Thunderfoot > Ben Stein

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Vertical evolution = macroevolution

I understand what speciation is and I've heard of Darwin's Finches and the peppered moths. Perhaps you didn't understand my phrasiology, but that's what I meant by "(and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution)." I'm satisfied with the evidence for small-scall evolution as represented by the terms you mentioned for me to google. I have no problems accepting microevolution (and I continue to distinguish from macroevolution for a reason, despite the only differences being time) as absolute fact because I can see the experimentation. (Similar to how I won't deny the volumetric shape of the earth or our heliocentric orbit due to actual visual evidence.)

My source of confusion arises from the proposition that microevolution + time = macroevolution. In other words, given a starting point (which starting point we shall assume as being axiomatic as well as providing the basic ingredients of life) and many eons, there will be a progression from "simple" organisms to "complex" organisms (relatively compared). Of course, due to constraints involving lifespan and the fact that human history, as well as scientific advancement, have only just begun (with respect to the scale of existence of our universe to human existence, according to modern dating) it is impossible to observe first-hand the long-term effects of mutations and the subsequent changes they would invoke. Which begs the question, what the hell is information and how do we know it can be gained (as opposed to lost, maintained, or modified) from mutations in such a way as to promote beneficial morphological adaption over long periods if that information did not exist in the genetic code before such processes started?

And what is the medium for transmission of information between an organism and its environment, and how does the organism "know" when it needs to evolve (or is that incorrect)? If an organism which spends all of its time on land experiences a drastic environmental change such that it now spends 90% of its time in water, what mechanism of interaction initiates the adaption process? Do sensory organs recognize increased contact time with an unstable, liquid substance which, in turn, causes a "panic" (of death) which starts cellular mutations in order to combat an extinction threat? How do these organisms know how to respond to stresses? Information is transfered from something, so where does the compatibility between an organism and external information come from? In other words, how does the organism know how to interpret the information to initiate the evolution of new parts that provide it with compatibility? For example, the organism above might start to evolve its feet into flippers. If this organism never experienced living time in water, how would it, or whatever's "in charge," know that flippers are beneficial to swimming? (As if there was a predetermined response to that particular stress situation, despite never experiencing it.)

(ugh, I'm just a mess of questions right now )

Let me start by saying that I'm not a biologist, so I may be wrong about the specifics of evolution. However, I feel I have a fairly good understanding of the concept overall. Let me address your points as best I can.

First off, an organism does not "know" it needs to evolve. Drastic changes are not the driving force behind evolution. People have this idea that evolution comes around because of some cataclysmic event, such as floods or volcanoes, but that's really not the case. Evolution is gradual change over a lengthy period of time; it is not a response to a sudden, drastic shift in environment.

At its core, evolution is adaptation based on advantages that lead to a higher likelihood of reproduction. I had the good fortune to go to the Galapagos when I was younger, and they love to talk about evolution there. Virtually every island in the Galapagos has prickly pear cactuses. They have sharp thorns to deter predators. Except on the island of Genovesa, where the prickly pears have thorns that are as soft as hair. Why? Because the Galapagos tortoise, the primary consumer of the prickly pear, never lived on the island of Genovesa. With no natural predators, the prickly pear did not need sharp thorns to survive, so gradually it lost them.

Here is where the process gets confused. People think that the plant must have actively realized it didn't need thorns and decided to stop growing them. This is obviously silly, and one of the major misconceptions about evolution. What actually happened was that prickly pears would grow with sharp thorns. Occasionally, through normal mutation, a prickly pear would grow without sharp thorns. On the islands with predators, these soft thorn cactus were quickly eaten before they had a chance to reproduce. On Genovesa, they were not eaten, so their genes ended up mixing in with the rest of the population. In fact, because these prickly pears were not using their resources to grow large thorns, they were able to get larger than the other prickly pears. This became advantageous for reproduction, so their genes started composing a larger portion of the genetic pool of prickly pears on the island. Gradually, over a period of tens of thousands of years, the prickly pear population on Genovesa lost the sharp thorns as they were no longer advantageous for survival.

I have to go to an office lunch now, so I'll try to post more later, but this is a basic example of how evolution happens in nature.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Vertical evolution = macroevolution

I understand what speciation is and I've heard of Darwin's Finches and the peppered moths. Perhaps you didn't understand my phrasiology, but that's what I meant by "(and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution)." I'm satisfied with the evidence for small-scall evolution as represented by the terms you mentioned for me to google. I have no problems accepting microevolution (and I continue to distinguish from macroevolution for a reason, despite the only differences being time) as absolute fact because I can see the experimentation. (Similar to how I won't deny the volumetric shape of the earth or our heliocentric orbit due to actual visual evidence.)

My source of confusion arises from the proposition that microevolution + time = macroevolution. In other words, given a starting point (which starting point we shall assume as being axiomatic as well as providing the basic ingredients of life) and many eons, there will be a progression from "simple" organisms to "complex" organisms (relatively compared). Of course, due to constraints involving lifespan and the fact that human history, as well as scientific advancement, have only just begun (with respect to the scale of existence of our universe to human existence, according to modern dating) it is impossible to observe first-hand the long-term effects of mutations and the subsequent changes they would invoke. Which begs the question, what the hell is information and how do we know it can be gained (as opposed to lost, maintained, or modified) from mutations in such a way as to promote beneficial morphological adaption over long periods if that information did not exist in the genetic code before such processes started?

And what is the medium for transmission of information between an organism and its environment, and how does the organism "know" when it needs to evolve (or is that incorrect)? If an organism which spends all of its time on land experiences a drastic environmental change such that it now spends 90% of its time in water, what mechanism of interaction initiates the adaption process? Do sensory organs recognize increased contact time with an unstable, liquid substance which, in turn, causes a "panic" (of death) which starts cellular mutations in order to combat an extinction threat? How do these organisms know how to respond to stresses? Information is transfered from something, so where does the compatibility between an organism and external information come from? In other words, how does the organism know how to interpret the information to initiate the evolution of new parts that provide it with compatibility? For example, the organism above might start to evolve its feet into flippers. If this organism never experienced living time in water, how would it, or whatever's "in charge," know that flippers are beneficial to swimming? (As if there was a predetermined response to that particular stress situation, despite never experiencing it.)

(ugh, I'm just a mess of questions right now )

Let me start by saying that I'm not a biologist, so I may be wrong about the specifics of evolution. However, I feel I have a fairly good understanding of the concept overall. Let me address your points as best I can.

First off, an organism does not "know" it needs to evolve. Drastic changes are not the driving force behind evolution. People have this idea that evolution comes around because of some cataclysmic event, such as floods or volcanoes, but that's really not the case. Evolution is gradual change over a lengthy period of time; it is not a response to a sudden, drastic shift in environment.

At its core, evolution is adaptation based on advantages that lead to a higher likelihood of reproduction. I had the good fortune to go to the Galapagos when I was younger, and they love to talk about evolution there. Virtually every island in the Galapagos has prickly pear cactuses. They have sharp thorns to deter predators. Except on the island of Genovesa, where the prickly pears have thorns that are as soft as hair. Why? Because the Galapagos tortoise, the primary consumer of the prickly pear, never lived on the island of Genovesa. With no natural predators, the prickly pear did not need sharp thorns to survive, so gradually it lost them.

Here is where the process gets confused. People think that the plant must have actively realized it didn't need thorns and decided to stop growing them. This is obviously silly, and one of the major misconceptions about evolution. What actually happened was that prickly pears would grow with sharp thorns. Occasionally, through normal mutation, a prickly pear would grow without sharp thorns. On the islands with predators, these soft thorn cactus were quickly eaten before they had a chance to reproduce. On Genovesa, they were not eaten, so their genes ended up mixing in with the rest of the population. In fact, because these prickly pears were not using their resources to grow large thorns, they were able to get larger than the other prickly pears. This became advantageous for reproduction, so their genes started composing a larger portion of the genetic pool of prickly pears on the island. Gradually, over a period of tens of thousands of years, the prickly pear population on Genovesa lost the sharp thorns as they were no longer advantageous for survival.

I have to go to an office lunch now, so I'll try to post more later, but this is a basic example of how evolution happens in nature.

Yeah, or the FSM, who is a fan of diversity, wanted some cactus thorns with stiff pre-boiled pasta rigidity and some cactus with soft al dente like protrusions, so he waved the noodles and made it so.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
723
126
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Elementary question:

I've been puzzled by the concept of vertical evolution. I know microevolution has been observed and is a fact, but from what can science make the leap to drastic morphological adaption? I know it takes places with small changes over time (Ma's & Ga's), but if it's never been seen (and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution). Since we can't stick around that long, is the assumption founded in an acceptance of Darwin's theory based on what makes the best sense currently? We either came from a common template or a common ancestor, and science follows the common ancestor theory because that's what has been agreed upon as the best explanation for diversity, right?

I don't know what you mean by vertical evolution, but google "speciation", "darwin finches", and "biogeography"

Vertical evolution = macroevolution

-snip-

You really should read up on evolution. It seems you have learned every misconception there is about the process.

Enig101 & Atomic Playboy have you on the right track.
 

BigToque

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,700
0
76
As soon at that guy started calling Stein a fool he lost all credibility. If you can't make your point without throwing around personal insults, I won't listen to it.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: BigToque
As soon at that guy started calling Stein a fool he lost all credibility. If you can't make your point without throwing around personal insults, I won't listen to it.

Since it doesn't sound like you're kidding, lemme splain. Stein said when you want to challenge someone you don't repress their opinion, you let them say it out loud and THEN you say "'you fool!' and blow them out of the water!"

See what the narrator was doing there?
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BigToque
As soon at that guy started calling Stein a fool he lost all credibility. If you can't make your point without throwing around personal insults, I won't listen to it.

Since it doesn't sound like you're kidding, lemme splain. Stein said when you want to challenge someone you don't repress their opinion, you let them say it out loud and THEN you say "'you fool!' and blow them out of the water!"

See what the narrator was doing there?

Apparently this concept goes over the head for some people. What's funny is that the author of the video even edits in video clips to double illustrate what Stein himself is saying, yet a lot of people miss that. I don't know how the author of the video could possibly make it any more obvious, but I guess people see and hear what they want to, and nothing else.
 

BigToque

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,700
0
76
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BigToque
As soon at that guy started calling Stein a fool he lost all credibility. If you can't make your point without throwing around personal insults, I won't listen to it.

Since it doesn't sound like you're kidding, lemme splain. Stein said when you want to challenge someone you don't repress their opinion, you let them say it out loud and THEN you say "'you fool!' and blow them out of the water!"

See what the narrator was doing there?

Apparently this concept goes over the head for some people. What's funny is that the author of the video even edits in video clips to double illustrate what Stein himself is saying, yet a lot of people miss that. I don't know how the author of the video could possibly make it any more obvious, but I guess people see and hear what they want to, and nothing else.

Nothing went over my head. Stein never should have said what he did, as all he's doing is advocating name calling. The guy who took Stein up on his offer is immature. Both people made themselves look like they have nothing worthwhile to say.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: BigToque
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BigToque
As soon at that guy started calling Stein a fool he lost all credibility. If you can't make your point without throwing around personal insults, I won't listen to it.

Since it doesn't sound like you're kidding, lemme splain. Stein said when you want to challenge someone you don't repress their opinion, you let them say it out loud and THEN you say "'you fool!' and blow them out of the water!"

See what the narrator was doing there?

Apparently this concept goes over the head for some people. What's funny is that the author of the video even edits in video clips to double illustrate what Stein himself is saying, yet a lot of people miss that. I don't know how the author of the video could possibly make it any more obvious, but I guess people see and hear what they want to, and nothing else.

Nothing went over my head. Stein never should have said what he did, as all he's doing is advocating name calling. The guy who took Stein up on his offer is immature. Both people made themselves look like they have nothing worthwhile to say.

Stein was exaggerating to make a point about not censoring thought or expression, which no one in science advocates. The movie narrator thought (correctly) that it would be humorous to run with the challenge as stated. No one is advocating ad hominem attacks you fool.
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
25
91
I didn't find the narrator's voice annoying at all. In fact, I think "You fool!" sounds quite charming with a Brittish accent, just like, "We did do the nose... and the hat."
 

ondarkness

Platinum Member
Nov 10, 2004
2,003
1
81
i like ben stein's character, but not too excited about this.
just like i loved Mulder on xfiles even though david dicovny doesn't believe himself.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BigToque
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BigToque
As soon at that guy started calling Stein a fool he lost all credibility. If you can't make your point without throwing around personal insults, I won't listen to it.

Since it doesn't sound like you're kidding, lemme splain. Stein said when you want to challenge someone you don't repress their opinion, you let them say it out loud and THEN you say "'you fool!' and blow them out of the water!"

See what the narrator was doing there?

Apparently this concept goes over the head for some people. What's funny is that the author of the video even edits in video clips to double illustrate what Stein himself is saying, yet a lot of people miss that. I don't know how the author of the video could possibly make it any more obvious, but I guess people see and hear what they want to, and nothing else.

Nothing went over my head. Stein never should have said what he did, as all he's doing is advocating name calling. The guy who took Stein up on his offer is immature. Both people made themselves look like they have nothing worthwhile to say.

Stein was exaggerating to make a point about not censoring thought or expression, which no one in science advocates. The movie narrator thought (correctly) that it would be humorous to run with the challenge as stated. No one is advocating ad hominem attacks you fool.

^^ :laugh:
 

Mr Pepper

Senior member
Oct 15, 1999
282
0
0
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
723
126
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers in a completely unscientific manner..

fixed.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

It's not atheists you won't be able to convince that ID is a scientifically plausible theory, it's any thinking person. Including the devout, Republican, Bush appointed federal judge who wrote a 100 page opinion smacking down a PA schoolboard's attempts to integrate ID into science classes.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/ms...220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question
of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not
, and moreover
that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs? scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin?s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory
cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions."

 

Mr Pepper

Senior member
Oct 15, 1999
282
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

It's not atheists you won't be able to convince that ID is a scientifically plausible theory, it's any thinking person.

If that were true, this would not be an issue, but since more than 80% of Americans claim to believe in ID, I would lean toward there being a large hole in your assumption.


That is, if polls are to be believed.

America?s Favorite Book

The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans

 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
25
91
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

I wish I could take credit for this brilliant writing. ...alas, I can not!

However I do believe this might shed some light on what it's like to talk with someone like you and have them tell me I can't comprehend something because I have no faith. I have no faith because I have no evidence. But if I had evidence I wouldn't need faith would I? Your circular arguments are the first kind of FALSEHOOD I learned about in Philosophy 101. Ahh but the devil is in the details, READ ON!

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

* There is a man who lives at the North Pole.
* He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.
* During the year, he and the elves build toys.
* Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.
* He puts the sack in his sleigh.
* He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.
* He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.
* He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.
* He leaves toys for the children of the household.
* He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.
* He does this all around the world in one night.
* Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.

This, of course, is the story of Santa Claus.

But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.

What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.

Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.

Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is a delusion. The way that you would try to do that is by asking me some questions. For example, you might say to me:

* "But how can the sleigh carry enough toys for everyone in the world?" I say to you that the sleigh is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.

* "How does Santa get into houses and apartments that don't have chimneys?" I say that Santa can make chimneys appear, as shown to all of us in the movie The Santa Clause.

* "How does Santa get down the chimney if there's a fire in the fireplace?" I say that Santa has a special flame-resistant suit, and it cleans itself too.

* "Why doesn't the security system detect Santa?" Santa is invisible to security systems.

* "How can Santa travel fast enough to visit every child in one night?" Santa is timeless.

* "How can Santa know whether every child has been bad or good?" Santa is omniscient.

* "Why are the toys distributed so unevenly? Why does Santa deliver more toys to rich kids, even if they are bad, than he ever gives to poor kids?" There is no way for us to understand the mysteries of Santa because we are mere mortals, but Santa has his reasons. For example, perhaps poor children would be unable to handle a flood of expensive electronic toys. How would they afford the batteries? So Santa spares them this burden.

These are all quite logical questions that you have asked. I have answered all of them for you. I am wondering why you can't see what I see, and you are wondering how I can be so insane.

Why didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm your assessment. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Now let me show you another example...

Another Example

Imagine that I tell you the following story:

* I was in my room one night.
* Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.
* Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.
* He tells me an amazing story.
* He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
* On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.
* These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.
* Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.
* Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.
* Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.
* I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
* And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!
* I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it?

You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.

Most people would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. They would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations -- having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.

What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon.

If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Another example

Imagine that I tell you this story:

* A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.
* A very bright flash of light appeared.
* A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.
* Then the man asked, "What should I read?"
* The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."
* The man ran home to his wife.
* While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.
* At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.
* Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said.
* Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.
* The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there.
* The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped. All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today.
[Source: "Understanding Islam" by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha press, 2002]

What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical in the same way that you feel about the stories of the golden plates and Santa. You would especially feel that way once you read the book that was supposedly transcribed from Gabriel, because much of it is opaque. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh -- you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.

But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.

Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary -- as imaginary as flying reindeer.

If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly -- we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.

An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, Muslims can see that Mormons are delusional, Mormons can see that Muslims are delusional, and Christians can see that both Mormons and Muslims are delusional.

One final example

Now let me tell you one final story:

* God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.
* Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God.
* God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby.
* In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus.
* As a man, God's son claimed that he was God incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said.
* This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is God.
* But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion.
* His body was placed in a tomb.
* But three days later, the tomb was empty.
* And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
* Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the father almighty, never to be seen again.
* Today you can have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, etc.
* This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die.
* The reason we know all this is because, after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.

This, of course, is the story of Jesus. Do you believe this story? If you are a Christian, you probably do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them, in just the same way that I had answers for all of the Santa questions that my friend asked me in Example 1. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:

* The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks - see this proof.

* Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today - see this proof.

* Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered - see this proof.

* The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions - see this proof.

* And so on.

In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined.

Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?

Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa, Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:

* Is there any physical evidence that Jesus existed? - No. He left no trace. His body "ascended into heaven." He wrote nothing down. None of his "miracles" left any permanent evidence. There is, literally, nothing.

* Is there any reason to believe that Jesus actually performed these miracles, or that he rose from the dead, or that he ascended into heaven? - There is no more of a reason to believe this than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found the golden plates hidden in New York, or that Mohammed rode on a magical winged horse to heaven. Probably less of a reason, given that the record of Jesus' life is 2,000 years old, while that of Joseph Smith is less than 200 years old.

* You mean to tell me that I am supposed to believe this story of Jesus, and there is no proof or evidence to go by beyond a few attestations in the New Testament of a Bible that is provably meaningless? - Yes, you are supposed to believe it. You are supposed to take it on "faith."

No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc.

Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense? For example:

* Christians know that when the Egyptians built gigantic pyramids and mummified the bodies of their pharaohs, that it was a total waste of time -- otherwise Christians would build pyramids.

* Christians know that when the Aztecs carved the heart out of a virgin and ate it, that it accomplished nothing -- otherwise Christians would kill virgins.

* Christians know that when Muslims face Mecca to pray, that it is pointless -- otherwise Christians would face Mecca when they pray.

* Christians know that when Jews keep meat and dairy products separate, that they are wasting their time -- otherwise the cheeseburger would not be an American obsession.

Yet, when Christians look at their own religion, they are for some reason blind. Why? And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others. This book, if you will let it, can tell you why.

A simple experiment

If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.

Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:

Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra's name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.

What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray. Even if we find a thousand of Ra's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.

Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:

Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails.

If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability -- one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statitical analysis.

If you believe in God, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus... something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:

* It is not his will
* He doesn't have time
* I didn't pray the right way
* I am not worthy
* I do not have enough faith
* I cannot test the Lord like this
* It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
* And on and on and on...

One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: ?Well, of course Jesus doesn?t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.


 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

It's not atheists you won't be able to convince that ID is a scientifically plausible theory, it's any thinking person.

If that were true, this would not be an issue, but since more than 80% of Americans claim to believe in ID, I would lean toward there being a large hole in your assumption.


That is, if polls are to be believed.

America?s Favorite Book

The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans

That springs from ignorance of the facts of the difference between what ID purports to teach and what evolution purports to explain. A thinking person educated on the actual differences could make no other conclusion. Asking someone off the street if they believe in ID or evolution without educating them on the difference doesn't yield a result worthy of considering.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

I wish I could take credit for this brilliant writing. ...alas, I can not!

However I do believe this might shed some light on what it's like to talk with someone like you and have them tell me I can't comprehend something because I have no faith. I have no faith because I have no evidence. But if I had evidence I wouldn't need faith would I? Your circular arguments are the first kind of FALSEHOOD I learned about in Philosophy 101. Ahh but the devil is in the details, READ ON!

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

* There is a man who lives at the North Pole.
* He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.
* During the year, he and the elves build toys.
* Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.
* He puts the sack in his sleigh.
* He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.
* He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.
* He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.
* He leaves toys for the children of the household.
* He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.
* He does this all around the world in one night.
* Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.

This, of course, is the story of Santa Claus.

But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.

What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.

Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.

Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is a delusion. The way that you would try to do that is by asking me some questions. For example, you might say to me:

* "But how can the sleigh carry enough toys for everyone in the world?" I say to you that the sleigh is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.

* "How does Santa get into houses and apartments that don't have chimneys?" I say that Santa can make chimneys appear, as shown to all of us in the movie The Santa Clause.

* "How does Santa get down the chimney if there's a fire in the fireplace?" I say that Santa has a special flame-resistant suit, and it cleans itself too.

* "Why doesn't the security system detect Santa?" Santa is invisible to security systems.

* "How can Santa travel fast enough to visit every child in one night?" Santa is timeless.

* "How can Santa know whether every child has been bad or good?" Santa is omniscient.

* "Why are the toys distributed so unevenly? Why does Santa deliver more toys to rich kids, even if they are bad, than he ever gives to poor kids?" There is no way for us to understand the mysteries of Santa because we are mere mortals, but Santa has his reasons. For example, perhaps poor children would be unable to handle a flood of expensive electronic toys. How would they afford the batteries? So Santa spares them this burden.

These are all quite logical questions that you have asked. I have answered all of them for you. I am wondering why you can't see what I see, and you are wondering how I can be so insane.

Why didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm your assessment. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Now let me show you another example...

Another Example

Imagine that I tell you the following story:

* I was in my room one night.
* Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.
* Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.
* He tells me an amazing story.
* He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
* On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.
* These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.
* Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.
* Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.
* Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.
* I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
* And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!
* I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it?

You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.

Most people would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. They would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations -- having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.

What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon.

If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Another example

Imagine that I tell you this story:

* A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.
* A very bright flash of light appeared.
* A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.
* Then the man asked, "What should I read?"
* The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."
* The man ran home to his wife.
* While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.
* At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.
* Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said.
* Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.
* The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there.
* The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped. All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today.
[Source: "Understanding Islam" by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha press, 2002]

What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical in the same way that you feel about the stories of the golden plates and Santa. You would especially feel that way once you read the book that was supposedly transcribed from Gabriel, because much of it is opaque. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh -- you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.

But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.

Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary -- as imaginary as flying reindeer.

If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly -- we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.

An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, Muslims can see that Mormons are delusional, Mormons can see that Muslims are delusional, and Christians can see that both Mormons and Muslims are delusional.

One final example

Now let me tell you one final story:

* God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.
* Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God.
* God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby.
* In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus.
* As a man, God's son claimed that he was God incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said.
* This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is God.
* But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion.
* His body was placed in a tomb.
* But three days later, the tomb was empty.
* And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
* Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the father almighty, never to be seen again.
* Today you can have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, etc.
* This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die.
* The reason we know all this is because, after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.

This, of course, is the story of Jesus. Do you believe this story? If you are a Christian, you probably do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them, in just the same way that I had answers for all of the Santa questions that my friend asked me in Example 1. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:

* The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks - see this proof.

* Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today - see this proof.

* Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered - see this proof.

* The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions - see this proof.

* And so on.

In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined.

Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?

Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa, Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:

* Is there any physical evidence that Jesus existed? - No. He left no trace. His body "ascended into heaven." He wrote nothing down. None of his "miracles" left any permanent evidence. There is, literally, nothing.

* Is there any reason to believe that Jesus actually performed these miracles, or that he rose from the dead, or that he ascended into heaven? - There is no more of a reason to believe this than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found the golden plates hidden in New York, or that Mohammed rode on a magical winged horse to heaven. Probably less of a reason, given that the record of Jesus' life is 2,000 years old, while that of Joseph Smith is less than 200 years old.

* You mean to tell me that I am supposed to believe this story of Jesus, and there is no proof or evidence to go by beyond a few attestations in the New Testament of a Bible that is provably meaningless? - Yes, you are supposed to believe it. You are supposed to take it on "faith."

No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc.

Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense? For example:

* Christians know that when the Egyptians built gigantic pyramids and mummified the bodies of their pharaohs, that it was a total waste of time -- otherwise Christians would build pyramids.

* Christians know that when the Aztecs carved the heart out of a virgin and ate it, that it accomplished nothing -- otherwise Christians would kill virgins.

* Christians know that when Muslims face Mecca to pray, that it is pointless -- otherwise Christians would face Mecca when they pray.

* Christians know that when Jews keep meat and dairy products separate, that they are wasting their time -- otherwise the cheeseburger would not be an American obsession.

Yet, when Christians look at their own religion, they are for some reason blind. Why? And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others. This book, if you will let it, can tell you why.

A simple experiment

If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.

Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:

Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra's name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.

What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray. Even if we find a thousand of Ra's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.

Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:

Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails.

If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability -- one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statitical analysis.

If you believe in God, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus... something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:

* It is not his will
* He doesn't have time
* I didn't pray the right way
* I am not worthy
* I do not have enough faith
* I cannot test the Lord like this
* It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
* And on and on and on...

One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: ?Well, of course Jesus doesn?t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.


Here's another funny explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

* There is a man who lives at the North Pole.
* He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.
* During the year, he and the elves build toys.
* Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.
* He puts the sack in his sleigh.
* He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.
* He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.
* He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.
* He leaves toys for the children of the household.
* He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.
* He does this all around the world in one night.
SNIP
Better Nate than Lever?

Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?

This was like when Neo meets the Architect. heh.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

It's not atheists you won't be able to convince that ID is a scientifically plausible theory, it's any thinking person.

If that were true, this would not be an issue, but since more than 80% of Americans claim to believe in ID, I would lean toward there being a large hole in your assumption.


That is, if polls are to be believed.

America?s Favorite Book

The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans

1. Polls always have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, I will admit that the general characteristics appear to be true.

2. Sirjonk argued that ID isn't a "scientifically plausible theory". If you ask anyone who knows what the scientific theory is, they'll probably say that ID isn't a scientific theory. It simply isn't. The nice thing about the scientific method is that it's relatively binary. A theory must meet certain criteria to be considered as such. Otherwise, it's not a scientific theory. ID doesn't meet the requirements.
 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
3
81
Why is it that everyone who uses an American Flag avatar on this board is a mouthpiece for douchebaggery?
 

Mr Pepper

Senior member
Oct 15, 1999
282
0
0
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

I wish I could take credit for this brilliant writing. ...alas, I can not!

However I do believe this might shed some light on what it's like to talk with someone like you and have them tell me I can't comprehend something because I have no faith. I have no faith because I have no evidence. But if I had evidence I wouldn't need faith would I? Your circular arguments are the first kind of FALSEHOOD I learned about in Philosophy 101. Ahh but the devil is in the details, READ ON!

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

......... SNIP

* It is not his will
* He doesn't have time
* I didn't pray the right way
* I am not worthy
* I do not have enough faith
* I cannot test the Lord like this
* It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
* And on and on and on...

One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: ?Well, of course Jesus doesn?t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.


So first of all,

Spamming that much text into one post should be a felony. Simply making your point & linking your source would have been sufficient. Secondly, (yes I read through it) these types of arguments simply don't work. That's the kind of reasoning that disappoints dogs who think that good tasting treats are born in a refrigerator.

Let me answer your 50th "proof" on my own: "He would appear when people pray to see him. The reason why he does not appear is simple: Both Jesus and God are imaginary."

My answer: I see Him, as clear as day, at work in my life and in the lives of others. Which brings us exactly back to my first point: Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals. True atheists simply have no frame of reference to begin to comprehend reality based on faith. Jesus spoke in parables for that very reason. He would often begin with, "He who has ears, let him hear", knowing that what he was about to say was not going to get through to everyone in attendance.

All that said, I don't think Mr. Stein is trying to change the views of those who have already formed their stances. I think he is mainly trying to promote freedom to those who are in the process of searching for answers.

I wish I could take credit for this brilliant writing. ...alas, I can not!

However I do believe this might shed some light on what it's like to talk with someone like you and have them tell me I can't comprehend something because I have no faith. I have no faith because I have no evidence. But if I had evidence I wouldn't need faith would I? Your circular arguments are the first kind of FALSEHOOD I learned about in Philosophy 101. Ahh but the devil is in the details, READ ON!

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

......... SNIP

* It is not his will
* He doesn't have time
* I didn't pray the right way
* I am not worthy
* I do not have enough faith
* I cannot test the Lord like this
* It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
* And on and on and on...

One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: ?Well, of course Jesus doesn?t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.


So first of all,

Spamming that much text into one post should be a felony. Simply making your point & linking your source would have been sufficient. Secondly, (yes I read through it) these types of arguments simply don't work. That's the kind of reasoning that disappoints dogs who think that good tasting treats are born in a refrigerator.

Let me answer your 50th "proof" on my own: "He would appear when people pray to see him. The reason why he does not appear is simple: Both Jesus and God are imaginary."

My answer: I see Him, as clear as day, at work in my life and in the lives of others. Which brings us exactly back to my first point: Trying to convince an atheist that ID is plausible, is like trying to communicate with the blind mole rat using hand signals.

At the same time, trying to convince that the Big Brother in the sky doesnt exist is almost impossible.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |