-to-believe-in-God.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196

A lot of comments since I last had a chance to look and so I will get around to answering some as best i can later. But this one by Robert deserves an immediate response.

“It is interesting to note that religious belief is of course itself clearly a product of evolution – like everything else in human life today.”

Robert, if ‘Religious belief’ is merely a product of ‘evolution’, then please tell me why we should put our trust in the very thing you believe … evolution?

Peter, you ask me “…if ‘Religious belief’ is merely a product of ‘evolution’, then please tell me why we should put our trust in the very thing you believe … evolution?”

You are confusing the product of evolution (religious belief) with the means of its production (evolution). Evolution has produced a lot of things that may seem odd but can be seen as serving a purpose. Did you read the articles I mentioned?

Did any of the above debaters watch BBC 2’s programme “Ice Age Art” this evening?

Insofar as we can trust the BBC not to invent sensational stories, the stunning images and sculptures from 13,000 to 30,000 years ago will provide food for thought, if not also further comment.

“Nobody could draw like this until Van Goch” said arty enthusiast Anthony Gormley who himself sculpted the “Angel of the North.”

Even if you’re not interested in this debate, a quick shufty at BBC iPlayer will be rewarded.

Ok, I can’t say I’m a big fan of a lot of modern art either so it’s just as well that isn’t what the programme was about.

It was about art from the last ice age whose quality is amazing and while I can’t profess to know a lot about evolution, I thought this might be of interest to those who do as I found it intriguing.

As I understand it Darwin’s theory of evolution is a strictly mechanistic process which follows naturally from the catchphrase “survival of the fittest” with changing ambient conditions and predators leading to periods of stability or accelerated development.

I can see how artistic ability might have evolved as a by-product to tool-making and communicating e.g. plans for a hunt however I am intrigued by how maintaining groups of artists within a tribe during the ice age could be a consequence of “survival of the fittest” in what was, I suspect, a tenuous existence during a period of great danger and hardship?

Maybe that was a bit speculative?

Just noticed Peter Jamieson’s comment of 28 Jan on my post. Peter says: “Robert if belief in something is a product of ‘evolution’, whatever that belief might be, and whether it serves a purpose or not, how can we ultimately trust anything that our minds perceive?” It might seem silly to respond so belatedly; but I feel I have to point out that we are talking here not about belief in general but about religious belief. Religious belief asks us to believe in things which are not susceptible of normal proof, ie not part of the physical world. There is a clear distinction between that and things which are susceptible of proof. In ordinary life, I am able to verify in different ways what my senses tell me. That is how I am able to trust what my mind perceives. Again, I would refer you to the articles I mentioned for a clearer and fuller explanation.

“It might seem silly to respond so belatedly; but I feel I have to point out that we are talking here not about belief in general but about religious belief. Religious belief asks us to believe in things which are not susceptible of normal proof, ie not part of the physical world.”

Darwinian evolution is also matter of belief. For instance some scientists believe that life evolved over millions of years, a steady line of transition as life forms spilt, diverge, becoming new species, but without any solid evidence. It’s quite amusing really.

David reckons that this belief has more evidence than the writings of some ‘Holy book’, although I beg to differ. The bible in fact says a lot about the cosmos and lifes beginnings, which in my view are verified by the evidence, unlike Darwinian evolution which is falsified by the lack of evidence to support it.

For instance the bible says in Chapter 1 that there was a ‘beginning’ to the universe, although this idea was largely rejected by science until quite recently.

Also it says in Genesis that God created life from ‘dust’. Funnily enough this has also been verified quite recently as scientists begin to understand more about life’s chemistry. Something like 98.9 percent of what makes us can be found in – guess what – yep ‘dust’. Funny that isn’t it?

Also in Genesis it says that God created all living things in their specific ‘Kinds’, you know like dogs, Tyranosaurus, Giraffes, Lemurs, Australapithicines, apes, killer whales etc. And funnily enough, when we look at available fossils what do we find – we find everything in their specific kinds with nothing linking one creature to another. In other words what we find ‘stasis’. Which of course is the antithesis to Darwinian evolution.

To make things easier for us the scietific community have actually decided upon the one mammal that gave rise to all the rest. Without getting all sciency let’s just say that it ticks more boxes than all the others. But what it allows us to do is look for all the transitionals between this creature and the hundreds of mammals that live on our planet today. Do you know how many examples of transitionals the fossil record has yielded so far? (Go on, have a guess. It’s actually quite easy).

If you are going to have faith in something at least look at what has more evidence, and then follow that evidence wherever leads.

http://www.newser.com/story/162477/meet-the-66m-year-old-ancestor-of-all-mammals.html

Peter – you’re cherry picking bits of science that support your own biblical world view and unsurprisingly, completely misrepresenting the facts. Household dust is comprised in the most part of human skin cells that have been shed over time. Therefore, yes – it is true to an extent that household dust is comprised of the ‘same stuff’ as us – but that’s only because household dust is an inadvertent byproduct of human existence – not confirmation of a biblical story.

As to science only recently agreeing that there was a beginning to the universe, that is true. Sometimes it can take the scientific community some time to accept that they get things wrong for a variety of reasons. However, once a new theory is shown to be unequivocal, that becomes the norm relatively quickly. For example, it’s only been in the last 20 years that two Australian doctors postulated that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, having found it was a common factor in various patients – and not caused by bad diet and stress as had previously been thought – and that it could in fact be cleared up fairly easily with the correct treatment. Once their findings were published, they were dismissed – until it was clearly demonstrated that bacteria do indeed cause stomach ulcers, in this case by one of the doctors ingesting a culture of said bacteria and developing stomach ulcers quickly after.

However, it should also be pointed out that if the scientific community can be slow to adapt to knew ways of thinking, the religious establishment is positively glacial. In 1992, the late Pope John Paul II decreed that the church had been incorrect in trying Galileo Galilee for heresy, banning his books and placing him under house arrest for the remainder of his life, following Galileo’s assessment that the Earth revolves around the sun a full 360 years earlier.

Your assessment of transitional fossils is also completely incorrect. I’m not certain you actually understand what a transitional fossil is anyway. Darwinian evolution is a slow process, and changes in species happen so gradually that in many instances, such changes can be missed in fossilised remains. There are indeed transitional fossils, but they are few and far between – mostly because fossilisation in itself is not a guaranteed process. The geological and environmental factors necessary are specific. To give some idea of how rare fossils can be, it should be noted that palaeontologists have only identified some thirty incomplete skeletons of Tyrannosaurus Rex in the last century, as opposed to fragments of jawbone and teeth. Incidentally, it is only in the last 20-odd years that science has identified that T-Rex kept it’s tail raised off the ground rather than dragging it along, and that was likely more of a scavenger/hunter than an out and out predator. But then in 1905 when T Rex was first identified, there wasn’t any means of accurately identifying how muscle attached to bone and how the mechanics of skeletal structures worked either.

Having said that, there are examples of transitional fossils to be found. For example, palaeontology (an actual, accredited science and not a made up one like “intelligent design”) has identified a primate that shows a significant adaption in the structure of the foot – an additional bone that makes walking on hind legs considerably easier. This bone is not present in earlier primates, but does show up in all the remains of our direct forebears.

In addition, some creatures (such as sharks and crocodilians) remain relatively unchanged in form for millions of years because they have reached the peak of their evolution. Any further change would not be beneficial to the survival of the species. “Survival of the Fittest” is often used as a catch-all summary of Darwin’s theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This means that lifeforms adapt to suit their environment and conditions. Those best suited survive.

The bottom line is that science cannot explain everything exactly at anyone time, but it is adaptable enough to change when new knowledge is presented and verified -much like Evolution by Natural Selection itself. The best theories are those based on what we know at anyone time. So far, Evolution by Natural Selection is the best theory available on how life develops. “Intelligent Design”, is not. Despite it’s name, “Intelligent Design” is a stupid, wilfully ignorant pseudo-science that goes against all rational scientific thinking and perpetuated by a powerful Christian fundamentalist lobby. It is not a science, it does not hold any answers. I try to keep an open mind on most things, but there is no room to manoeuvre on Intelligent Design – it is an intellectual dead end and does not deserve the amount of room so far afforded it by the Shetland Times in this line of correspondence.

Oops, I cut short that quotation. It should have read:

– Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death-

Again however, this is the view of a Nobel prize winning sceintist, who unlike many other famous scientists who share his views, was not afraid to stand up and say it to the rest of the world.

The good news though is that more and more scientists are finding that courage every day, which really is bad news for people like you as you will soon be left with no where to hide.

Peter – the three scientists you mention are also all people of faith and are unable – like yourself – to separate their faith from fact. The only thing untenable here is the ridiculous lengths people of faith will go to in order to make the material world fit with their view of the world. the article you link to is an Intelligent Design website, not a credible source. I would note however, that both macro and microevolution – that is evolution which occurs within an entire species and evolution which occurs within a specific population of a species – are fundamentally exactly the same process, despite what creationists would like you to believe. I would also add that if Professor Smalley really doesn’t understand who his particular field of study works, he should hand back his nobel Prize and tear up his certificates.

Thank you for your invitation, but I have no wish to subject myself to the level of brainwashing, misinformation and the denial of fact to which you subscribe. It’s just a shame the museum is hosting the event – a centre for learning is no place for the utter fallacy that is “Intelligent Design”.

Robert, I would think a museum auditorium is a perfectly suitable venue to discuss Intelligent Design, or anything else for that matter. Open discussion and freedom of speech should be promoted, especially in the various disciplines of scientific research, unless of course what is being discussed could potentially threaten to expose the many weaknesses of a long held belief, and especially one that is protected by law – namely – Darwinian evolution.

Also, John is quite right. Why would anyone, even of average intellegence, fear being ‘brain washed’? What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

If you think that ID is nothing more than psuedoscience then why don’t you come along and challenge DR. Alastair Nobel, he is after all an expert in this field and in Shetland to discuss this very topic. And by the way, you would not be alone, there are many people attending who share your views.

It’s like I said in a previous post, you have your beliefs, and you have your evidences for holding those beliefs, but you won’t want to be challenged on them as you are probably not as confident in them as you would like us all to believe?

Come out from behind your rock of materialism, after all it’s getting smaller and smaller day by day, and when its finally gone, which may not be too far away, you will only end up looking rather foolish.

Peter, re your request to my namesake for evidence of transitional fossils, Archaeoptyryx appears to fit your criteria. I am not an expert in this area: I just looked up “transitional fossils” on wikipedia.

It goes on to explain there that, since the discovery of Archaeoptyryx in 1861, “many more transitional fossils have been discovered…and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils…”

Another interesting article in wikipedia is the one on Intelligent Design. Fascinating.

In fairness, Alan, that’s not my impression, rather they appear to be challenging a particular theory to which they don’t subscribe and whether you or I or anyone else accepts their evidence, that is what they are attempting to do and actually, it is a scientific approach. Whether their evidence stacks up is another matter and I have insufficient knowledge to comment on that however even if we decide to believe in science as another religion, we mustn’t believe in it as it stands today since scientific theories, no matter how widely accepted are always open to challenge – we can NEVER say “the science is settled.”

In reply to John Tulloch’s comment that what the proponents of ID are doing in challenging the theory of evolution is taking “a scientific approach”, I would have to say that it is surely the diametric opposite of a scientific approach. A scientist makes observations and constructs a theory which will fit what has been observed. The proponents of ID make the observations fit the theory. And of course creationism isn’t a theory in the scientific sense either.

Robert Sim,

I hear what you are saying and Peter will, doubtless, defend his own philosophy.

My worry is that science can be believed in like a religion (I should know, I used to prior to the man-made global warming scare) whereas it is only the most arguably plausible “story” so far concocted to “explain” what we perceive to be going on around us and alas, it has been corrupted by money and politics to an extent that it cannot be allowed to run free, unchallenged.

The following link is to an article by a very experienced American peer reviewer, written in 2007, well before “Climate-gate and so all the more courageous.

http://www.thegwpf.org/peer-review-scientific-consensus/

I see no reason to imagine the situation in Britain is any different.

As mentioned in previous posts Richard Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science” essay presented to Caltech students in 1974 gives chapter and verse on this.

It must be recognised that while Feynman may well have dismantled ID had he been around now, he would be the first to agree that science is never settled.

There are a number of statments above that could do with a little cosideration.

Firstly Allen states “The problem with this debate is not that scientists are trying to disprove the existence of God, but that Godists are trying to disprove the existence of science.”

It is obvious to me that Allen is confused by one of two things, or possibly both.
Intelligent Design does not infer who the designer is; it could be God (which many scientists believe), or it could be the result of something else entirley like Pranspermia (see link below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

You see it’s very posible that it could have arrived here via some outside Intelligence like that of aliens, who either planted it here, or arrived on this planet by Panspermia, its origins being from an Alien civilisation. This actualy something that Richard Dawkins himself has even endorsed as a possibility. Who would have imagined that dawkins would think ID is a possibility (see link below)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Or yes, it may have been designed by a supernatural Intelligence i.e. God.

Secondly, Robert Lowes states “I’m afraid Allen has hit the nail on the head. Intelligent Design is not rooted in science, it is rooted in biblical creationism.”

Which is followed by Robert Sim “In reply to John Tulloch’s comment that what the proponents of ID are doing in challenging the theory of evolution is taking “a scientific approach”, I would have to say that it is surely the diametric opposite of a scientific approach.”

These comments give me the impression that neither of you understand what ‘science’ is?

And lastly (sadly I have run out of time and can’t go into this properly), would any of you care to discuss with me the content of wiki’s description of Intelligent Design?

Having followed this thread to the point where the original poster wants to discus “intelligent design” I feel I have to point out that a god (any god) who “designs” his creations so full of flaws as to never be able to live up to his expectations,who “designs” them so badly that he has to wipe them out with flood,famine,etc,etc,order them to kill their own sons and daughters ritually,allows one of his creations i.e. Satan to run amok through it all is Far from intelligent. Lets forget all this talk of Wikipedia and take a good look at where all christians get their information from. The bible. Oh Dear, now there is a problem.

Yes, I care to have a go.

Would you care to meet me in person? That way we can discuss all claims in one place, at one time. If you were willing to meet Mr Dawkins in person then surely you wont think twice about meeting myself in person for a debate.

Today, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iphone and tested to see if it can survive a 30 foot drop, just so
she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now broken and she has 83 views.
I know this is entirely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

My page: sbobet