Debating an Atheist

[backwoodsman]

What about this parable, about being immediately with God after physical death (from death to immediately being with God, no resurrection):

It's not a parable, it's a story from the Babylonian Talmud with which Jesus' hearers were certainly very familiar. I'd have thought you'd have learned that in seminary. Maybe your knowledge of Christianity isn't quite as thorough as you think?

[john6809]

You are not understanding the argument.

I think I do; I just don't agree about the outcome.

Truman said, "There is absolutely no reason a designer would do such an absurd design; meanwhile, there's a perfect evolutionary answer."

Gray's anatomy says, "As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior."

The main destination is the larynx, but it also plays a part in the function of the heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and esophagus. Could be an explanation of it's route.

Also, since the embryo needs a functioning heart early on in it's development, which subsequently drops into it's position in the chest, could it drag the nerves with it?

Like I said, we don't have all the answers yet. One day, with more research, it may be as plain as all the other "useless" body parts and "absurd designs". Wouldn't be the first time evolutionists got it wrong.

[mattrose]

What about this parable, about being immediately with God after physical death (from death to immediately being with God, no resurrection):

This is a very fitting story for you to quote!

As was said above, this story is not an endorsement of its details concerning life after death. It was a pre-existing story that Jesus utilized to make a separate point. Jesus stories often contained surprising twists. What is interesting is that the pre-existing stories (stories that use the same motif as this story) pretty much all end in the same way. After a reversal of fortunes in the afterlife, one of the deceased asks if he can 'go back' and warn others. In the pre-existing stories, this request is granted! The shocking twist in Jesus' version of the story is that the request is denied!

SO what is the point of Jesus' twist? His point seems to be that we have enough 'revelation' already and absolute proof isn't necessary (nor would it even be interpreted as absolute proof). I think this is a very fitting story for you b/c I do sense that a lot of your issues are wrapped around the need for certainty. You FEEL like scientism provides your needs in this area. In reality, neither scientism nor Christianity (nor anything else for that matter) can provide you with absolute certainty. But this is not a bad thing since certainty isn't the thing we should be searching for in the first place! We should be searching for truth, or better yet, Truth. And we have more than enough evidence to point us toward Truth as it stands (we even DID get the resurrection).

Unfortunately, a lot of things can prevent us from actually pursuing the truth... whether it be the quest for certainty, false-beliefs, fear, etc. I'm thinking that a wall standing between you and Truth is likely your idolization of science (you've turned it into scientism). Some day that idol will crumble. When that happens, you'll have another opportunity to turn to a real God.

[steve]

Backwoodsman wrote:

Did you read the description of Rask's book on Amazon.com?
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Affirmi ... 936320606/

I couldn't help but notice this: "There is found to be universally a logical disconnect between the purported evolutionary experiments or observations and their evolutionary conclusion. The most common logical error was the fallacy of affirming the consequent."

A quick explanation of "Affirming the consequent":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Apparently you don't recognize that most of what you say is based on this logical disconnect and fallacy. You won't listen to us; Rask has some scientific education, so maybe you'll listen to him.

Dr. Rask sent me his book (he is a listener to The Narrow Path) and I have read it. I don't know if Truman has. If he has, he shows no evidence of understanding Dr. Rask's argument.

Dr. Rask is very sharp. Before publication he subjected his manuscript to be reviewed by two evolutionary scientists, asking them to notify him of any factual or reasoning errors that they might find. He includes their criticisms and his responses. It appears to me that even they did not quite grasp his point. It is becoming clearer to me all the time that scientists are not necessarily the most logical thinkers (you'd think they would be).

Dr. Rask's logic seems impeccable. He is 100% correct about evolutionist's case resting on the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." He also has debated Truman before. It is on Youtube. Truman gave no indication of understanding Dr. Rask's obvious (and repeated) point.

To put Dr. Rask's thesis in a nutshell, the concept of evolution is not empirically nor logically provable, and it is statistically impossible. Every alleged proof of evolution comes down to "affirming the consequent", which looks like this:

1. If evolution is true, then such-and-such data would be observable;
2. Such-and-such data is observed, and is consistent with evolution's prediction;
2. Therefore, evolution is true.

The failure here is to ask whether the data might be equally consistent with any number of other assertions besides evolution by random mutation and natural selection (e.g., special creation, panspermia, spontaneous generation of each species separately, etc.). A simple example of this fallacy would be (and Dr. Rask gives this example, as I recall):

1. If I had eaten a whole pizza, I would feel full;
2. I do feel full (consistent with the thesis that I ate a whole pizza),
3. Therefore, I have eaten a whole pizza.

This is a logical fallacy, because there might be some thesis alternative to my eating a whole pizza that might as surely account for my feeling full.

I am pretty sure that Truman does not understand this logical fallacy and does not know when he is engaged in it, even when it is pointed out to him (watch his previous debate with Dr. Rask).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO3xfGgCrmQ

[steve]

Truman's argument from imperfection (which Stephen Jay Gould once said was the only remaining evidence for favoring evolution over special creation) boils down to "It doesn't make sense that God would make it this way" (The example of the panda's "thumb" provided the title for one of his best-selling books).

Yet, for my money, I'd sooner bet on God's ability to make sense than on Truman's. Dawkins and Futuyma follow Gould's line also, as if it is the province of those who deny God's existence to tell us what He is or is not likely to do! There is a passage in Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial that I always think of when I hear such arguments. I paste it below:

Sexual selection is a relatively minor component in Darwinist theory today, but to Darwin it was almost as important as natural selection itself. (Darwin's second classic, The Descent of Man, is mainly a treatise on sexual selection.) The most famous example of sexual selection is the peacock's gaudy fan, which is obviously an encumbrance when a peacock wants to escape a predator. The fan is stimulating to peahens, however, and so its possession increases the peacock's prospects for producing progeny even though it decreases his life expectancy.

The explanation so far is reasonable, even delightful, but what I find intriguing is that Darwinists are not troubled by the unfitness of the peahen's sexual taste. Why would natural selection, which supposedly formed all birds from lowly predecessors, produce a species whose females lust for males with life-threatening decorations? The peahen ought to have developed a preference for males with sharp talons and mighty wings. Perhaps the taste for fans is associated genetically with some absolutely vital trait like strong egg shells, but then why and how did natural selection encourage such an absurd genetic linkage? Nevertheless, Douglas Futuyma boldly proclaims the peacock as a problem not for Darwinists but for creationists: "Do the creation scientists really suppose their Creator saw fit to create a bird that couldn't reproduce without six feet of bulky feathers that make it easy prey for leopards?"

I don't know what creation-scientists may suppose, but it seems to me that the peacock and peahen are just the kind of creatures a whimsical Creator might favor, but that an "uncaring mechanical process" like natural selection would never permit to develop.

[john6809]

An example of the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent" regarding synteny.

1 - If humans and chimpanzees were related, then we would see common chromosome sequences between humans and chimpanzees.
2 - We do see common chromosome sequences between humans and chimpanzees.
3 - Therefore, humans and chimpanzees are related.

The same could be said again using pseudogenes instead of syteny. Sharing some common pseudogenes across 2 species must mean that evolution is true. Is this what you meant, when you debated Steve, when you said that there are "footprints" that clearly lead to the conclusion that evolution is true?

From what I see, the theory of evolution has a long, long way to go before it could "destroy Christianity".

[TrumanSmith]

An example of the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent" regarding synteny.

1 - If humans and chimpanzees were related, then we would see common chromosome sequences between humans and chimpanzees.
2 - We do see common chromosome sequences between humans and chimpanzees.
3 - Therefore, humans and chimpanzees are related.

The same could be said again using pseudogenes instead of syteny. Sharing some common pseudogenes across 2 species must mean that evolution is true. Is this what you meant, when you debated Steve, when you said that there are "footprints" that clearly lead to the conclusion that evolution is true?

From what I see, the theory of evolution has a long, long way to go before it could "destroy Christianity".

1. Synteny isn't about just similarity, it is also about how the similarity spreads-out (dissipates) the farther other animal genomes have evolved. That shows the pathway of descent. Did you watch and/or understand the video teaching link from Dr. Dennis Venema (he's a evangelical that fully accepts evolution and explains the arguments for evolution as shown in the DNA)?

2. Pseudogenes also show descent because the closer-related the different species are, the closer the mutations. The pseudogenes have a tree structure, just like the evolutionary descent has a tree structure. Perfect match, because different animal species actually evolved rather than made separately by special design.

If you want to know what I meant in detail, again, look at the teaching video from a fellow Christian biological scientist (Dennis Venema) so you don't have to be worried about being led astray by an atheist such as myself. Also visit the evolutionary christian website called http://biologos.org/ .

[TrumanSmith]

What about this parable, about being immediately with God after physical death (from death to immediately being with God, no resurrection):

It's not a parable, it's a story from the Babylonian Talmud with which Jesus' hearers were certainly very familiar. I'd have thought you'd have learned that in seminary. Maybe your knowledge of Christianity isn't quite as thorough as you think?

Sounds like you are the one that doesn't know what a parable means. Did you think it was literally true? Literally... hot and thirsty, in heaven and hell??? You think Hell is literally hot with flames??? You really think flames, literally, can burn a non-physical body??? If it isn't literal, then it was meant to be taken as a parable. Being a former Christian, just to be clear, I think it is all nonsense anyway.

[TrumanSmith]

The main destination is the larynx, but it also plays a part in the function of the heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and esophagus. Could be an explanation of it's route.

No- it doesn't play a part with the heart at all. It is an unnecessary entanglement.

[TrumanSmith]

You FEEL like scientism provides your needs in this area. In reality, neither scientism nor Christianity (nor anything else for that matter) can provide you with absolute certainty. But this is not a bad thing since certainty isn't the thing we should be searching for in the first place! We should be searching for truth, or better yet, Truth. And we have more than enough evidence to point us toward Truth as it stands (we even DID get the resurrection).

This theme about "absolute certainty" is a red herring. Just like you don't need to know algebra and advanced math to know basic math, you don't need to know everything (certainty) to know that humans descended from other animals. Even Michael Behe, one of the fathers of the modern ID movement at the Discovery Institute, says he has no objection to human descent from other animals.