Pointless, Meaningless – The Why of Evolution


Life, according to the secular person, is all about passing on your genes. All the striving for survival, all the fighting to have offspring – all of it is to ensure your DNA code is preserved throughout the ages. Those with genes coding for traits that enhance survival get passed down to more offspring over the generations, by the very virtue of the organism avoiding death that much longer than its peers. This is survival of the fittest, the very basis of evolution, occurring without any intelligence or specific direction according to the secularist.

While the How of evolution is constantly being researched, debated and improved, there remains another poignant question that pops up every now and then – Why?

Saprophytic mushrooms are fungi, that grow from tiny spores as they digest and absorb dead organic matter – plants, trees, your wooden bathroom door frame. They exist to break down organic matter into its component parts, spread their spores, and repeat the cycle. WHY?

Cicadas live for years as an subterranean larval form, to finally burst out into the skies as a noisy adult – with no digestive system, and to die within the next few days after having mated and laid the eggs of the next generation. To what purpose?

Bacteria consume and multiply and spread, from one to two to four to sheer billions. For what end?

I mean, just think about it – organisms live and mutiply and breed and die, just to make more of themselves and continue their genetic legacy. BUT WHY???

The sheer pointlessness of it all! Why should DNA even have the ‘drive’ to preserve and mutiply itself – or is it just a wildly improbable coincidence that certain combinations of molecules would happen to have self-replication as a trait? Why should they replicate themselves and build up living organic bodies for the sole purpose/coincidence of replicating more of themselves and their associated genes?

It recalls the refrain of Ecclesiastes: “Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”

(Actually this post is more of the Why of Life, but all the above were evolved to the present point.)

See related at 7 Biology Myths an Electrical Engineer Would Never Tolerate and Sin Theory of Evolution, which purpose a purpose to evolution.


117 Responses to “Pointless, Meaningless – The Why of Evolution”

  1. Robert Says:

    Why? To live.

  2. Zack T Says:

    You live to reproduce more of yourself? Why?

    What’s the purpose of reproducing more of yourself?

    Or even.. why live? Why is it that you want to live so badly?

  3. Simon Thong Says:

    They exist. We live.

  4. Ron Says:

    The question makes the assumption that the universe somehow owes us a sense of purpose and meaning, but who says that it should?

    It’s up to each individual to derive personal purpose and meaning in life.

  5. Zack T Says:

    No one is saying “the universe” owes us an answer… That’d be silly.

    We’re asking YOU.

    What’s the point? What’s the point if your life is a living hell or just plain miserable? Or even just without excitement?
    Why live at all? Saves a lot of trouble…

    And even will help the cause to “save our planet; stop overpopulation”… *rolls eyes*

  6. Scott Thong Says:

    ‘There is no point’ is an acceptable answer. That would simply mean that all life is random, directionless and meaningless. Life forms reproduce and DNA replicates simply ‘because’ – it’s an automatic reaction, no different from a fire spreading in the dry grass. Popping spore balls and slogging termites are just a bit more complex in their unalterable reactions.

  7. Ron Says:

    What’s the point? Well, I’m in good health, enjoy loving relationships, and have an insatiable fascination with the world around me. Those reasons alone make me want to continue living. The fact that it will all end doesn’t discourage me in the least, except to the extent that there won’t be enough time to fully pursue everything I’d like to do.

    I can understand why someone who’s suffering from a debilitating illness or permanently confined to a bed and dependent on life support might want to check out early — the pain simply outweighs the pleasure. As for healthy people who end their lives due to lack of excitement, I am at a complete loss.

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Yes but WHY did life exist, multiply and evolve into the present state known as intelligent, sentient being Ron? Did anything guide evolution to reach a state of sentient beings? Just think about it – an organism able to think, reason, imagine, plan ahead in order to improve its own survival chances and continue its DNA code – WHY? Wouldn’t it be just as meaningful if the Earth were a ball of molten rock?

  9. Zack T Says:

    In addition to the question to why anything at all exist, let alone, a life one…

    How will your reason for living encourage convince someone who is perfectly healthy but is having the worst time of his life ever? Say… a man who just got bankrupt, a string of divorces, living on the streets, etc?
    How is ‘enjoyment’ going to convince him to continue living, let alone, live meaningfully?

  10. Ron Says:

    The universe is a harsh, cold, and uncaring place with no consciousness; so from a cosmological perspective, the final outcome is of no enduring consequence. Everything that exists or ever will exist is the result of a series of complex physical interactions over extremely long periods of time. When our sun eventually dwarfs into a red giant approximately five billion years from now, the inner planets will be vaporized leaving our planet a molten rock. Unless we colonize space prior to that occurrence, every living organism on our planet will perish (assuming we haven’t already killed ourselves off long before then). That’s the ultimate reality, but why should something that far off into the future concern any one of us living now?

    As for my own existence, I’ll grant that I won the lottery of life against tremendous odds. The universe didn’t plan for my existence — I’m simply the outcome of a long chain of events. Had my mother not conceived at that precise moment, I wouldn’t exist. Had my parents never met, I also wouldn’t exist. Had either of my parents not been born, I wouldn’t exist. And so on.

    “How will your reason for living encourage convince someone who is perfectly healthy but is having the worst time of his life ever? Say… a man who just got bankrupt, a string of divorces, living on the streets, etc?
    How is ‘enjoyment’ going to convince him to continue living, let alone, live meaningfully?”

    Like I stated already, each of us is responsible for finding our own meaning in life. However, having myself survived a severe depression and some of the things you’ve listed, I could probably offer advice on how I managed to cope and turn things back around; and refer them to professional counseling.

  11. Zack T Says:

    Ron should really check out Dr William Lane Craig and check out his arguments for God.
    Just recently re-watching his debate against Frank Zindler (atheist).

    Unfortunately, Frank Zindler (supposedly the best Atheist selected by another known atheist, Rob Sherman, to go against Christianity for this debate) didn’t put up a very strong case against Dr Craig. =/

    I’ll definitely be looking for more debate videos of Dr. Craig versus some atheists (hopefully better ones compared to Zindler).

    “Like I stated already, each of us is responsible for finding our own meaning in life. However, having myself survived a severe depression and some of the things you’ve listed, I could probably offer advice on how I managed to cope and turn things back around; and refer them to professional counseling.”

    I’m glad you managed to pull through the hard times yourself.. I myself (used to be agnostic; din care whether there is or is not a god/s; i actually thought of God as some selfish, self-satisfying Being that enjoys watching us, ‘actors/actresses’, do our own things on this created ‘stage’) have been through dark times for myself, though probably not even close as bad as you or the scenario I gave… but it was bad enough and I was weak enough to think about what’s the point of living in such a terrible, meaningless, pointless world…

    Even if I did find a purpose for myself.. what’s the purpose of that? What do I achieve in the end? More descendants to be at my funeral? What’s the point?
    Once I die, all that will be meaningless for me; regardless if there is an afterlife.

    I never found the answer to that question…. until Christ found me and led me to Himself. =)

  12. Ron Says:

    If there is a god, what would be the meaning and purpose of his/her/it’s existence? I mean, if knowing everything you do will always go exactly as planned and turn out exactly as expected with no surprises or challenges, wouldn’t that eventually get extremely boring? And the worst part is that an infinite being can’t even escape from it’s perpetual existence. Talk about eternal damnation.

  13. Zack T Says:

    A god is eternally existent, and since our God is all-knowing, He understands Himself well enough, and we need not understand that. We can’t comprehend anyways with our finite mind capacity.

    Can you even comprehend eternity? A dimension of timelessness?
    Can you comprehend a dimension of more than 3? let alone 10? Or more??
    Our God can comprehend all of these, and more.

    And this question of purpose is for our created world. Our God is not confined in this finite created world, so it just doesn’t apply.
    This is the thing about Atheists… When they can’t answer a question due to their beliefs, they just shift the question to God; thinking somehow that’s a fair comparison.
    (Then now, he’s gonna say ‘how is it not fair’ and then ‘you’re the one avoiding/dodging the question’, ‘if God has no purpose in his existence, then there’s no point asking about ours..’ etc…)

  14. Ron Says:

    Doesn’t really matter how many dimensions there are — the point is that if you know all, hear all, and see all, existence becomes a dull, repetitive and boring routine. What’s the point in doing anything if you already know the outcome in advance?

    Jesus: Hey dad, wanna play Halo III ???
    God: Nah, I beat the entire series + WoW + CoD during that moment you cried out “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?”

  15. Zack T Says:

    Way.. do you know God’s perspective? Do you know the ways of God’s mind and how He perceives things? Do you claim to understand how God looks at this world and eternity? You do? Oh my…

    Anyways… here’s a thought. Have you ever been in love?
    Remember the early days of your love and relationship with that significant other? Was there any dull moment? Was there any moment you felt… bored, when spending time with that significant other? (And I meant early in the relationship)
    Even when she sleeps, do you even feel bored watching her peaceful face?

    How about a child? Ever felt bored playing and spending time with your child? Do you ever wanna stop spending time with your child and just be separate from your child? especially when your child is still a baby?

    I find it hard to believe you’d say no to the above.

  16. Zack T Says:

    Hmm… for some odd reason the first few sentences were erased into ‘Way..’

    I typed…

    “This is an irrelevant point/argument Ron is trying to make… when the topic is questioning Atheists, not God. Anyways..”

    Which is true… why does God (who is eternal) need to be asked what’s the purpose of His existence? He wasn’t created.. We can’t comprehend a Being that was never created.. a Being with no beginning and will never have an end…

    The question of this blog is ‘Why do WE exist?’ Atheists don’t even believe in God, yet they’re questioning God’s purpose of existence. They just don’t know how to answer, and thus shifts the uncomfortable question for others to answer.

    We as Theists, have an answer to that question. What about Atheists?
    They have no objective answer… it all depends. To each his own… If your purpose is to be miserable all your life, go ahead, that’s not for me.
    If you wanna kill people all your life, stay away from me.
    They can’t answer this question. They just can’t.

  17. Simon Thong Says:

    When you have no God, you play at being God, which is what Ron is doing. He is the centre of himself, his own god. Thus, he seems to think he knows God’s ways and God’s minds.

  18. Ron Says:

    Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
    –H. L. Mencken

  19. Simon Thong Says:

    Atheism: The desperate envy that someone somewhere may find meaning in God.

  20. Ron Says:

    Keep mocking, you YHWH worshippers, but the day is coming when all knees shall bow down before Darseid and be held accountable; then you’ll be calling out for Superman to save you and he won’t answer.

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    So it’s confirmed then: Song of Solomon was written in his youth, Proverbs in his wise middle age, and Eccelsiastes when he was gray and role playing an atheist: “Meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless!”

  22. Scott Thong Says:

    Jesus: Hey dad, wanna play Halo III ???
    God: Nah, I beat the entire series + WoW + CoD during that moment you cried out “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?” – Ron

    http://www.duelinganalogs.com/comic/2008/03/05/so-long-gary/

    Also, God probably approves of gamebooks.

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-gamebook-metaphor-gods-omniscience-and-human-free-will/

  23. Simon Thong Says:

    If any mocking is done, it’s by you, A. Ron.

  24. Ron Says:

    “So it’s confirmed then: Song of Solomon was written in his youth, Proverbs in his wise middle age, and Eccelsiastes when he was gray and role playing an atheist: “Meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless!”

    First, archaeologists have found no historical evidence of King Solomon; so the authorship of the three books in question cannot be established with certainty.

    Second, I’ve already stated that I’ve found purpose in life, so your presumption that atheists cannot find purpose in life is unfounded.

    Finally, the question itself makes a false assumption that everything has to have an enduring purpose, but that’s not necessarily the case. There are many single-use items: tissues, plastic cutlery, paper plates, cups, condoms, syringes, etc. Even NASA uses expendable launch vehicles — two or more rocket-powered stages which are discarded when their engine burns are completed — for their Space Shuttle launches.

  25. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    …”Archaeologists have found no historical evidence of King Solomon; so the authorship of the three books in question cannot be established with certainty…”

    Is it same meaning “have found no historical evidence”…with “failed to find” or.. “couldn’t find historical evidence”?

  26. Zack T Says:

    It’s incredible how Ron is equating his own life, along with everyone and everything else’s, to that of a tissue… Used *to take crap* and be thrown away…

    Goes to show the value of life from an Atheist’s point of view.

    May God forgive him for he knows not what he’s thinking…

  27. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Perhaps some atheists agree, human beings originated from a single couples /parents. Adam & Eve or any name..

    Is there any archeological evidence ever found ?

    I meant evidence about the first couples, not the relatively new “Homo Sapiens” “Homo Erectus” or their “monkey” skeletons.

  28. Zack T Says:

    The *theory* of evolution is the most unprovable theory in the field of science… It’s so improbable..

    Even atheists like Richard Dawkins knew that.

    So how if atheists don’t have evolution… what else do we have for us?

  29. Scott Thong Says:

    Your presumption of self-awareness is actually merely the coincidental transmission of electric signals through your neurons for the meaningless, undirected, wholly random un-purposeful non-aim of preserving your associated DNA code.

  30. Ron Says:

    “Is it same meaning “have found no historical evidence”…with “failed to find” or.. “couldn’t find historical evidence”?”

    As in decades of searches have turned up zero evidence to support a worldwide flood, or Sodom & Gomorrah, or any of the patriarchs, or bondage in Egypt, or 40 years wandering in the desert, or the ark of the covenant, or the tablets with the ten commandments., or the battle of Jericho, or the existence of King David, or King Solomon.

  31. blackadder Says:

    # Ron Says:
    August 2, 10 at 12:55 am

    Keep mocking, you YHWH worshippers, but the day is coming when all knees shall bow down before Darseid and be held accountable; then you’ll be calling out for Superman to save you and he won’t answer.
    ______________________________________________
    # Zack T Says:
    August 2, 10 at 2:49 pm

    It’s incredible how Ron is equating his own life, along with everyone and everything else’s, to that of a tissue… Used *to take crap* and be thrown away…

    Goes to show the value of life from an Atheist’s point of view.

    May God forgive him for he knows not what he’s thinking…
    ____________________________________________

    In malaysia in 2010 they are sorting god out, and should finish by 9999 (some will prefer 6666)
    http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mca-urges-home-ministry-to-quash-allah-ban/

  32. blackadder Says:

    “or bondage in Egypt,”

    http://beeradvocate.com/articles/629

  33. Ron Says:

    “The *theory* of evolution is the most unprovable theory in the field of science… It’s so improbable..”

    The evidence to support the theory of evolution is so overwhelming it is considered a fact, much in the same way that the theory of gravity is considered a fact.

    “Even atheists like Richard Dawkins knew that.”

    Please provide evidence to support your claim

    “So how if atheists don’t have evolution… what else do we have for us?”

    Atheism isn’t dependent on evolution, and even if evolution were proven wrong, creationism would not automatically fill the gap to become the de facto answer.

  34. Zack T Says:

    “The evidence to support the theory of evolution is so overwhelming it is considered a fact, much in the same way that the theory of gravity is considered a fact.”

    Hahahaha… Look up ‘cambrian explosion’, and see how evolution explains that…
    Look up DNA and tell me how evolution created that..
    Look up the ‘bombadier beetle’ and explain to me how that bug came about through evolution…
    ever heard of sex and gender and asexuality? Explain to me how and why evolution made those… at least the why.. nevermind the how.

    Gravity is an observable and repeatable science… what about evolution?
    Has any scientist ever observed a dog and dog pair giving birth to a horse or cat? or a horse giving birth to a pegasus or unicorn? or a duck giving birth to a duck-billed platypus?
    How about life? Has any scientist ever created life out of non-life? Or even a single living cell?

    No, it’s not considered fact. It’s considered fact due to ignorance of the facts regarding the ‘science’ (more like assumptions) about evolution.

    “Even atheists like Richard Dawkins knew that.”

    Refer transcript of his interview with Ben Stein in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”… disagree with the film as much as you like. You can’t deny what Dawkins himself said in that interview.. I was completely shocked myself as I watched the interview unfolded…
    –> darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2009/11/transcript-of-interview-of-richard.html

    Then follow that with this article..
    –> www discovery.org/a/4809

    “Atheism isn’t dependent on evolution, and even if evolution were proven wrong, creationism would not automatically fill the gap to become the de facto answer.”

    Hahaha… You really are rather unaware of an atheist’s predicament, huh?
    If it’s not evolution.. then please suggest another theory that is at works to explain how this universe came to be.. without God’s intervention.
    I’ll give you a hint.. There isn’t any other.

  35. Zack T Says:

    Evolution is pure speculation and only a belief.. It pretty much qualifies as a religion… since you can’t prove evolution… dead animals can’t pass down their knowledge, nor their genes after they’ve failed at something… (i.e. dinosaurs jumping off cliffs to learn to fly, a canary banging its head against the tree to become a woodpecker)

    No one has ever observed such evolution from one kind of animal into another… At most, scientists/breeders are able to crossbreed and such… resulting in mix results; (some live, some don’t, some die after a short while,etc), but the result remains the same kind of animal… (i.e. zebra x donkey = zonkey)

  36. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    It’s incredible how Ron is equating his own life, along with everyone and everything else’s, to that of a tissue… Used *to take crap* and be thrown away…

    – Ron.

    Exactly Zack. That is what amazed, n astonished me too. Ron has the answer?

  37. benjamin Says:

    “No one has ever observed such evolution from one kind of animal into another… At most, scientists/breeders are able to crossbreed and such… resulting in mix results; (some live, some don’t, some die after a short while,etc), but the result remains the same kind of animal… (i.e. zebra x donkey = zonkey)”

    The lucky ones get to have a monkey in the white (errr Black???) house.

  38. benjamin Says:

    “No one has ever observed such evolution from one kind of animal into another… At most, scientists/breeders are able to crossbreed and such… resulting in mix results; (some live, some don’t, some die after a short while,etc), but the result remains the same kind of animal… (i.e. zebra x donkey = zonkey)”

    The lucky ones get to have a monkee in the white (errr Black???) house.

  39. benjamin Says:

    “No one has ever observed such evolution from one kind of animal into another… At most, scientists/breeders are able to crossbreed and such… resulting in mix results;..”

    The lucky ones get to have a monkee in the white (errr Black???) house.

  40. benjamin Says:

    “No one has ever observed such evolution from one kind of animal into another… ”

    The lucky ones get to have a monkee in the white (errr Black???) house.

  41. quill Says:

    “but the result remains the same kind of animal… (i.e. zebra x donkey = zonkey)”

    The lucky ones get to have a monkee in the white (errr Black???) house.

  42. Zack T Says:

    =_=

    No idea what’s benjamin/quill’s point…

  43. wits0 Says:

    No one can prove that Man was indeed native to Earth but scientist/archaeologist presume that Man must have come from Pithecanthropus. The big presumption that Homo erectus must have become Man.

  44. Simon Thong Says:

    ‘assumption’ is the almost-right word; I wouldn’t like to say ‘presumption’ but that could be closer to the truth.

  45. Ron Says:

    “Look up ‘cambrian explosion’, and see how evolution explains that…”

    I have, and the 40 million year ‘explosion’ is explained quite well. Search ‘early ediacaran complex life forms’ and ‘triploblastic bodyplan’ and ‘fossil embryos’ and ‘small bilaterian fossils’ for more info.

    The rest of your questions have all been addressed numerous times. If you are truly interested in finding explanations they’re available on the web.

    “Has any scientist ever observed a dog and dog pair giving birth to a horse or cat? or a horse giving birth to a pegasus or unicorn? or a duck giving birth to a duck-billed platypus?”

    Questions like these demonstrate a complete ignorance of what the Theory of Evolution is about. Again do some research.

    “Refer transcript of his interview with Ben Stein in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”

    Bueller… Bueller….Bueller

    Sorry, where were we? Oh yeah..

    Specifically where does Dawkins state: “The *theory* of evolution is the most unprovable theory in the field of science… It’s so improbable..”

    Oh, and you might want to get better sources. Stein’s documentary has been thoroughly refuted and outed as creationist propaganda piece. He wouldn’t know science if it bit him in the nose. And non-Discovery Institute is technically a law practice, as they have more lawyers on staff than scientists ..

    “You really are rather unaware of an atheist’s predicament, huh?
    If it’s not evolution.. then please suggest another theory that is at works to explain how this universe came to be.. without God’s intervention.
    I’ll give you a hint.. There isn’t any other.”

    There is no predicament. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Evolution explains the diversity of life. The two are completely independent. I don’t need an in-depth explanation of how the universe works to enjoy life anymore than I need an in-depth understanding of meteorology to use an umbrella. And as I stated earlier, even if the Theory of Evolution were discredited, it wouldn’t make your creation myth valid by default. In science, the goal is to discover, not make unfounded assertions. Saying, “I cannot understand something — therefore god did it.” isn’t science.

    “Evolution is pure speculation and only a belief.. ”

    This reveals you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about and it’s pointless wasting any further time discussing it.

  46. Zack T Says:

    RE: Cambrian Explosion, etc

    Hahaha. Just because there exists Precambrian fossils, does not mean you solve the evolution problem… What’s the problem?

    Enjoy the read..
    – www darwinsdilemma.org/pdf/faq.pdf
    – evolutionfacts.com/New-material/Cambrian%20Explosion.pdf

    “Questions like these demonstrate a complete ignorance of what the Theory of Evolution is about. Again do some research.”

    haha… Oh so you think those are ignorant questions. Ok.. then I guess you believe in ‘thousands and millions of micro-evolution’ that results in the now ‘macro-evolution’? In other words, thousands to millions of small modifications that eventually led to the diversity of different kinds of animals which we would call now ‘macro-evolution’; evolving into different kinds of animals: i.e. ‘prehistoric’ cow -> …….. {millions of years passed} …. -> modern whale

    Well then, that’s not observable… and not repeatable… it IS a speculation and an assumption… which is being held as truth, and thus, is qualified as a belief.. therefore… faith plays the part in this belief; aka ‘science of evolution’.

    “Oh, and you might want to get better sources.”

    Was I using Stein’s documentary to make a point about the falsehood of evolution? What was I using it for?
    To prove what Dawkins said about aliens. And it’s there. Why would he attribute aliens to the origin of our earth… only he knows.

    “Evolution is pure speculation and only a belief.. ”

    “This reveals you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about and it’s pointless wasting any further time discussing it.”

    Hahaha… Tell me where a scientist has observed or repeated any experiments that shows evolution theory at work?
    There isn’t any. Therefore… it’s not science. It IS a belief, however.
    Good luck arguing evolution is scientific.

  47. Zack T Says:

    “There is no predicament. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.”

    First, you argued that Atheists can have objective moral values. Atheists with much higher credentials than yourself understand the predicament of ‘objective moral values’ when it comes to Atheism…
    “If there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would’ve been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god..” – J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, a philosopher and known defender of atheism

    Second, you claim it’s proving a universal negative that God doesn’t exist, but so far, only argued that the God of Christianity is a violent, evil god, or not a true god of love, etc… but then never argued how God could not be real (so far I’ve not heard your reasonings to why God can’t possibly exist), or how this world came into being without a cause and even without purpose.

    The case for God’s existence or at least an intelligent designer behind the origin of this universe is so immense, incomparison against atheist’s case against God’s existence. And all atheists is say, we need not prove anything..

    Then third, you claim even if evolution is false, that doesn’t mean God or Intelligent Design wins by default. Allow me to educate you, sir.
    It is well established in the study of science, that there’s only two arguments with regards to how this world came into being.
    1 – A higher intellgience made the universe.
    2 – The universe made itself.
    Obviously for (1), it is an argument for intelligent design… even the idea of aliens coming into this world and creating us living creatures still qualifies within this area.
    and for (2), there’s only evolution (from the Big Bang, all the way til now).

    Like I said… if what you say is true (that God/Intelligent Design does not win by default, even though evolution is false), PLEASe show me some scientific theory other than evolution to explain origin of this universe without God.
    And my hint remains… there isn’t any.

    Now here’s your predicament… allow me to educate you further.
    If evolution is truly false and (let’s say) acknowledged by you, yet you still stand that there’ll be another explanation that won’t involve God. (I’d call that faith….. better yet… blind faith. *gasp*)
    And even if there isn’t any other explanation for our universe’s origin, you then say “I don’t need to care about this in order to enjoy my life. it doesn’t matter to me.” (I’d call that being ignorant)

    I would say, you are dead wrong to think that way. If there’s no other explanation of our universe’s origin that doesn’t involve God… that logically means God was involved in our universe’s creation.. and ultimately the existence of you and I.
    If God is truly the creator of this universe, that means He owns it; just like how the landlord owns the house that a family rents in. If you choose to not follow the rules of the landlord, you will either be punished in some way or thrown out of the house (ultimate penalty).

    Your case, Ron, for Atheism is terribly weak and unstable and dare I say, without weights.

  48. Zack T Says:

    Let’s get back to your comparison between our lives (your own life) and a tissue.

    Why does a tissue exist? What’s its purpose?
    To clean and pick up our ‘crap’… pretty much.

    Why does plastic cutlery exist? What’s its purpose?
    To be a basic form of cutlery that can be used for an occasion and then later on discarded.

    Why do paper plates exist? What’s its purpose?
    Similar to plastic cutlery, usually used for an occasion as a cheaper means and safer compared to porcelain dish or fine China.

    Why did NASA ‘created’ (or should I say evolved?) expendable launch vehicles? What’s the purpose in that?
    To provide the space vehicle with enough velocity to break through the atmosphere from the ground, and once it’s done so, it needs to be discarded to allow mobility for the spacecraft to maneuver in outer space, etc.

    Everything you named had a purpose… What about nature?

    Why do trees/plants exists? What’s their purposes?
    To provide the world with oxygen, and be food/’energy fuel’ for all living creatures, etc.

    Why does the sun exist? What’s its purpose?
    To provide light to the world, and also warm, gravitational pull to maintain the orbital system, etc..

    Here’s a question for those who believe in evolution without God’s intervention…

    If one goes to the deepest part of the ocean (which is naturally super dark cause the sun’s rays don’t penetrate the ocean deep enough) and flips on a light switch, there you’ll see an abundance of life and color too.
    Question: Why is there life in the bottommost part of the ocean where the sun doesn’t even reach? A harder question is… why is there an abundance of color in this place where you can’t see anything due to a lack of light? Why? Why did evolution result such things?

  49. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “..Your case, Ron, for Atheism is terribly weak and unstable and dare I say, without weights…”

    I think so Zack. Ron is bored with me because I repeat the same question many times. I won’t ask if atheists answered it according to science. If science confirmed (for example) rock, soil, sand, water, protein, amino acid (or whatever) definitely CAN turn anything to become living/life..then settled.

    Rock can transform..over time..and mixture…and later becoming butterfly ? or snake?

    If no, then they/it could possibly be brought into being..from non-existence..to exist..by the creator/designer. Somehow like a miracle.

    Which branch of science has confirm that??

    Did such thing ever proven or repeated in any test tube or lab?

    Common people just asked that kind of very simple clear cut question.

  50. Zack T Says:

    Now, with the understanding that everything, manmade and natural, has a purpose…

    let’s see Ron’s explanation of a human’s purpose in life…

    “To figure out his own purpose for existence..”

    uh…. what? Everything single thing in this universe has a purpose, a role to play… except one thing, in the views of atheists… humans.
    They serve no purpose in this universe and have to resort to finding their own purpose or be termed ‘purposeless’, ‘meaningless’, ‘valueless’.

    How sad….

  51. Simon Thong Says:

    Oh Zack, can’t you see how frustrated Ron is? Here he is, a mini-god in his own little well, smug in his safe haven of “I know it all coz I use reason” but you, Zack, a christian which by his definition has faith and not reason, won’t listen to him, your superior in intellect! “it’s pointless wasting time…” simply means “how dare you, you ignorant clinger to God!”

  52. wits0 Says:

    “They serve no purpose in this universe and have to resort to finding their own purpose or be termed ‘purposeless’, ‘meaningless’, ‘valueless’.”

    ‘Know thyself’, as the statement of the Oracle at Delphi went.

    Ron doesn’t, therefore others also don’t, no, all others can’t. Perish that thought, all ye others!

    Haha.

  53. Ron Says:

    “Enjoy the read..”

    I’m gonna let you in on a little secret: valid research papers must meet certain standards before they are given any serious consideration in the scientific community — accredited authorship, peer review, proper dates, and publication in an accredited science journal — all of which are glaringly absent in the linked documents you have provided.

    “Was I using Stein’s documentary to make a point about the falsehood of evolution? What was I using it for? To prove what Dawkins said about aliens.”

    No, your exact quote on 2 August 2010 at 2:54 pm was: “The *theory* of evolution is the most unprovable theory in the field of science… It’s so improbable.. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins knew that.”

    At no point in the interview does Dawkins make comments to support that statement.

    “Why would he attribute aliens to the origin of our earth… only he knows.”

    He didn’t. It’s patently obvious from the multiple cut shots and narrative interjections that this interview was heavily edited (and probably resequenced) to give off the impression that Dawkins doubts his position on evolution and entertains Raëlian thoughts on the origins of life. If you listen carefully, you can tell that Dawkins was simply humoring Stein who kept pressing the issue:

    BS: Well then who did create the heavens and the earth?
    RD: Why do you use the word who? You see, you immediately beg the question by using the word ‘who’.

    BS: Well then how did it get created?
    RD: By a very slow process.

    BS: Well, how did it start?
    RD: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

    BS: And what was that?
    RD: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

    BS: Right, and how did that happen?
    RD: I told you, we don’t know.

    BS: So you have no idea how it started.
    RD: No, nor has anybody.
    BS: Nor has anyone else.

    Having reached a dead end, Stein then decides to shift focus through clever equivocation.

    BS: What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwin evolution.
    RD: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer… [At this point it’s obvious that Dawkins goes on to provide further elaboration, but we’ll never know what he said because Stein decided to edit over that portion of the interview with his own narrative.].. and that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

    Dawkins concludes by saying, “But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.” [And then once again Stein narrates over the remainder of Dawkins’ explanation.]

    Having exhausted that line of thought, Stein makes another attempt to badger Dawkins about his beliefs in the existence of gods:

    BS: So the Hebrew god — the god of the Old Testament — he doesn’t exist in your view?
    RD: Ah, certainly. I mean that would be a very unpleasant prospect.

    BS: And the holy trinity of the New Testament?
    RD: No, nothing like that!

    BS: Do you believe in any of the Hindu gods?
    RD (now visibly annoyed): How can you ask such a question? How could I? I mean, why would I given that I don’t believe in any others?

    BS: You don’t believe in the Muslim god?
    RD: No!! Why do you even need to ask?

    BS: Well, I just wanted to be sure. So you don’t believe in any god, anywhere?
    RD: Any god, anywhere would be completely incompatible with anything that I’ve said.

    From there the conversation trails off into idle speculation about what Dawkins might say if he were proven wrong and asked to vindicate himself before a god. He replies with a quote from Bertrand Russell: “Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?”

    “First, you argued that Atheists can have objective moral values. Atheists with much higher credentials than yourself understand the predicament of ‘objective moral values’ when it comes to Atheism…”

    Nice bait and switch. Your previous comment said: “You really are rather unaware of an atheist’s predicament, huh? If it’s not evolution.. then please suggest another theory that is at works to explain how this universe came to be.. without God’s intervention. I’ll give you a hint.. There isn’t any other.”

    Now your changing the subject to morality.

    “If there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would’ve been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god..” – J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, a philosopher and known defender of atheism”

    I’m not familiar with the author, but a search of that quote turns up the following:

    “If … there are … objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have … a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god”

    Omitting three sets of ellipses leaves me with no context from which to counter, and leads me to conclude you’re being deliberately deceptive by quote mining. So if you really want to discuss morality that badly, then perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the passage in Exodus 20:16 first.

    “Second, you claim it’s proving a universal negative that God doesn’t exist, but so far, only argued that the God of Christianity is a violent, evil god, or not a true god of love, etc… but then never argued how God could not be real (so far I’ve not heard your reasonings to why God can’t possibly exist), or how this world came into being without a cause and even without purpose. The case for God’s existence or at least an intelligent designer behind the origin of this universe is so immense, incomparison against atheist’s case against God’s existence. And all atheists is say, we need not prove anything..”

    I really don’t understand why this concept is so difficult for theists to comprehend: the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the person making the extraordinary claims. If I told you that I’m an invisible leprechaun with amazing powers to pass through solid objects, you’d expect me to substantiate those claims, and rightfully reject any and all arguments stating the entire burden of proof rests on you to prove me false. The same standards of evidence apply to your claims for the existence of a supernatural being who’s instructed us to follow a specific set of guidelines.

    To date, the so-called case for God amounts to little more than special pleading, vague feelings, and unfounded assertions. And your case is further undermined by a multitude of competing claims attempting to ascribe what this deity is and wants from mankind. Even if the existence of a creator could be firmly established, you’d still be left with the difficult task of trying to convince me which of the multiple gods envisioned is the correct one to follow.

    “It is well established in the study of science, that there’s only two arguments with regards to how this world came into being.
    1 – A higher intellgience made the universe.
    2 – The universe made itself.”

    Established when? by whom? and on what authority?

    “Obviously for (1), it is an argument for intelligent design…even the idea of aliens coming into this world and creating us living creatures still qualifies within this area.”

    It’s a remote possibility; but at present there’s no evidence to suggest the existence of any higher intelligence, so discussing specific attributes of such a being is an exercise in futility.

    “and for (2), there’s only evolution (from the Big Bang, all the way til now).”

    I really wish you’d at least make an honest effort to familiarize with the correct definitions of the terms you are attempting to discuss, because you’re conflating three entirely different theories. Simply stated:

    – The Big Bang is a cosmological explanation describing the early development of the universe.

    – Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain how life emerged from non-life.

    – Evolution states that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor.

    With that in mind, there is no reason to conclude that the only two possibilities available are the one’s that you’ve given. It’s entirely possible that the universe has always existed in some form and goes through an endless cycle of Big Bang-Expansion-Contraction. And further discoveries may lead to new possibilities.

    “Like I said… if what you say is true (that God/Intelligent Design does not win by default, even though evolution is false), PLEASe show me some scientific theory other than evolution to explain origin of this universe without God.”

    There is no other theory because evolution has consistently proven itself as the best explanation for over 150 years. If you wish to discredit it, then you’ll have to come up with your own peer-reviewed research pointing out a major flaw.

    “Now here’s your predicament…”

    Now you’re projecting. It might be a predicament for you, but for me knowing the precise origins of life (or the universe) is as inconsequential to how I live my daily life as Pluto’s recent non-planetary designation.

    “If evolution is truly false and (let’s say) acknowledged by you, yet you still stand that there’ll be another explanation that won’t involve God. (I’d call that faith….. better yet… blind faith. *gasp*)”

    It’s no more a leap of faith than an explanation which doesn’t involve the supposition of Zeus, or Thor, or Wodin, or any other supernatural entity.

    “And even if there isn’t any other explanation for our universe’s origin, you then say “I don’t need to care about this in order to enjoy my life. it doesn’t matter to me.” (I’d call that being ignorant)”

    No, I’d call that me honest. Not knowing doesn’t bear in any manner on my earthly existence. And simply making up an explanation as a stop-gap measure to fill a lack of knowledge and then insisting it must be the correct explanation is quite simply dishonest.

    “I would say, you are dead wrong to think that way. If there’s no other explanation of our universe’s origin that doesn’t involve God… that logically means God was involved in our universe’s creation.. and ultimately the existence of you and I.”

    Once again, you’ve drifted into special pleading. You haven’t established any evidence to substantiate your conclusion. By your line of reasoning one could just as easily posit that the cosmos was created by magic pixies which exist outside the space-time continuum, and then counter any objections raised with an impassioned appeal to faith.

    “Your case, Ron, for Atheism is terribly weak and unstable and dare I say, without weights.”

    No, it’s your case for apixieism that’s weak and unstable. You are obviously in complete denial of the magic Pixies you know exist all around you.

    “Let’s get back to your comparison between our lives (your own life) and a tissue….”

    Please reread my comment. You will note that I wrote: “Finally, the question itself makes a false assumption that everything has to have an enduring purpose, but that’s not necessarily the case.”

    The key words here were “enduring purpose” and your attempts to divorce that statement from the remainder of my explanation is more than just a little disingenuous. While it’s true that the things I listed were designed for a specific purpose, the intent was to demonstrate that things don’t have to be designed to last for ever.

    “Why do trees/plants exists? What’s their purposes? To provide the world with oxygen, and be food/’energy fuel’ for all living creatures, etc.”

    You are confusing cause and effect. Oxygen is formed as a byproduct of nuclear fusion within stars, and earth’s earliest atmosphere was mostly a mixture of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. The first organisms would have had to survive in an oxygen starved environment. The fact that plants convert CO2 to oxygen via photosynthesis lends credibility to adaption via evolution rather than a ‘designed’ purpose. As oxygen was released into the atmosphere, other organisms were able to adapt and make use of it. Nor were trees ‘designed’ to provide fuel and milled lumber; those things attest to man’s ability to reshape the environment and make it more suitable for his own needs and purposes.

    “Why does the sun exist? What’s its purpose? To provide light to the world, and also warm, gravitational pull to maintain the orbital system, etc..”

    Once more, you’ve reversed cause and effect. Gravitational forces pull giant gas clouds composed of hydrogen and helium together. As the cloud density increases the gravitational force becomes stronger. This creates heat and once it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to occur a star is formed.

    “If one goes to the deepest part of the ocean (which is naturally super dark cause the sun’s rays don’t penetrate the ocean deep enough) and flips on a light switch, there you’ll see an abundance of life and color too.
    Question: Why is there life in the bottommost part of the ocean where the sun doesn’t even reach?”

    Geothermal vents provide hydrogen sulfide which is utilized by bacteria which use it for fuel.

    “A harder question is… why is there an abundance of color in this place where you can’t see anything due to a lack of light?”

    Are you serious? This is basic science. Color perception is largely due to the chemical composition of objects, which in turn affects the absorption and the scattering properties of incoming wavelengths of the light. Different materials reflect different wavelengths. The fact that those objects happen to be located in areas impenetrable to light is irrelevant.

    “Why? Why did evolution result such things?”

    Precisely because it is an unplanned process. A more relevant question would be why any god would trouble itself creating such things, since they serve no useful purpose we know of.

  54. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Quote of the above:

    “BS: Well then how did it get created?
    RD: By a very slow process.

    BS: Well, how did it start?
    RD: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that
    it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have
    happened for the origin of life.

    BS: And what was that?
    RD: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

    BS: Right, and how did that happen?
    RD: I told you, we don’t know.

    BS: So you have no idea how it started.
    RD: No, nor has anybody.
    BS: Nor has anyone else.”

    As I said, atheists do not know what happened to the earliest, the starting of the heaven and earth..they have no idea how it was started..
    They have no knowledge of it..

    Then..how come when you have no knowledge of something..yet you can confirm for sure the heaven and earth was not created or designed ?

    From where you got the idea? from own whim, from dream?

    Yes..it is true we (believers) also do not know. But we were told by the Creator himself in our scripture…God Almighty created them (heaven and earth, and all things). Then we know. That is why we know.

    As far as invention is concerned, evolution and science HAS NEVER EVER created any single thing – not even a piece of a hair, a grain, a fish, flower..but all plastic products or such things.

    If evolution or science has created one single authentic things..other than robot, let me know. I’ll give you $USD10 dollar consolation.

  55. Scott Thong Says:

    As in decades of searches have turned up zero evidence to support a worldwide flood, or Sodom & Gomorrah, or any of the patriarchs, or bondage in Egypt, or 40 years wandering in the desert, or the ark of the covenant, or the tablets with the ten commandments., or the battle of Jericho, or the existence of King David, or King Solomon. – Ron

    Yes, but just some time ago Cyrus never released the Jews to their homeland, Jerusalem was never a large ancient city and had only primitive construction, and the Hittites were a figment of Biblical imagination (now apparently they’re an ancient empire which rivaled Egypt).

  56. Zack T Says:

    Re: Cambrian Explosion, etc

    Yeah, sure, Ron. Just brush aside the issue. “It wasn’t peer-reviewed. No well-known accredited authors. They’re not real researchers.”
    Despite the facts/studies mentioned there regarding the fossil (cambrian and pre), just push them aside.

    Re: Richard Dawkins

    Hahah. Does a statement need to be made explicitly to be known or understood as such?
    And yeah, sure. Attack the credibility of Ben Stein and not the statements of Atheist icon, Richard Dawkins. “Ben Stein did deceptive camera tricks and sneaky commentaries/narrations making Dawkins seemed like a crazy person.”
    Seems to me you’re the one inserting ‘sneaky commentaries’ yourself, in favor of Dawkins.
    Interesting to note that Ron calls Stein ‘clever’… implicitly. Hehe.

    What was Dawkins’ defense? Did he said.. ‘that’s not what I said!’ or ‘he editted my answers’? As far as I know or can find.. no he didn’t.
    And as I pointed in the second link following the link to the transcript of the interview… Dawkins’ defense was ‘They made it seemed like I believed in aliens.’ (though seems more like a PR damage control to me)
    He didn’t deny what he said nor what was shown in the film.

    And as I’ve said… disagree with the film all you want… what was said in that interview remains true to what Dawkins believed.

    Re: Ron and his predicament as an Atheist

    I wasn’t changing any subject. I’m just gathering all that you’ve said (which I included our previous discussion regarding morality)

    And no, Ron, it’s not omitting anything. It’s called ‘shortening a sentence’… You know.. to minus out most of the word jargons so that we get a more straight-forward sentence?
    I can find the source of that quote for you.. I searched but can’t find the whole quote itself, but the quote is referenced.
    J.L. Mackie, “The Miracle of Theism”, page 115-116

    This blogspot purports to have the softcopy. I can’t download at the moment to be sure… but it’s an atheist blog, so I’m sure you’ll be happy to visit it.
    atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2009/04/miracle-of-theism-arguments-for-and.html

    Re: Universal negative?

    It is arguable that the statement ‘God does not exist’ is a universal negative. Dr William Lane Craig argues it’s a singular negative statements… just like can you disprove the existence of ‘polka-dotted geese’.
    I’d say… can your disprove a man is a murderer or a conman?
    can you disprove that Elvis Presley is alive and living?
    Of course you can prove a negative statement…

    If you claimed to be an invisible leprechaun, I can easily disprove that you fit any criteria to be such… 1 – invisibility and 2 – a leprechaun.
    So, it is possible to prove a negative.. regardless of where the burden of proof lies with.
    You could try disprove God’s existence by proving there exists no objective moral values, like J.L. Mackie tried to.

    And I have set down my reasons for God’s existence; to prove my case that your claim ‘God does not exist’ is false. And all you did was ‘Christian God is evil, murderous, selfish, etc’… Nothing you said is contrary to my reasons for believing God’s existence. A Theist could very well said the same thing as that.

  57. Zack T Says:

    “And your case is further undermined by a multitude of competing claims attempting to ascribe what this deity is and wants from mankind. Even if the existence of a creator could be firmly established, you’d still be left with the difficult task of trying to convince me which of the multiple gods envisioned is the correct one to follow.”

    Hahaha… very funny, Ron. That has nothing to do with the question of ‘Does God exist’.. That’s has everything to do with ‘Which God is true’. Such a question obviously assumed ‘God does exist’, which is obviously contrary to your statement that ‘God does NOt exist’.
    It doesn’t undermine my claim that God or a higher being exists, Ron. haha.

    Re: Origin of Universe

    Hahaha… incredible… He still needs some sort of ‘authoritative statement’ to prove that in the study of the ‘origin of the unvierse’, there’s only two versions of the story. Like I said.. please provide me any other versions to the ‘origin of the universe’.

    And there’s plenty of evidences for intelligent design. You just simply brush them aside by saying ‘That has been thoroughly refuted by so and so’. Am I not speaking the truth when I said that, everyone?

    And the idea behind Big Bang, and so on, is just a larger more cosmic version of evolution. You claim evolution is only limited to ‘living creatures’… I’m merely extending it to include ‘evolution of non-life materials’.. namely the universe, through the Big Bang,etc.

    “And further discoveries may lead to new possibilities.” – mere faith.. a belief!

    “There is no other theory because evolution has consistently proven itself as the best explanation for over 150 years.” – And thus I was right to say that there was only two versions to the story of our universe’s origin. yet you over and over claim it isn’t. And please, explain to me how so?
    How does evolution explain the workings of DNA?
    How does evolution explain the origin of the bombadier beetle’s defensive mechanism?
    How does evolution explain a giraffe’s long neck?
    How does evolution explain a large scaley lizard becoming a light-weight feathery bird?

    No, evolution doesn’t prove itself as the best explanation. It just is the default explanation if you wish to exclude God or any form of higher being out of the picture.

  58. Zack T Says:

    Re: My ‘projection’ of Ron’s predicament

    I know the knowledge of the origin of this universe doesn’t effect your life… but it effects the view you have of life itself. I didn’t claim you need to know this in order to live a averagely good life. Not at all.. haha.

    No more than a supposition of Zeus, etc? The very extinction of the beliefs in Zeus & co is proof that they are not the true gods. Christianity and Judaism have been at it for millenias, and their version of God is remains the same. Compare that to the earliest known atheists… We have more grounds of truth than you do.

    “Not knowing doesn’t bear in any manner on my earthly existence. And simply making up an explanation as a stop-gap measure to fill a lack of knowledge and then insisting it must be the correct explanation is quite simply dishonest.”

    hahaha… Ron Ron Ron… did I say “I don’t need to know” or “I don’t need to care”… knowing and caring are two different stances. you’re misunderstanding my statement… maybe deliberately, I don’t know.
    But that just proves my case even more so… ‘I don’t need to care about [how the universe came into being] in order to enjoy my life. It doesn’t matter to me.’.. which means my added conclusion is true too; “You’re being ignorant”.

    “Once again, you’ve drifted into special pleading.”

    yes, indeed it’s special.. It’s called deductive reasoning; reasoning from the general to the particular. And by my line of reasoning, anyone can claim that a higher being created this universe; thus, a case for intelligent design. Doesn’t diminish my case, does it?

    “You are obviously in complete denial of the magic Pixies you know exist all around you.”

    Oh my.. I see an inconsistent Atheist… desperately grabbing for straws to counter my conclusions and reasonings, Ron.

  59. Zack T Says:

    Re: “Enduring purpose” – things don’t have to be designed to last for ever

    Haha… and thus my statement that you equate your own life (along with everyone else) as meaningful as a tissue paper; to ‘take crap’ and be thrown away. How meaningful for your life, Ron.

    “Oxygen is formed as a byproduct of nuclear fusion within stars, and earth’s earliest atmosphere was mostly a mixture of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.”

    Speculations, speculations, speculations… no observable or repeatable experiments to prove either case.

    “The fact that plants convert CO2 to oxygen via photosynthesis lends credibility to adaption via evolution rather than a ‘designed’ purpose.”

    No, it proves ‘designed’ instead of ‘adapted’ better. Why?
    Here’s a thought… Why do plants produce oxygen? Why must animals survive on oxygen in the first place? Why can’t the first animals be reliant on CO2 like the plants? Why don’t plants flourish and then eventually evolve to walk, instead of being rooted for life for millenias.
    And if evolution is true… then shouldn’t we have a variation of animals or living things that rely on other gases to live; mostly oxygen, some CO2, some hydrogen, some don’t need to breathe even…
    but no.. all living creatures need oxygen… and all plants needs CO2..
    How does evolution, an unguided process of animals coming into existence, randomly and by chance created all living moving creatures to rely on oxygen and only oxygen… and all living plants to rely on CO2 and only CO2?
    Looks like they’re designed to be that way to me.

    “Nor were trees ‘designed’ to provide fuel and milled lumber”

    ahaha.. you misunderstood my statement again. I meant ‘fuel’ as in ‘fuel’ for other living beings.. Where do living, moving creatures get their energy from? It’s not from the sun that’s for sure, and surely not self-replenishing, like you and me.

    “Gravitational forces pull giant gas clouds composed of hydrogen and helium together. As the cloud density increases the gravitational force becomes stronger. This creates heat and once it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to occur a star is formed.”

    What the…? Then may I know WHERE in the world does this gravitational force come from?? I thought the sun/star was the source of the gravitational force.. not the gravitational force is the source of the sun/star. No, I’m not the confused one.
    And even if, let’s say, that was the case… why must gravitational force be concentrated to a particular spot? Why is something that is not tangible like gravity or wind be concentrated in a particular spot without some sort of material form?

  60. Zack T Says:

    Re: Life and color at bottommost part of ocean

    I was never even trying make a case about how life came into being there.

    Hahaha… irrelevant? Exactly! Light doesn’t even penetrate in those places.. so why bother with colors? The only reason colors are known is because we can see them.. and to see them, we need light. Since there’s no natural light down there… why bother with colors? They serve no purpose without light!
    Why is there so much color there where there’s no light? What’s the point of such array of colors there where no one can see them?

    It’s the same as asking why do flowers have such array of colors? Practically all animals and insects are color blind; partly or completely (only black and white). There’s no reason for flowers to have the variety of colors they all have.

    Which adds another interesting question… why is it that every other animal can’t see most, if not, the whole full spectrum of colors… while humans can? What’s the point of humans evolving to be able to see colors when the rest of the animal/insect kingdom was fine without seeing the different colors for millions/billions of years prior to humans’ existence (according to evolution)? I don’t see how the idea of improving through evolution required humans to see colors while animals and insects still remain unable to see the full color spectrum or as much as humans can.

    “Precisely because it is an unplanned process.”

    If it’s an unplanned process.. why do we have simetry in almost everything? =)
    Why do we have two eyes? Why do all animals have two eyes? Why not grow a third for these animals, or these particular humans…? What’s wrong with just having one eye? I’m sure there should’ve been some animals with just one eye or more, if evolution (an unplanned process) is true.

    Nope.. design seems a much better theory to explain all this, than an ‘unplanned’ evolution process.

    “A more relevant question would be why any god would trouble itself creating such things, since they serve no useful purpose we know of.”

    Then that would depend on what a theist’s view of his/her god is. I know why God created me and the rest of this world and I’m sure Scott, Simon, do too. And even Nasaei would have a similar beieve as us too, I’d think.
    While we view ourselves with higher value, thanks to God.. you, on the other hand, are just as valuable as a ’tissue paper’, according to your own statement. I pray that you will seek the truth, Ron, and not just brush aside everything that disagrees with your worldview.

  61. Zack T Says:

    Yes, Nasaei, indeed. Atheists, especially Atheist scientists like Dawkins, claim to be all-knowing somehow…

    “We don’t know how it happened, we just know it wasn’t God.”

    We as Theist are more opened to the possibilities of either God did it or not and therefore are more objective with our analysis of the scientific evidences… unlike Atheists who are firmly biased to think “No way a god did it” even before starting the study.

    And yes, Scott… more and more archaeological findings are proving the stories recorded in the bible as each century passes… And at least we can based our faith upon the bible to be true and thus we’ll continue to find more evidences to prove the bible and our faith..

    Atheist on the other hand… ‘More development in the future will show more evidence, etc.”… based on what? Faith of the current ‘atheistic science’ which is already biased in the first place. No grounding in history, or objective standards…

  62. Jamie Says:

    “Dawkins concludes by saying, “But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.” [And then once again Stein narrates over the remainder of Dawkins’ explanation.] ”

    But hey, there’s no explicable reason for the things before the Big Bang happened to exist right?

    Dawkins insists in following an infinite regress, because you need a starting point while atheists deny the only thing that makes sense as a starting point: Having someone or something that exists eternally, outside of creation.

    Anyway…let’s take Dawkins’ statement here “It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously.” and apply it to the creation of life from non-life. Don’t atheist evolutionists believe that somehow, stuff just happened to randomly interact in a certain way and the first life form spontaneously came out of that?

    Seriously, atheists, you guys claim to be so much more rational and intelligent than theists that you fail to see how irrational and unintelligent your arguments are. You’re too busy staring at the dust in our eyes to take out the planks in yours.

  63. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I believe in evolution. However, evolution was pre-fixed, determined and created by the Almighty God. Otherwise…

    Atheists must also explain to us, HOW evolution makes evolution…not now, but at the very earliest stage. What to ‘evolve’; what creates what.. and WHY.

    When there was..at one point nothing yet exists, how it evolve..because in order to evolve..or to make anything else evolve, the first thing MUST first exists. If at that particular moment, it was not there..how can it helps to evolve itself (or others) ?

    Unless if God created it..from non existence to appear into being..all of a sudden..billions or trillion of years ago..

  64. Zack T Says:

    Oh.. sorry.. got too carried away with my reasoning that I forgot to define what I meant when I say ‘evolution’..

    When I said ‘evolution’ I meant the theory that God is not involved with/in the process of each new living being coming into existence… or life coming from non-life.. or the ‘evolution’ of this cosmos forming and becoming what it is now.

  65. Ron Says:

    “They’re not real researchers.”

    Since we both agree that they’re not real researchers, we can put this topic to rest.

    “Ben Stein did deceptive camera tricks and sneaky commentaries/narrations making Dawkins seemed like a crazy person.”

    Agreed. Another topic laid to rest.

    “If you claimed to be an invisible leprechaun, I can easily disprove that you fit any criteria to be such”

    OK then, prove that I’m not an invisible leprechaun. Since you can’t see me, you have your work cut out for you.

    “Christianity and Judaism have been at it for millenias, and their version of God is remains the same.”

    Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism are all much older and their beliefs have also remain unchanged.

    “Compare that to the earliest known atheists.”

    Atheism has remained true to its tenets for millennia.

    “Speculations, speculations, speculations… no observable or repeatable experiments to prove either case.”

    I guess if you deliberately choose to ignore all those observations and mountains of scientific data you might conclude it’s all just speculation.

    And Christians also know that medical treatment is completely unnecessary because prayer can cure all disease. Medical professionals are obviously all godless heathens who willfully deny the power of faith.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/ns/health-kids_and_parenting

    “Why do plants produce oxygen? Why must animals survive on oxygen in the first place? Why can’t the first animals be reliant on CO2 like the plants? Why don’t plants flourish and then eventually evolve to walk, instead of being rooted for life for millenias. And if evolution is true… then shouldn’t we have a variation of animals or living things that rely on other gases to live; mostly oxygen, some CO2, some hydrogen, some don’t need to breathe even…”

    Evidently Malaysia lacks libraries, textbooks, biology labs, and schools with a valid science curriculum. But luckily you do seem to have internet access, so perhaps you might find the answers to all your questions online.

    Of course, that means you’ll probably have to take some time off from mumbling to your imaginary psycho-friend.🙂

  66. Zack T Says:

    Hahaha… Fine, Ron. I’ll let you have it your way with Ben Stein. Just go ahead and brush aside the issue.

    Invisible leprechaun… wah… he’s serious about this. Wahahah.

    Oh.. yeah sure.. How representative that ‘branch of atheism’ that you have. But since I’m not an atheist, no need for me to educate you about the different and subjective beliefs of atheists..
    e.g. moralilty.

    Hahaha… What “observations and mountains of scientific data” are you referring to, Ron? Studies of animals adapting to current climate and environments? Studies of chemical reactions within current environments? Studies of ‘supposed’ life created in lab tubes? But then again.. those were ‘clones’ created from living cells… no non-living ones…
    No, sir, there isn’t ‘mountains of scientific data’ for evolution ro anything that requires ‘millions of years’ to be true. No human existed before 1 million years ago. It cannot be observed and such a thing can’t be replicated in a lab, let alone, repeated.
    Therefore, it doesn’t fit as the description of being scientific… it does fit very well in the lines of beliefs and faith… close to being a religion itself.

    A Christian’s choice of belief when it comes to medical help has nothing to do with the topic nor does it help with your case, Ron. Nice red herring again.

    And no, Ron. You once again seem to miss my point.
    Evolution is an unplanned, random process, yes? I’m sure you can’t say it’s organized, since it’s unguided. To be organized requires intelligence, which alone disproves the theory of unguided evolution as the reason for our living world.
    If evolution is unguided, therefore random… why do we so conveniently have symmetry… why do ALL animals and humans breath oxygen to live, and ALL plants breath CO2 to live?
    If evolution is random and unguided… then it should’ve resulted in, at least, most animals and most humans breathing oxygen, some animals/humans breathe CO2, a few more hydrogen, etc and the same for plants too..

    So many questions regarding evolution I asked… none you even try to touch. Oh well. I understand. You don’t have the answer… And you frankly don’t care anyways.

    May the truth be kind to you, Ron.

  67. Ron Says:

    “Invisible leprechaun… ”

    You said you can easily disprove it. So now I’m asking you to do so.

  68. Zack T Says:

    Hahaha… Well.. simple, Ron.

    I just need to do some homework first about you… where you live, what other people know/say about you, your lifetsyle according to those who know you…
    then of course, we then make comparisons between the criteria of an invisible leprechaun..

    One…. invisibility… will those who know of Ron say he is invisible?

    Two… leprechaun… will those who know of Ron say Ron reminds them of a leprechaun or remotely looks like one? Holds simialr traits, lifestyles, stereotypes, etc of a leprechaun?

    And with that done… that’d be my conclusion.. and frankly, we both know you’re not invisible, Ron. You don’t even believe in the supernatural, let alone gonna claim to be one.

  69. Ron Says:

    “We’ll continue to find more evidences to prove…our faith.”

    Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

    So, in other words:

    We’ll continue to find more evidence to prove our lack of logical proof or material evidence. 8)

  70. Ron Says:

    “One…. invisibility… will those who know of Ron say he is invisible”

    Well, I’m invisible, so no one can see me.

    “we both know you’re not invisible, Ron.”

    No, you don’t know that, because you’ve never seen me.

    Try again.

  71. Zack T Says:

    Ron, “Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence”

    ZT, “Ron, do you have faith in the future of your family that you’ll be happily together until you grow old and die?”

    Ron, “…further discoveries may lead to new possibilities.”

    Seems you have your own faiths to worry about.

    “Well, I’m invisible, so no one can see me.
    No, you don’t know that, because you’ve never seen me.”

    Ron Ron Ron… you’re just desperately grabbing at straws again.. Sigh.. Fine fine fine.. Ron is an invisible leprechaun, who happens to be an Atheist, too, btw… you know.. people who don’t believe in any form of myths, legends and the supernatural..

    Go and slide over the rainbow to your pot of gold then. And maybe you can ask one of those pixie out to some bagpiping fun.

  72. Ron Says:

    Bummer for you that you don’t believe in me. Guess you will never get your three wishes.

  73. Zack T Says:

    Naw… I’m too lazy to bother to catch you, Ron. Go and tempt somebody else… Maybe Scott or Nasaei or Simon, if any of them are here now.. hehe

  74. Ron Says:

    “Yes, but just some time ago Cyrus never released the Jews to their homeland, Jerusalem was never a large ancient city and had only primitive construction, and the Hittites were a figment of Biblical imagination (now apparently they’re an ancient empire which rivaled Egypt).”

    Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  75. Ron Says:

    According to the Bible, lying is a sin punishable with eternal damnation, but YHWH has no problems with committing genocide — in fact. he even commands it on several occasions. So based on that, anyone who harbored Jews during the war and lied about it to SS officials is going to hell.

  76. Scott Thong Says:

    Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. – Ron

    An offhanded dismissal, but my take is the more time passes and the more things are dug up out of the dirt, the more the Bible’s claims will fall into place in the wider arc of accepted archaeology.

    How much % of the Biblical narrative must be collaborated by evidence before you would consider the narrative as a whole to be beyond reasonable doubt?

  77. Ron Says:

    How hard can it be to find traces of the exodus? According to the narrative, over 600,000 men left Egypt. With women and children that’s at least two million people wandering through the dessert for 40 years, and nary a trace to be found. Not to mention the problems of finding water for that many people in such a harsh climate.

    There are also problems with the timeline itself. Archaeological digs have determined that Jericho was abandoned around 1562 BCE, which is more that a century prior to the exodus. And the city itself was less than 10 acres square, which means it held at most 3,000 people. So why would an army of 600,000 men need to go through all that fanfare to sack such a small population?

  78. Zack T Says:

    what’s your source regarding Jericho?

  79. Ron Says:

    “Bronze-age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BCE. Notably this carbon dating c. 1573 BCE confirmed the accuracy of the stratigraphical dating c. 1550 by Kenyon, which in her day shocked her contemporaries who relied on literary evidence for a traditional date, c. 1400”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Bronze_Age

    “The final destruction of MBA Jericho occurred during the late 17th or the 16th century BC. ”

    http://www.radiocarbon.org/Journal/v37n2/Abstracts/213.html

  80. Scott Thong Says:

    It’s a desert. You can lose an entire MiG in less than a year there, let alone 3000+ years after people eating replicator-made food and toting around highly degradable materials cleared the area.

    But yeah, give it time as I’ve said.

  81. Ron Says:

    They can find a 800K old campsite but nothing from 2 million people?

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50936/title/Stone_Age_campers_set_up_separate_activity_areas

  82. Zack T Says:

    Ron,

    I scanned the article rather quickly… What I was looking for is actually how they concluded the ‘date’ of the ‘campsite’.

    Could you point me how they concluded the ‘800,000 years old’ age?

  83. Ron Says:

    The paper is referenced under citations in the sidebar under citations to the right of the article I linked.

    N. Alperson-Afil et al. “Spatial Organization of Hominin Activities at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel.” Science. 18 December 2009.

    The date was determined from taking oxygen isotopes of the excavation site. From page 1678:

    “Gesher Benot Ya’aqov is located on the shores of the paleo–Lake Hula in the northern Jordan Valley in the Dead Sea Rift (7). The Early to Middle Pleistocene sediments document an oscillating freshwater lake and represent some 100,000 years of hominin occupation (Oxygen Isotope Stages 18–20) dating to 790,000 years ago (8, 9). Fourteen archaeological horizons indicate that Acheulian hominins repeatedly occupied the lake margins, where they skilfully produced stone tools, systematically butchered and exploited animals, gathered plant food, and controlled fire.

    We focus on a hearth area and the lithic, botanical, and paleontological assemblages of Layer II-6 Level 2 (henceforth Level 2), one of eight superimposed occupational levels in Layer II-6. This sedimentary sequence was rapidly sealed, preserving the original location of different artifacts (evidenced by the fresh preservation state of the lithics, the preservation of mollusk embryos, the presence of conjoinable bones, and a lack of winnowing) (8, 10, 15, 16). Level 2 is 0.12 m thick, and we excavated across an area of 25.6m2 (3 m3). It yielded numerous stone artifacts made of different raw materials; a large assemblage of wood, bark, fruits, seeds, and nuts; and highly diverse lacustrine and terrestrial animal remains.

    It’s available online: sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5960/1677
    but you’ll have to pay to retrieve it, or go to a university library.

  84. Ron Says:

    Death from the Skies

    The fairness of unfairness is in every thing’s demise.

    These are the ways the world will end
    These are the ways the world will end
    These are the ways

    1. Odds of dying by asteroid impact: 1 in 700,000

    The overall risk of dying from an impact in your lifetime is 1 in 700,000
    Somewhat less than being killed by a fireworks accident, but still more probable than being killed on the amusement park ride, or an act of terrorists.

    2. Odds of dying by supernova explosion: 1 in 10 million

    Super nova happen about once per century in any given galaxy. Assuming the event would cause a mass extinction killing everyone on earth, the odds of you specifically dying from one during your lifetime are about one in ten million.

    3. Odds of dying by solar flare or corona mass ejection: zero, but with an asterisk.

    While a whopping solar event can seriously impair or destroy a nation’s infrastructure and economy, in general it will not directly cause deaths. We have to rate this a zero chance for human fatality, but with an asterisk as a nod to the destructive power it has in other ways.

    4. Odds of dying by gamma ray burst: 1 in 14 million

    Gamma ray bursts are dangerous from distances of more than 7000 light-years. We would have to be in the path of a relatively narrow beam to get hurt. Your odds of being killed by a GR beam are one in 14 million. You are about as likely to be killed by a shark attack.

    Eventual odds of dying by death of the sun: inevitable.
    Eventual odds of dying by galactic doom: inevitable.
    Eventual odds of dying by death of the universe: inevitable.

    These are the ways the world will end.

  85. Zack T Says:

    Since I am unable to access the article, and the passages that Ron quotes do not detail much about the dating methods… I can’t figure out how they made those ‘assumptions’ or ‘conclusions’..

    As far as I understand dating methods at this time, it is filled with assumptions in its formulation.

    For one, it definitely requires a ‘uniformitarianistic’ mindset; the assumption that the world/nature of the environment has been constant for that long a period of time, namely from now til millions to billions of years ago.
    Which is obviously false. A lot can happen within just a few years. And also, just as Scott pointed out, things can get buried will quickly within a few years; i.e. the fighter jet plane.
    There was another similar case but at the northen cold places, I think greenland? or Antartic? can’t remember. A WWII fighter plane crashed into the snowy field; the pilot managed to get out of there safely, if not mistaken.
    Some short decades later, people finally decided to find it…. and found buried under thousands of feets of snow and ice..

    If it was to have been over 800,000 years old… I’d imagine they’d be buried REALLLY deep.

    I stand on my view that the Earth is young, not old… and not due to my biblical beliefs, but scientific views.

  86. Ron Says:

    So in other words, you’re too lazy to do the research; because if you REALLY wanted to know more about the dating methods used, you could request the information directly from the authors of the paper — the original article contains a direct link to the author’s website (whose email address is prominently displayed at the very top of the web page), and the link to the abstract provides direct contact information at the bottom. Or you could just go to a university library and read it for free.

    And as I wrote earlier, the dates were determined by analyzing the oxygen isotopes of the artifacts taken from the site. The decay rates are uniform and can be calculated with a high degree of precision. Nor was this the only expedition undertaken at that particular site — previous digs unearthed wood remnants and determined their age using Potassium-Argon dating methods, which are also uniform and highly reliable.

    All of this information is freely available on the internet to anyone whose even remotely interested in studying the matter further. The fact that you are unwilling to conduct even a rudimentary search into these topics betrays your assertion that your views are informed by science.

  87. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I think it is extremely very difficult for atheists to provide the evidence that the universe is not created or designed to function, because anything cannot come into existence by itself (from non existence). They only have hypothesis and the so-called ‘theory’ of very distant past, and – those theories cannot be proved in science lab..

    For example..if the first ever life emerged from anything by itself, definitely can imitate it..I mean it can be proved and ‘re-do’ again in lab.

    So far, no life had ever been created by science. God creation is authentic, original and cannot be duplicate or imitate I think.

  88. Zack T Says:

    Yes, Nasaei. No one has ever created a single living cell out of non-living material, let alone any form of life.

    The Atheist’s formula for life is:

    Matter + Energy = Life

    Which is obviously false, since we have plenty of that all around it.. matter around us, and the sun shining above us. And we don’t see living things crawling out of everywhere all of a sudden, and our house’s materials slowly decreasing due to the change from non-life to living cells.
    Whenever you open a new jar of peanut butter, you sigh in relief that there’s no life (infestation) inside the jar.
    Only if an extra source of information (namely from another living cell, e.g. bacteria) were to enter into the jar will there be life coming out of the peanut butter.

    The correct formula is:

    Matter + Energy + Information = Life

    (PS: It’s funny.. in one post, Nasaei allies with Ron and speaks against Christianity… the next post, Nasaei sides with me and speaks against Atheism. Sneaky basket.. Haha.)

  89. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    While we say it is very difficult for atheists to prove their case, or to create life..they’ll also say the other way around to us ? – “very difficult for you to prove the existence of God!”

    But I keep saying to our brother like Ron or Robert : “you know, this apple is the proof that there must be an apple tree exists, where this apple came from”.

    Then maybe Ron will say : “this apple is actually a kind of mass..or matter. It consists of citric acid/ascorbic acid, water, sugar, carbohydrate etc. Then it ‘mould’ or took shape like this; what we called it “apple..If you cannot show me the tree, I will never believe it.
    It is the product of evolution…”

    ..So, Ron wants us to bring God to him so that he’ll convince..after interviewing God.

    But Ron is never realize, God is NOT like any of His creature. One of His many attributes is, that He cannot be seen.. until day of judgment. (if everybody can see Him, all will be believers then. No one will be unbeliever in this world. Then Hell is irrelevant. (I think God is testing you..to believe in Him..or not to believe). Muslim believes, once you died, your soul then know..whether your believe is true or not. But it will be too late.

    Darwin knows it now..in the grave.

    Ron will say to me..”Nonsense..no science lab has ever proved the existence of the so-called ‘soul’. Close case ! Ron won the trial.

  90. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    ..then I asked Ron: What do you mean by “evolution” ?. He said: “Read the articles thru’ the links that I gave you.. don’t be so lazy to read..”

  91. Ron Says:

    “Only if an extra source of information (namely from another living cell, e.g. bacteria) were to enter into the jar will there be life coming out of the peanut butter.”

    http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2007/ucm108858.htm

    “Matter + Energy + Information = Life”

    Invisible Magic Skydaddy + POOF = everything

  92. Ron Says:

    Banana – An Atheists Worst Nightmare

  93. Zack T Says:

    “www fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2007/ucm108858.htm

    “Matter + Energy + Information = Life” ”

    Salmonella – Rod-shaped Gram-negative enterobacteria

    Thank you for further stressing my point, Ron.

    Information… not randomness.

  94. Ron Says:

    “Thank you for further stressing my point, Ron.”

    Just saying, be careful what you eat.

  95. Zack T Says:

    Respond to Ron’s “Banana”

    “Ray Comfort Apologizes about Banana Illustration”

  96. Ron Says:

    From the video:

    “Comfort apologized for his mistake about the banana saying: “…I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified through hybridization. However the truth remains that god gave man the knowledge and ability to modify it, so that it perfectly fit into his hand. He did the same with big dogs so they can fit into his car, and with wild cats, so that they are perfectly fit for his wife”

    Proving that Ray Comfort’s scientific knowledge wouldn’t fill a thimble.

    Bananas are cultivars (artificially selected) propagated asexually from offshoots), not hybrids (offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock).

    Dogs (which stem primarily from the wolf family) have been domesticated for thousands of years, mostly for their hunting, herding, and protection capabilities — i.e, long before the invention of the automobile.

    Cats were domesticated thousands of years ago primarily for their rodent hunting abilities, not to fit into a wife’s lap.

    “His book… rocketed up the amazon.com rankings on it’s first day of release, moving from 69,572 to number 38 in 24 hours, and was the number one book in the categories of religion and atheism on Darwin Day, even bumping out Richard Dawkins ‘The God Delusion’.”

    Congratulations Ray — you edged out a two-year-old book during the first week of release, but sales quickly dwindled thereafter.

    Dawkins book was released on 2 October 2006 and has sold over two million copies to date. The first week it came in at #11 on the New York Times bestseller lists, reached #4 in December 2006, and then remained on the list until September 2007 (51 weeks). According to amazon.com [NB: these numbers fluctuate hourly] the hardcover edition is currently ranked as:

    #26,753 in Books
    #66 in Books > Religion & Spirituality
    #21 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality
    #14 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Atheism
    #38 in Books > Science > History & Philosophy > History of Science

    The paperback edition came out on 16 January 2008. Amazon’s current rankings are:

    #633 in Books
    #65 in Books > Religion & Spirituality
    #1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Atheism
    #7 in Books > Science > History & Philosophy

    In comparison, Comfort’s book (published 12 February 2009) currently ranks at #446,715 in one category (books) and that’s it.

    Re: Dawkins Debate

    Comfort knows that Dawkins’ fee for speaking engagements is $100k — so if he really wants to have a debate, all he has to do is pony up the full amount.

  97. Zack T Says:

    I thought the video said Comfort upped his money to 200k to speak/engage with Dawkins..
    Oh well… Dawkins refuse and has made a statement that he will not talk/debate with creationists any longer.

  98. Ron Says:

    Dawkins refuses to waste time debating creationists for the same reason that chemists refuse to debate alchemists, astronomers refuse to debate astrologers, doctors refuse to debate witchdoctors, and paediatricians refuse to debate proponents of the stork theory.

  99. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Come on Ron, you should have not so sarcastic by using the highly irrelevant word such as ‘skydaddy’ etc. The better way is to continue studying, search or research on knowledge including the scriptures. I don’t think anyone can claim they know all, everything. In fact, most of the time, the problem with us is ignorance.

  100. Ron Says:

    People who don’t like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn’t have such funny beliefs.

  101. Zack T Says:

    Ron,

    But it’s not the same reason why Christians continue to debate with non-Christians. And that’s cause God commanded us to, out of His love for all men (& women) to be saved, if it were possible. =)

    Nasaei,

    Yes, no one can say they know everything. We’re all imperfect.

    I could ask Ron, “Does he know 50% of all the things that can be known in this universe?”
    I doubt he’ll dare say yes…

    “How about someone else that knows 50% of all the things that can be known in this universe?”
    I also doubt he’ll say yes to this… but I’ll just leave Ron to respond.

  102. Ron Says:

    “But it’s not the same reason why Christians continue to debate with non-Christians. And that’s cause God commanded us to, out of His love for all men (& women) to be saved, if it were possible. =)”

    This is another thing which makes no sense. Why does the supposedly all-powerful deity use such an ineffective means of communication? If you were planning a staff meeting for 9 am this Thursday, how would you go about disseminating that information to your employees? Would you:

    a) send an email/memo to everyone; or
    b) give verbal instructions to peasants on a remote island and instruct them to relay that information to the intended recipients via word of mouth?

    “I could ask Ron, “Does he know 50% of all the things that can be known in this universe?”

    No, but that doesn’t make the “god-done-did-it” explanation any more credible.

  103. Zack T Says:

    “If you were planning a staff meeting for 9 am this Thursday, how would you go about disseminating that information to your employees?”

    What if I said I would:
    1) send an email/memo to everyone
    AND
    2) give verbal instructions to my selected and most closest friends and employees to relay that information to everyone and our customers/clients.

    God did both.. bible/scripture (email) and His disciples (friends and employees).

    “No, but that doesn’t make the “god-done-did-it” explanation any more credible.”

    It doesn’t and I’m not making that assertion.

    Now let’s see.

    Ron admits he doesn’t know 50% of all the things that can be known… and subsequently, he doesn’t know anyone who does either.

    Now, let’s just say Ron DOES know 50% of everything that can be known….
    Is it not logically and philosophically possible to conclude that God is within the other 50% of everything that can be known?

    You can’t say no, cause you only know 50%… and in reality, you know a lot more less than that.

  104. Scott Thong Says:

    People who don’t like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn’t have such funny beliefs. – Ron

    So why is it illegal for me to hold up protest signs at an abortion clinic or gay pride rally.

  105. Scott Thong Says:

    Dawkins refuses to waste time debating creationists for the same reason that chemists refuse to debate alchemists, astronomers refuse to debate astrologers, doctors refuse to debate witchdoctors, and paediatricians refuse to debate proponents of the stork theory. – Ron

    Yeah, those kooks who believe in the theory of plate tectonics, non-steady state universe and anything other than spontaneous generation are frauds. Don’t legitimize their beliefs by acknowledging them.

  106. wits0 Says:

    “So why is it illegal for me to hold up protest signs at an abortion clinic or gay pride rally.”

    What is the nature of the “pride” in being gay? That’s weird and rather oxymoronic.

  107. Ron Says:

    “God did both.. bible/scripture (email) and His disciples (friends and employees).”

    He did neither. We know that major parts of the Bible are based on unreliable oral traditions which were written long after the supposed events had occurred. No one knows how many times the stories were redacted before appearing in written form or since. That’s not an effective way to propagate your instructions, especially when a more direct form communication is supposedly within the realm of god’s capabilities.

    Ron admits he doesn’t know 50% of all the things that can be known… and subsequently, he doesn’t know anyone who does either.

    “Now, let’s just say Ron DOES know 50% of everything that can be known….Is it not logically and philosophically possible to conclude that God is within the other 50% of everything that can be known? You can’t say no, cause you only know 50%… and in reality, you know a lot more less than that.”

    It’s not possible to make definitive statements about things that we don’t know, because we simply don’t know what we don’t know. However we can make definitive statements about assertions which aren’t supported by evidence, and the assumption of God is one of them. To date there isn’t a shred of proof for any god, let alone the Abrahamic god who personally intervenes in human affairs.

  108. Ron Says:

    “So why is it illegal for me to hold up protest signs at an abortion clinic or gay pride rally.”

    Who says your not allowed to protest?

    “Yeah, those kooks who believe in the theory of plate tectonics, non-steady state universe and anything other than spontaneous generation are frauds. Don’t legitimize their beliefs by acknowledging them.”

    Without going into specific details, each of those theories was debated amongst scientists and accepted or rejected as more evidence became available — no one held up a sacred text and insisted it must be thus. Creationists, on the other hand, have not come up with anything to support their ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis.

  109. Zack T Says:

    “It’s not possible to make definitive statements about things that we don’t know, because we simply don’t know what we don’t know.”

    My point exactly! You can’t see the spiritual realm.. you don’t know what and how the spiritual realm looks like. You’ve never been to the spiritual realm.. You definitely did not originate from the spiritual realm.
    So how is it you know God does not exist there? Which is what our bible teach: God is spirit?

    Even if the Christian god is the wrong god, it still doesn’t prove your case that a god doesn’t exist.

    “Creationists, on the other hand, have not come up with anything to support their ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis.”

    They have plenty… e.g. Anthropic principle, accuracy/authenticity of the bible through archaeological finds, DNA mechanism, the failure of evolution to explain origin of ‘information’ (let alone, life), the knowledge/acknowledgment of objective moral values and a whole lot more.
    You just refused to accept their proposition..
    And that’s called ‘prejudice’.

    What do Atheists have? “Evolution”? Failed.. “Inaccuracy of the bible”? Majorly proven false. “No existence of spiritual realm”? Can’t be proven true.

    Let’s talk about one of the proponents for God’s existence… the complexity of the universe.
    let’s say, the universe was a computer (although incomparably more complex)… would you ever believe a computer came into being by chance? out of an explosion of a computer hardware factory? I doubt it.

    “We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than life-permitting universes like ours. How much more probable? Well, before I give you an estimation, let me just give you some numbers to give you a feel for the odds. The number of seconds in the history of the universe is about 10^18, that’s ten followed by eighteen zeros. The number of subatomic particles in the entire universe is about 10^80.

    Now with those numbers in mind, consider the following. Donald Page, one of America’s eminent cosmologists, has calculated the odds of our universe existing as on the order of one chance out of 10,000,000,000^(123), a number which is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement! {9}

    Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has called this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God “ever to come out of science.” {10} Once again, the view that Christian theists have always held, that there is an intelligent designer of the Cosmos, seems to me to be much more plausible than the atheistic interpretation of chance.”

    Quote from www leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/washdeba-craig1.html under ‘The Teleological Argument

    References provided:
    {9} See L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell, “God and Modern Science: New Life for the Teleological Argument,” International Philosophical Quarterly 27 (1987): 416. Betty and Cordell actually report a smaller figure than Page’s, which is based on calculations by Roger Penrose, “Time Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity,” in Quantum Gravity 2, ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 249.

    {10} Robert Jastrow, “The Astronomer and God,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), p. 22.
    _
    _
    _

    My friend once heard, “An atheist can’t find God like a thief can’t find a policeman.”

  110. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron is spiritually insensitive. That was settled way back then. Once, Ron, quoting the Nicodemus passage, said just what Nicodemus said, without realizing that he was in the same position as Nicodemus. That’s why he has reason, no ‘soul’, and makes little sense. After all, reason is not much reason when it is in dissonance with Reason’s Creator.

  111. Ron Says:

    “My point exactly! You can’t see the spiritual realm.. you don’t know what and how the spiritual realm looks like. You’ve never been to the spiritual realm.. You definitely did not originate from the spiritual realm.
    So how is it you know God does not exist there? Which is what our bible teach: God is spirit? Even if the Christian god is the wrong god, it still doesn’t prove your case that a god doesn’t exist.”

    At no point have I ever stated that I have absolute certainty no god exists. I’ve simply argued that without evidence to validate the existence of a god there is no reason to hold such a belief.

    “They have plenty… e.g. Anthropic principle”

    Which one? There are several and without a firm definition as to precisely what is meant or how it’s applied, we’d be talking at cross-purposes.

    “Accuracy/authenticity of the bible through archaeological finds”

    Name them. I’ve already shown on another thread that there is no archaeological evidence to support any of the OT biblical stories (exodus, battle of Jericho, Patriarchs, King David, King Solomon, etc)

    DNA mechanism – if anything, DNA supports the Theory of Evolution.

    “the failure of evolution to explain origin of ‘information’ (let alone, life)”

    That’s because evolution isn’t intended to explain the origin of life, and since I’ve already provided definitions of what the various theories attempt to explain, your continued unwillingness to familiarize yourself with them is inexcusable.

    “the knowledge/acknowledgment of objective moral values”

    Christian apologists’ assertions to the contrary, no such determinations have been made.

    “You just refused to accept their proposition. And that’s called ‘prejudice’.”

    Agreed!! I’m prejudiced towards factual evidence instead of emotional appeals to tradition or religious authority.

    “What do Atheists have?”

    Migraines from debating with closed-minded creationists who won’t budged away from their unfounded superstitious beliefs even when confronted by insurmountable facts and logic contradicting those beliefs.🙂

    “Evolution”? Failed..”

    Only if you ignore all the evidence.

    “Inaccuracy of the bible”? Majorly proven false.”

    There are so many errors, I can’t even list them all: light, earth and vegetation were created prior to the sun, the moon is a lesser light, there is a firmament above us, two contradictory creation stories, snakes eat dust, bats are birds, the earth is motionless and rests on four pillars, striped rods can produce striped flocks, camels and hares have undivided hooves, rabbits chew their cud, fowls creep on all fours, insects have four legs, snails melt, snow and hail are kept in storehouses, pi=3, leprosy can be cured via incantations and bird sacrifice, axe heads float, fire consumes wet wood, stones, dust and water, mustard seeds are the smallest seeds and birds can nest in mustard plants (according to Jesus), flat earth (ability to see all the earth’s kingdoms from a mountain), crowds ask questions in unison, disease is caused by demonic possession, stars can fall to earth, etc, etc.

    And then there are the countless narrative contradictions and moral inconsistencies.

    “No existence of spiritual realm”? Can’t be proven true.”

    Nor can one disprove the existence of Santa Clause, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Loch Ness monster, Chupacabras, pixies, fairies, elves, werewolves, vampires, witches, ghouls, zombies, imps, gremlins, hobbits, goblins, orcs, trolls, ogres, fire-breathing dragons, or invisible leprechauns.

    “let’s say, the universe was a computer (although incomparably more complex)… would you ever believe a computer came into being by chance? out of an explosion of a computer hardware factory? I doubt it.”

    False analogy, because the universe isn’t a computer, not does the universe have a predestined purpose.

    “Now with those numbers in mind, consider the following.”

    First off, where is the scientific consensus to support those numbers? Secondly, I’ve already explained why you can’t always draw conclusions by comparing post facto events with a priori probabilities. Arguments from incredulity and statistical improbability are a logical fallacy.

  112. Zack T Says:

    Ron, “I’ve simply argued that without evidence to validate the existence of a god there is no reason to hold such a belief.”

    This will be overcome through the reasoning against the rest of his comment.

    “They have plenty… e.g. Anthropic principle”

    Anthropic Principle – the idea that the ideal conditions of this world that permits life (let alone intelligent life) is so narrowly balanced, that if there was any minor alteration, then life CANNOT develop or exist.

    Some listed examples – www inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html

    Is Antrhopic Principle due to Intelligent Design or Multiverse? – www asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/anthropic-cr.htm

    |

    Archaeological evidences for OT & NT –
    Due to my absence of a sort of list of sources or names for you to look into regarding biblical archaeological related matters… these will have to do…

    OT:
    – Veracity of the OT – www rae.org/veracity.html
    – www equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible
    – www biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/archaeology_lalleman.pdf

    NT:
    – Regarding Luke’s reliability as a historian – www bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm
    – Archaeological evidence for biblical cities – www carm.org/questions/archaeological-evidence-verifying-biblical-cities
    – Manuscript evidence for NT Reliability – www carm.org/manuscript-evidence
    – NT as Historical Doc – www carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document
    – Non-biblical accounts of NT events/people – www carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people
    – Writings of Josephus mention biblical people/places – www carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/writings-josephus-mention-many-biblical-people-and-places

    |

    “DNA mechanism – if anything, DNA supports the Theory of Evolution.”

    Please explain to me how it does. Please do.
    I can’t wait to learn how atheists explain DNA supports evolution theory.

  113. Zack T Says:

    “That’s because evolution isn’t intended to explain the origin of life, and since I’ve already provided definitions of what the various theories attempt to explain, your continued unwillingness to familiarize yourself with them is inexcusable.”

    Alright, I shall play it by your rules then, so to speak.
    How do the other theories explain the origin of the universe?

    Big Bang theory… Nothing exploded, and resulted in everything?

    Theory that life came from non-living material… not provable or achieveable in any lab…

    Evolution.. a whale came from a cow millions of years ago…? Snakes lost their limbs to become limbless, prooven by the ‘supposed’ unused bones near where its genital is? (same for whales apparently)

    All conjecture and not experimental… not repeatable… and you call that science?

    “the knowledge/acknowledgment of objective moral values”
    Ron “Christian apologists’ assertions to the contrary, no such determinations have been made.”

    Please explain how we cannot possibly know there exists objective moral values?

    “Agreed!! I’m prejudiced towards factual evidence instead of emotional appeals to tradition or religious authority.”

    Yeah, factual evidence based on science that cannot be repeated or proven in any lab… (refer to earlier comment)

    “…from their unfounded superstitious beliefs even when confronted by insurmountable facts and logic contradicting those beliefs. ”

    Insurmountable facts and logic contradicting those beliefs? Like?

    “Evolution”? Failed..” “Only if you ignore all the evidence.”

    What evidence?

  114. Zack T Says:

    RE: Inaccuracy of the bible

    Earth and vegetation created prior to sun – interesting.. were you there when the first plant came into being? Where’s your evidence?

    Moon is a lesser light – right.. the language says that in English.. how about in Hebrew? And even if the writers wrote that, does the bible teach that as undeniable doctrine?

    Firmament above us – yeah there is… question is, what do you mean by firmament and what did the bible mean when it wrote firmament…? What about in hebrew?

    Two contradictory story – please explain

    snakes eat dust – plenty of stories of demons eating/attacking humans… Oh sorry, you don’t know what the Jewish’s understanding of those words represent.

    Rabbit & camels –
    www religioustolerance.org/ine_none7.htm
    and
    www tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html
    and
    www carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud

    won’t bother with the rest… too many.

    |

    “No existence of spiritual realm”? Can’t be proven true.”

    And thus, my analogy of Ron knowing only 50% of everything. What about the other 50%? Ron is not all-knowing.. none of us are all-knowing. So how can we prove anything is untrue or do not exist?
    You certainly can’t prove God does not exist, and so do Dawkins, and every other atheist ever.
    All you can do is object and reject every fact and evidence FOR God or at least, an Intelligent Designer, and worship naturalism.

  115. Zack T Says:

    “False analogy, because the universe isn’t a computer, not does the universe have a predestined purpose.”

    Computers started off and continues on as a combination of molecules and atoms of non-living materials…
    Universe started off with molecules and atoms of non-living materials… only to, out of nowhere, emerge living cells.
    Nope.. not false analogy. You’re just rejecting whatever reasoning that you disagree with.

    Universe have no predestined purpose… and thus so do you, and I’ll ask you again…
    What’s wrong with another atheist coming along to kill you, a purposeless being, when he himself has no purpose and no objective moral standards to adhere to, but only relativism?

    |

    “where is the scientific consensus”

    Is that how science works now? I never knew that if a majority of scientist agrees on a theory, therefore it is true. When did they change the scientific methodology?

    “Secondly, I’ve already explained why you can’t always draw conclusions by comparing post facto events with a priori probabilities.”

    very interesting, Ron.. Isn’t that what the evolution theory does too? comparing post facto events with a priori probabilities? yet you’re ready to receive it as true and even say it’s consistently be proven so for 150 years?

    Very interesting… But no, this mathematical probability is to suggest to us how improbable or possible an event is.. Nothing wrong with that, scientists do that all the time. Project managers do a feasibility study before deeming a project possible.

  116. Simon Thong Says:

    On a link provided by Zack T:
    Human Origins: Apes Or Adam?
    from the May 10, 2011 eNews issue
    http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1774/

    Paleoanthropology is the fascinating study of ancient humanity through the excavation of bones and evidences of human culture from thousands of years ago. Of course, the majority of paleoanthropologists long to find out not only about ancient humanity, but also about the descent of mankind from the apes. This motivation to find missing links colors every new hominid discovery. From Lucy to Turkana Boy to Peking Man, paleoanthropologists believe they have found pieces of humanity’s ancient family tree – the links between the apes and modern day humans. But, do any true missing links exist? Or is tree of ancient humanity really just a pair of two separate bushes – one of apes and one of humans?
    …………………….
    New hominid remains are found every year, always with much fanfare. Rather than clearing up the question of human ancestry for evolutionists, though, these always seem to just add another twig on the already-twiggy branches of either humans or apes. They have yet to provide a true trunk that links the two branches together.

    Copyright © 1996-2011 by Koinonia House Inc., P.O. Box D, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83816

  117. Early Man: From Science to Art.. | weehingthong Says:

    […] Pointless, Meaningless – The Why of Evolution (https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/pointless-meaningless-the-why-of-evolution/) […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: