betsy

Based on my Fatih, there is no such question of how God was made. The atheists' faith lies on their belief that the world created itself. I'm not an Evolutionist, and I'm not an IDer. My key point in this argument now is that: Darwin not only considered the possibility of "Design", but in fact capitulated and accepted it at some time (pls see DARWIN thread)....and all through and even near the end of his life, continued to consider the possibility. Antony Flew, a hard-core philosopher atheist who's known as a "legend" among atheists suddenly renounced atheism and embraced deism. He further criticized the theory of evolution and stoutly stated that the ID theory is more convincing. Dawkins, in a personal interview, also considers the possibility of "design" or a god....although he tries to avoid saying the word. (See Dawkins articles provided on this thread). That these three learned men had obviously seen something - enough to have made them consider the possibility of ID or "design" or a god.....then of course, the only conclusion to this is the same as that of the conclusion given by the philosopher Flew: ID theory is convincing and evolution is not. And remember, whenever you set out to prove something, if you're honest you may just disprove it. The honesty is the hard part. If you are truly interested in the theory of ID, you have to do the research to learn more about it.

How GOD was designed???? Anyway, obviously several learned people don't agree with you. I guess you haven't been following the thread, DARWIN and haven't read the whole exchanges on this thread. That's passe.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

After Darwin recanted and swung back, he still waivered.

Darwin did not say Intelligent Design (ID)....but he did refer to "design."

It's a good thing I explained what I meant by man-made religion. Obviously we don't have the same interpretation.

I was answering that particular question based on my faith.

I think I better explain that by man-made religion I mean various denominations, organizations, congregations etc.., Oh well, for a while I though she meant in our society in the present time. Yes. I believe he exists.

Oh well, you're entitled to your opinion.

But we're not talking about you. We're talking about the big honchos! Yes. Darwin. Dawkins. Other scientists. The main guys admitted about the possibility of ID! But it surely is more concrete than evolution! If Darwin and Dawkins both admitted to the possibility of ID....and legendary atheist Antony Flew compounded that by suddenly abandoning atheism and embracing deism....and stating that ID is more convincing....well, what more can we say? Irrelevant. Darwin and Dawkins and Flew definitely saw the possibility of ID. Admitted to it. It means IDers are confident about their theory that's why there is no "wiggling" around. And yes, science showed it has wiggle room. Darwin and Dawkins and other scientists "wiggled" over to the ID theory.

So what?

For those interested to read the evidence of Simon Greenleaf. Excerpts from... Opening Argument "Never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence." These are the words of Simon Greenleaf, the famous Harvard Law Professor considered by many to be the foremost legal expert on evidence the world has known. When it came to his opinion regarding Christianity, however, it was a standard he long refused to apply to himself - without examining any evidence he had already made up his mind about Christianity, holding that it was groundless and based on myths. Dr. Greenleaf eventually succumbed to a challenge by one of his students to review the evidence. Applying the principles contained in his 3 volume discourse A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, he became so overwhelmed by the evidence that he eventually became a Christian He came to the conclusion that there is more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history, and that any unbiased jury in the world would reach the same conclusion based on the unswerving evidence. In the following pages I hope you will sincerely apply Dr. Greenleaf's basic principle of first reviewing the evidence, then deciding on their merits. http://www.bibleevidences.com/opening_arg.htm

DR. SIMON GREENLEAF Dr. Greenleaf was the Royal Professor of Legal Evidences at Harvard University. He was goaded by his students into looking at the evidences for the resurrection. After a thorough examination he came back and said, “There is not a single unbiased juror in the world who would ever look at the evidence and deny it. Dr. Simon Greenleaf became a Christian. http://www.equip.org/perspectives/bible-my...e-bible-a-myth- Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's book, which he wrote after examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and becoming a christian,The Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists. He is distinguished as one who applied the canons of the ancient document rule to establish the authenticity of the gospel accounts, as well as cross-examination principles in assessing the testimony of those who bore witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. His style of reasoning is reflected in the apologetic works by John Warwick Montgomery, Josh McDowell and Ross Clifford. ''The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice'' or simply The Testimony of the Evangelists is an 1846 Christian apologetic work by Simon Greenleaf, a principal founder of the Harvard Law School. His "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842-1853)" forms the basis for his study of the gospels. Greenleaf came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection happened. Testimony of the Evangelist is often cited by contemporary Christian apologists. As a Christian apologist of the mid-Nineteenth century, Greenleaf was one of many writers who contributed to the debates that ensued on both sides of the Atlantic concerning the historicity of the gospel accounts in general, and specifically the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Part of his argument relied on earlier Christian apologists such as William Paley, Thomas Hartwell Horne, and Mark Hopkins, and he cites their works in The Testimony of the Evangelists. Here he followed the basic appeals to logic, reason, and historical evidences on behalf of the Bible generally, and in defence of the possibility of miracles occurring. However, what distinguished Greenleaf from previous apologists is that he is the first American apologist to develop an argument favoring the reliability of the gospels and specifically on the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ using technical legal criteria. His technical arguments concerning the evidentiary weight of the eyewitness passages found in the gospel narratives, the criteria for cross-examining that eyewitness testimony, and the claimed status of the gospels as competent evidence, have been relied on and restated by several American Christian apologists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such as Clarence Bartlett (As A Lawyer Sees Jesus), Walter M. Chandler (The Trial of Jesus), Pamela Binnings Ewen (Faith on Trial), Francis J. Lamb (Miracle and Science), Irwin H. Linton (A Lawyer Examines the Bible), Josh McDowell (More Than A Carpenter, The Resurrection Factor), Howard Hyde Russell (A Lawyer's Examination of the Bible),Joseph Evans Sagebeer (The Bible in Court), and Stephen D. Williams (The Bible in Court or Truth vs Error). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelist

Now I hope you're not trying to take my message out of context. I said, "depending on where you live." Our values here were derived from the Christian values - from Christian settlers. One of the main opposition to euthanasia is for the protection of those who are vulnerable. The handicapped and their advocates are in an uproar. They are deeply concerned and fear that this euthanisia will be abused and used to actually murder those who cannot protect themselves. Somebody is already testing as we speak. A perfectly healthy woman whose husband is dying wants to die with him. Hah, before you know it...a dying person will want his whole family to die with him...ala-pharaoh. The whole entourage in death! On the same token, why should we let a group turn our society upside down just because they have chips on their shoulders regarding religion? I hope you're not using the ploy of a circular discussion. I've explained to you why I brought it up....perhaps you missed that part? You're speculating.... In a debate, making bold claims such as that will require a substantial back-up from a credible source. Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Still on the subject of death, when a dying person "makes peace with himself...," to us Christians it's also known as "make peace with God." I sincerely wonder, how does that translate to an atheist? How is it like at that moment? Can an atheist truly "make peace with himself?" If we compare what would be the dying thoughts of an atheist and a Christian (after they'd said their goodbyes), both "making peace with himself," preparing for that moment....between the two, who's the most likely to be at peace in the moment of death? The Christian, comforted in the knowledge of an afterlife....or the atheist more likely beset with more doubt, the question of "what ifs:" what if I'm wrong? what if there's a God? And since there is the inevitable fear of the unknown....who feels this fear more so? The one who has faith in God and secure in the knowledge of a resurrection....or the one who still ponders and questions, "is death really the end?" If not, "what waits on the other side?"

I'm glad you finally see my point. You agree with me that they considered/consider the possibility of a god...."or Design"....or ID. The conclusion: between the two theories, ID is far more convincing.

Are you talking about sects and cult followers? Like Jim Jones? Be specific. Be specific. Are you talking about man-made religion....or God? Be specific. What do you mean by "uncontrollable?" What is wrong about religion/church being all those? Because true faith needs to be worked on! It's not just a matter of attending this "social gathering" and declaring "I believe!" For some people, faith is the most durable "coping mechanism." You may not agree with me on that nevertheless how would you know? Of course it will be difficult for you to understand that feeling that a believer feels. What other "durable coping mechanisms" do you have in mind like let's say to a Christian woman who's left widowed? Oh give me a break! You're talking of looney tunes. C'mon....who prays for rain and just sits and wait for it to pour? Be realistic! If you're talking of sudden death - like accidents - your question is valid. Didn't Christ repeatedly warn of being prepared, for death comes like a thief in the night? But if you mean like someone who's actually dying and lucid enough to be able to do some reflecting....let me put it this way: Death is the beginning for a believer. Whereas to an Atheist, death means the end since you guys don't believe in the afterlife, right? So after death you rot and you're worm food and that's it! Goodbye forever and ever! What do you think a dying Christian will prefer to cling to at the moment of death? Which would he prefer to believe? Would he prefer to call on God (even if he's doubted all through life) - just in case what the Bible say is true....or will he prefer to accept that he's just going to become fertilizer? The question you should ask is that how many atheists in the same dying situation will suddenly scramble to make a connection with the God they've always denied! You know....just in case. Yes, Dawkins is in that business....providing crutches and safety nets to those who need reassurance that indeed there is no God!

So you saw that Moore podcast two years ago. It's being R E F U T E D! Evolution’s DNA Game: Anywhere from 98 to 70% March 8, 2009 in Evolution | Tags: Charles Darwin, Creation, Darwin, DNA, Genetics, Intelligent Design, Science "From time to time, there’s a new statistic that comes out which compares the DNA of humans to that of chimps. Due to the similarity in the genetics, these statistics are accompanied by news reports in the media and scientific publications as “proof” that Darwin was right about the descent of man from ape-like creatures. The most commonly cited statistic that I know of says that humans and chimps differ by about 1.5% genetically. From this, it would seem that such an apparent major similarity between chimps and humans in their DNA seems to show that Creationists are fighting a losing battle in the Evolution-Creation debate. But the question then becomes: “Does similarity necessarily prove common descent?” A comparison of different analysis’ of the genetic comparisons between chimps and humans seem to show that this is not so clear-cut. They show that different researchers come to different conclusions as to how related we are to chimps. — A certain study from the National Academy of Sciences reveals that, The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. The difference between this statistic and the earlier one is that the figure of 95% includes the indels while the earlier one doesn’t. Also, yet another study shows that the similarity may be even less, at only 86.7% meaning that the divergence is 13.3%. This also includes the indels. So, with differing results it seems that there is no consensus to the exact similarity between humans and chimps. But there’s more. Recently Dr. Richard Buggs, a research geneticist at the University of Florida, reported that the apparent similarity of 98.5% between chimps and humans was misleading. After taking into account many differences between the two genomes that numerous studies do not, he concludes that the genetic similarity may actually be lower than 70%. If the genetic similarity between chimps and humans is between 95% and 70%, then in my view this could bring up certain implications. What I mean is that the DNA of mice is only different from ours by only 2.5% and therefore 97.5% the same. And yet, another statistic shows that our genes are 99% the identical to theirs. So since the DNA of mice is debatably more similar to ours than ours is to that of chimps, this could create a problem for the assumption that chimpanzees are our closest cousins." http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2009/...-from-98-to-70/

Yes, open mind! As a scientist should! And I agree whole-heartedly! THAT'S in fact the point of my argument! Quite the contrary to what Dawkins is busily engaged in. Seeing the angst he suffered, torn between "Design" and the pursuit of his theory - which he doubted, pls refer to thread on Darwin - where do you think he would stand today? Here are my speculation(s)....based on the various researched evidences about Darwin. First and foremost, he'll be blasting Dawkins for being so un-scientific! For making a mockery of science! Then most likely, he'll be re-positioning himself behind the ID theory! Or come up with something like it!

Such allegations are more damning because Dhalla is not just a regular MP. She's the critic for multiculturalism. Not only the allegations of abuse and exploitation....but also the allegation that the passports of these nannies were taken. At least she stepped down from office while investigation is going on.

Excerpts from... THE UNCANNY FAITH OF RICHARD DAWKINS -Reader Kyle Lickiss As one is probably aware from contemporary events, “faith” has come under serious scrutiny. Within western society, there is an increasingly outspoken group trying to dichotomize faith and reason. This is best seen in the arena of the debate between God and evolution. This segment of society is openly hostile to 'faith,' and especially as it relates to religion. One of this movement's most influential individuals is a British Biologist, and self acclaimed atheist, Richard Dawkins.6 Is faith really blind? Is faith the great cop-out as Mr. Dawkins so astutely would have us to believe? Are faith and religion synonymous with ignoramuses, fools and the unintelligent masses of our society? Could it be possible that faith, as defined by statement B can also be found at the same level within the defenders of atheism, those bastions of pure science and evolution? For the present this discussion will be limited to the written works of Dr. Richard Dawkins.10 In the proceeding paragraphs, the position will be postulated that Mr. Dawkins has faith. The very thing that Dawkins castigates can, by closer investigation, be identified within Dawkins’ works. Mr. Dawkins has as much faith as many religious people. Richard Dawkins' faith is found in science, in himself, and faithfully within other people. This faith that he holds can also be categorized as a religion.11 Let us first begin our case by investigating the possible faith that Dawkins places upon the works of others. Laying down the introduction for his rebuttal against the "Proof of God by the Argument from Scripture," Dawkins had this to say: The fact something is written down is persuasive to people not used to asking questions like: 'Who wrote it, and when?' 'How did they know what to write?' 'Did they, in their time really mean what we, in our time, understand them to be saying?' 'Were they unbiased observers, or did they have an agenda that coloured their writing?'12 Yet within that same topic, he quotes from N. Wilson, who “in his biography of Jesus, casts doubt on the story that Joseph was a carpenter at all. . . .This is one of several constructive mistranslations that bedevil the Bible.”13 Dawkins then quotes from one, Ibn Warraq, about a possible mistranslation of the Koran regarding “virgins.”14 Shortly thereafter, Dawkins introduces a Professor G. A. Wells, “of the University of London,”15 author of the book, Did Jesus Exist, because, “It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all . . . .”16 Dawkins then goes on to another profound quote, less than a page later. . . . ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world. All were written long after the death of Jesus . . .All were then copied and recopied, through many different ‘Chinese Whispers' generations by fallible scribes who in any case had their own religious agendas.17 Remember that Dawkins has subtly alluded to a person’s faith in the Bible because of their inability to grasp reality. It is more convenient to place one's faith in written literature and leave the brain tucked in the home closet. But look at what Dawkins has achieved within his book, and in only two pages! He has placed his faith upon the works of several authors. Is he saying in essence, “They wrote it; therefore it must be true?”18 http://uocc.ca/pdf/reflections/richard-dawkins.pdf

Values depending on where you live on this planet. If you live in a place where the values were derived from their religion, of course the values will reflect that religion. If you live with a tribe in a jungle, of course the values of that tribe will reflect whatever it was that influenced them. You speak about "force to conform to religious values," - do you mean murder, stealing, rape, brutalizing, etc... should not be considered criminal acts and shouldn't be punishable in our society since having laws that deal with these acts mean Christian values are being enforced on everyone? It didn't bother me. I was just pointing out the cheesy way Dawkins is using and riding on the tails of the successful gay rights movement. Just the use of the word "out" - why, can't he come up with another word? Comparing gays to that of atheists is simply minimizing the plight of gays. Gays got physically bashed and some were killed simply for being gay. Do we hear anyone assaulting or killing atheists simply because they're atheists? So yes, Dawkins is exploiting and riding on the back of the gay rights movement! For publicity! For sensationalism! What next? Geraldo Show? Hey, did you see me criticising the bus campaign? It's a free country. Freedom of speech! I think even some churches came out to say that. But of course I can't help but be amused about this. It's too.....juvenile (for lack of a better word). Funny, because of Dawkins. His supposed exalted stature in SCIENCE! Look what he's doing....indulging in a silly tit-for-tat! Well look who's promoting conflict! Ha-ha-ha Just judging from this board alone....most atheists here seem to have read Dawkins! They know the "pie-in-the-sky" and other goobly-gooky soundbytes of Dawkins! I didn't even know what apologists were or who those apologists I quoted in the other thread "Rejoice..." until I did a google and accidentally struck gold! People who turned their backs on their religion...are the most likely to gobble up his books. They need constant reassurance. And he knows it! Firm believers of Christian faith do not need any other books other than the Bible. Just like firm atheists do not need proof that religion is wrong and that there is no God. Yeah...then why the need to ask for donations? I'm sure he's rich...very rich. Most rich people want to get more rich! Don't count him out! Just because he hasn't formally established his church of atheism, yet.....doesn't meant he's not going that way. Who knows. Maybe he'll be inspired again (just like he was inspired by the Gay Rights Movement ), maybe this time the inspiration will come from those bible-tent in the USA...and he'll do the travelling Ministry of Dawkins on the Atheist Love Bus.

I think so too. Clues are pointing that way. Darwin's doubt about his theory....his capitulation about "design." True that that was a century ago, but what about the current scientists who came up with ID? They must've come up with the same questions that Darwin faced plus more...enought o convince them about ID. Then this legendary hard-core atheist who suddenly changed to deism....and flatly said that ID theory is more convincing! And then there's the Dawkins interview that got him more-or less accepting "design"...or alluding to God. All these together....it's quite telling! It's something that can't be pooh-poohed. Between ID and Dawkins' evolution, ID theory is far more likely the way it was/is.

And just take a look at this: Really. It's so cheesy. His focus is on religion! Why would it bother him what religous people think. If you don't believe, you don't believe! If you're an atheist, then you're an atheist! Besides, in this current climate why does he think people will care if he's atheist or gay or transexual. Those are just too common now. These days, it's the octo-moms and three-breasted mamas that gets eyebrows rising and mouths gaping. Dawkins is making it like atheists are being persecuted. Yet he rabidly attacks all people with religious beliefs...with insults and ridicule! This is all for show. He loves publicity. Publicity generates more money! He's too deep in religion. And he's more into writing controversial bestsellers. His credibility as a scientist is terribly compromised. Looks like his obsession with religion and God had made him bonkers. And it is an obsession! Or A lucrative money-making scheme.

For those truly interested to understand the man, the theory in an objective way.....I urge you to read the whole exchanges.