tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post3662015858381805377..comments2023-05-13T11:26:20.678-04:00Comments on SkeptiKyle: The Unnecessarily Necessary DebateKylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-81362574557430522342014-03-29T16:35:19.005-04:002014-03-29T16:35:19.005-04:00RE: acts of God--your argument is that secularists...RE: acts of God--your argument is that secularists will never attribute anything to God because they always find an alternative explanation. Well...we've yet to experience anything where God is the most reasonable explanation (and if God doesn't exist, then everything <i>should</i> have a secular explanation). Given that history, yes, it would take something that is otherwise inexplicable in order to convince secularists. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not possible, though--if the rapture happens and I see all the Christians in my life simultaneously disappear, I will totally admit that I'm wrong and recant this blasphemous blog. On the other hand, just because such an act is possible doesn't mean it will happen--perhaps God values faith above all else and feels that providing evidence for His existence would demean the reward given to those who "have not seen and yet believe." I would argue that this makes God a jerk, but I'm told that He works in mysterious ways.<br /><br />As for the origin of life, I completely agree that the scenario you've laid out is pretty ridiculous and highly, highly improbable. I don't even claim to believe it. Personally, I don't think anyone's come up with a reliably believable explanation for the origin of life, secular or otherwise. My answer to the question of "How do you explain the absolute origin of life?" is "I don't know." Totally unsatisfying, I know, but I think there are some questions that may never have an answer (and certainly won't in our lifetime).<br /><br />The reason I don't lend any credence to the "God created life" answer (whether that means life in its present form or just that God laid the groundwork and provided the raw materials for evolution) is that you're then left with the issue of where God came from. Finding an explanation for how RNA came about is complex, sure; how much more complex must the guy who created RNA be? Saying "God has always existed" is unsatisfying just like every other origin explanation--does that mean that we're all just a game of <i>The Sims</i> that God is playing? Are there other gods playing other games (i.e. a multiverse)? Where did those gods come from? This is the quagmire that I mentioned in my post as it seems to me like a fruitless topic of discussion because it's based on truly unanswerable questions (except by God, of course, should He exist and decide to provide an answer). I'm legitimately interested in your thoughts on this topic, though; it's one of the things that I would definitely ask you about if we were having this conversation in person. You're one of the smartest people I know, so I'm curious as to how you've made sense of that.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-58217238305321814392014-03-28T11:13:42.754-04:002014-03-28T11:13:42.754-04:00I have always said that if God were to literally s...I have always said that if God were to literally show his face in the sky and proclaim that he is God, I don't think it would convince THAT many people...ESPECIALLY scientists and skeptics. The reason is that they would figure out SOME way to rationalize it and attribute it to some other phenomenon besides God Himself. I'm reminded of a quote from one of my all-time favorite authors:<br /> "Magic is just science that we don't yet understand" -Arthur C. Clarke<br />That quote pretty much sums it up. As a secular scientist, there really is no option of attributing "magical/miraculous" events to an all-powerful God. Instead, there MUST be a scientific rationale behind it. We may not know it yet, and we may never find out...but it MUST be there. An act of God? No way...not an option.<br /><br />I don't want to start our own debate on here via comments...but there are a number of issues I have with your immediate jump from saying "evolution happens" to "therefore, God is not needed". I mean, let's quickly discuss the origin of life. For the longest time, the leading theory was the following:<br /> We have a primordial soup on this planet that has a very specific atmosphere. <br /> Through different chemical reactions (and possibly lightning), the simplest of organic molecules are formed in this ooze!! YAY!<br /> From those organic molecules they begin to come together to gradually form more complicated organic molecules/amino acids...eventually leading to the simplest protein strands. <br /> Then those protein strands "evolve" into a basic unicellular organism.<br /><br />Scientists then realized their huge, gaping flaw with that argument: amino acids need RNA to form a protein chain (this process is called Peptidyl Transferase). So what did they do? Came up with another (secular) theory to explain it: RNA had to have been there BEFORE the amino acids formed into proteins. Ok, so how did RNA get there? Right now, the leading theory: from Mars. That's right. The current hypothesis for the formation of life on Earth is that RNA existed on Mars migrated to Earth (again, how did it form there and where did it go!? I see a chicken and egg here...). From there, the RNA was able to take the basic amino acids in the primordial ooze and form proteins...Now, amino acid chains are EXTREMELY finicky. Unless they are in an EXACT formation, they break apart. RNA is the key to getting them in the correct formation. A given RNA has a specific coding sequence for a protein. <br /><br />Alright, so now we have this RNA from Mars, that flew to Earth via panspermia (I just like saying that)...landed in some primordial ooze that just happened to contain amino acids...it was also nice that these Earth-based amino acids were compatible with RNA molecules from Mars...they then formed a protein chain that was actually STABLE (mathematically, the odds of even the simplest protein strain of about 32 amino acids being formed from "randomly" ordered amino acids are AT BEST about 1 in 10^40...). Then, there just so happened to be enough DIFFERENT RNA strands to create all the needed proteins to form a living, single celled organism (by the way, MOST protein strands are at least 300 amino acids long...which means the odds of one of those happening randomly is 1 in 10^400 or so...there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire universe for reference).<br /><br />While I know a ~billion years is a long time to help aid in this process (earth is 4.5 billion years old, life started 3.6ish billion years ago...and don't even get me started on radiometric dating as a reliable measurement), but I'm sorry, this is starting to get as far fetched as believing there is some sort of Creator that at least HELPED with this process. Even if evolutionary theory somehow is shown to be FACT...I find it hard to believe it could have happened without some help, whether from the Christian God, a bunch of different gods, or even a flying spaghetti monster...ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-32316579990866004462014-03-27T22:34:04.132-04:002014-03-27T22:34:04.132-04:00Oh hey, a reasonable disagreement! Score! I think ...Oh hey, a reasonable disagreement! Score! I think we're precisely a year overdue for this conversation since we never got around to it in Germany. A shame, really, considering the preposterous amount of beer we consumed there. Ohio State hadn't even lost yet before this topic came up with a coworker last week, and we let an entire week go by with nothing but a drunken accusation over 2 AM doner that I'd lost my faith because I'm not hanging out with the right people any more (not from you, of course).<br /><br />Anyone, on either side of the debate, who claims that they <i>know</i> for certain how life started on this planet is lying--there are degrees of certainty, but we don't have direct proof either way. Obviously, I find my belief that evolution is solely responsible for the diversity of life to be much more reasonable than the stance that the planet is 6,000 years old and God created everything. This is because we know that evolution happened/is happening (because we can observe it) which means it's possible that it's been happening for hundreds of millions of years. Nothing has yet disproved evolution and it provides an elegant explanation. The Bible, on the other hand, is full of holes. So I will freely admit that there is an element of faith involved because we can't go back in time 10,000 or 1,000,000 or 4,000,000,000 years to prove that all life shares the same ancestor...but all the evidence in the world points in that direction.<br /><br />I can't speak for Nye, but I think he'd agree that there IS evidence that would change his mind. For example: how about a kangaroo fossil in Greenland? Or human fossils as old as dinosaur fossils? Or a lost book of the Bible (authenticated, of course) that details how gravity works or how to do calculus or the table of elements? What about an actual "act of God," something that science can't explain? These may be things that only an omnipotent god could accomplish, but I'm pretty sure Ham's god is all-powerful if he created everything a mere 6,000 years ago. I get that faith is a central tenet of Christianity, and God only knows why God can't be godlike to give people a reason to believe that there is a god, but why should a reasonable person choose creationism over evolution in the face of all the evidence supporting evolution? If there is a god, he's done a damn good job of making himself look unnecessary. Unless you subscribe to the theory that sneaky ol' Satan planted all those dinosaur bones (TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!).<br /><br />Seriously though, I'm probably overdue for a Columbus visit. I'll have to find an excuse to come down sometime this summer. Also, I didn't even know you had a blog, so please pass along the link when you finish your Ham on Nye post.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-31465357651173201552014-03-26T13:25:54.904-04:002014-03-26T13:25:54.904-04:00It's interesting that you wrote about the deba...It's interesting that you wrote about the debate and even touched on a number of points that I have been writing in my blog (I'll send you the link once I'm done writing it, if you want). I 100% agree with you on a number of things you said...particularly the part of both sides having faith in what they believe (that's actually the entire subject of my blog post)...My post is probably currently about as long as yours, and still growing...so I'll try to keep this comment RELATIVELY short :c)<br /><br />Although I am, as you know, a Christian...and I believe in creationism (now that does not necessarily mean the "young earth" creationism), I would almost always say that evolutionists "win" any debates I have seen with creationists. Debates of this nature really just aren't "fair". Creationists have a "wild card" that scientists absolutely hate: "God made it that way" or "That's what God wanted". They like to play that card whenever they can't successfully argue a point. I mean, it is the entire basis of their faith, so can you really blame them!?...or one of the biggest ones that scientists really hate: "It wasn't like that before the Flood" or "The Flood changed all of that!". On the flip side, the evolutionists are able to use science to their advantage because people assume science equals "fact". Any good scientist knows that is not the case...science is not fact. Science is the pursuit of answers to questions through repeated testing of hypotheses and evidence.<br /><br />People like to use creation/evolution debates as a way to try to prove there is or isn't a higher being. People like to think that they can look at evidence and come to one of those two conclusions. Unfortunately, that is almost never the case. Instead, people already have their core beliefs and they view the evidence in whatever way they can to match that belief. <br /><br />That leads me to one thing I disagree with that you wrote: <br /> "Nye, on the other hand, answered the same question reasonably: evidence would change his mind. Any evidence at all that goes against the theory of evolution, and he’d gladly embrace it."<br /><br />While I agree that any decent scientist (of which, Nye certainly is) would change their mind based on evidence -- because that's exactly what the scientific method dictates -- I would argue that there is NOTHING that would change his mind in support of creationism. If something was discovered that completely contradicted everything they know about evolution at this point in time, a different, secular theory would simply emerge to explain the evidence (again...that's the scientific method! It's exactly what SHOULD happen)...Since there is no direct evidence of the existence of a higher being (as that would remove the "faith" aspect!), a secular scientist is as close-minded to accepting creationism as a creationist is to accepting evolutionary theory (and I mean "evolution" here as evolution without the intervention of a higher being). In some ways, I think Ham answered that question more truthfully and honestly...As you stated yourself: Ham has faith in what he believes. He's saying that nothing will change his FAITH. Nothing will change Nye's either...at least nothing that would be accomplished through a debate or scientific evidence. However, the way that he answered it made it sound like he was being more reasonable and willing to flip to Ham's viewpoint than vice versa. Evidence may change his stance on evolution, but it will not change his core belief that there is no higher power responsible for creating life on this planet.<br /><br />Anyways, my offer still stands: if you're ever in Columbus and want to grab a drink (or two, or three...) and talk about stuff...you know where to find me! I'll be sure to let you know if I make my way north anytime soon...but with a baby now, I don't get out quite as much.ProfoundDistortionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028836631854780507noreply@blogger.com