i beleive god fined tuned the solor system. tell me why i am wrong

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Adding God to the equation only makes the situation more complicated, the ultimate Boeing 747.

@just_sayin

You can nitpick the science all you want like Rogan making a dodge about young people and vaccines. There is scientific variance and new evidence will cause scientific hypothesis to be revised slightly. Yet, to fall back to the ultimate Boeing 747 every-time new evidence emerges is just silly.

There's a joke that if a new species was discovered that bisects an existing scientific gap, the creationists will now say there is twice as many gaps in evolution. As for science of the gaps, that just seems like a trivial non-answer to distract from the God of the gaps argument.

The not enough time argument Craig reanimates is a classic creationist argument that has been debunked over and over again.

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

You can nitpick the science all you want like Rogan making a dodge about young people and vaccines. There is scientific variance and new evidence will cause scientific hypothesis to be revised slightly. Yet, to fall back to the ultimate Boeing 747 every-time new evidence emerges is just silly.

There's a joke that if a new species was discovered that bisects an existing scientific gap, the creationists will now say there is twice as many gaps in evolution. As for science of the gaps, that just seems like a trivial non-answer to distract from the God of the gaps argument.

The not enough time argument Craig reanimates is a classic creationist argument that has been debunked over and over again.

Nitpick?  When I quote Vilenkin to show that Stephen Hawking's model is busted, that's just citing one scientists critic of another.  That's valid.  The fact that you embrace science that scientists have disproven is problematic.  If your view really is scientific, then it should hold up to scientific inquiry.  Yet, it doesn't.

To get a useable sequence for a simple DNA strand requires that each bonding be in a certain order and be meaningful. DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases.  Yet to get even the most basic of strings, say 150 long, very, very small, it is much more statistically likely to combine in such a way as to make it unusable.  Without some constructor there is no way to intentionally get the items to assemble the way needed other than random chance.  So yes, the odds of a random DNA string forming the most basic of strands that can be useful is statistically very, very small and highly unlikely.  If you think I'm wrong, mix the chemicals together and make a DNA strand naturally that is usable to prove your point.  I'm waiting.  Again, you made a science of the gaps appeal.  I'm going to call them out, every time from now on.  It is you who make appeals to magic and claim that science will figure it out later.  At some point, you'll realize that.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Without some constructor there is no way to intentionally get the items to assemble the way needed other than random chance. 

Thats right. Random chance because thats exactly what happened. It took 2.3 billion years for that to happen. An other words the building blokes had more than enough time to go through every possible permutation a thousand times over during that time and one of thos permutations took off then died then another like it took off and died until one lasted a bit longer etc. Think about how long 2.3 billion years is. Go on. Stop for a minute and think how long it is. One thing creationists ignore is the main factor. Time and a real heap load of it.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: You are an idiot

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;Without some constructor there is no way to intentionally get the items to assemble the way needed other than random chance. 

Thats right. Random chance because thats exactly what happened. It took 2.3 billion years for that to happen. An other words the building blokes had more than enough time to go through every possible permutation a thousand times over during that time and one of thos permutations took off then died then another like it took off and died until one lasted a bit longer etc. Think about how long 2.3 billion years is. Go on. Stop for a minute and think how long it is. One thing creationists ignore is the main factor. Time and a real heap load of it.

Barnardot is not smart.  Without question Barnadot is not smart.  If ever there was a not smart person, Barnadot is one.

That simple string, may indeed be typed out by a group of monkeys over time.  However, I think you fail to get the point.  In order for the monkey's to type out the simple string above, they would need a typewriter.  They would also need ink, and they would also need to remain seated the whole time and not wonder off.  In the same way, to create even a simple string of proteins or DNA, you would need to have all the chemical elements present.  But realize that every time the wrong sequence was generated, you would have to start again.  Also know that many wrong sequences would poison the whole environment and make any further attempts impossible.  Still, even if you managed to create the string, you would not have a means of reproducing it over and over and over again.  

So sure, we can all type out 'Barnardot is not smart.  Without question Barnadot is not smart.  If ever there was a not smart person, Barnadot is one.', but we do so because we have the intelligence to do so.  At least some of us do.  

Think of a 4 digit lock.  With each number having 10 options.  That's 10000 options.  If each try takes 1 minute, how long before it is more likely than not that you find the right combination?  The answer is 5001 minutes.  Now, you may have many combination locks and people trying to decode them all.  That might get you one of the locks opened sooner, but it won't help you to reproduce that lock code on all the other locks.  Because there is no code replication method in place.  I hope you get this.  If not.  Try typing 'Barnardot is not smart.  Without question Barnadot is not smart.  If ever there was a not smart person, Barnadot is one.', until you realize how difficult this task is without some intelligence assisting the process.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;That simple string, may indeed be typed out by a group of monkeys over time.

I think your analgies are just that. Analgies.Which dont ring true. Take 1 billion locks with i billion options and 9 billion years. Now this time there is not one single goal in mind. Not one single goal. So no body ever had the intention of opening the locks. Its just that 1 billion people had 1 billion options oner 9 billion years. And nothing happend. Now multiply that by 100 billion which is the number of planets that have the same conditions as Earth. And the same thing happens on all those planets. And nothing happens. Except one day after 9 billion years one of then just so happened to click. No one expected it to happen or wanted it to happen and you can work out all the odds you want but one of then just did click one day for totally no reason all. Shite happens right.

Life was never meant to happen and what your got to get out of your head is that life was predetermined some how. Call it an accident. Call it random. Call it whatever you like but the result of what happened led to life. There was absolutely no purpose or goal or intention and there is no evidence what so ever that there was. The only rule that was in place was the rules of nature and be fore you go rushing in on this one the rules of nature are no more than behavior or reaction to a given set of phenomena. Behavior is not created.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Enough of this creationist arguments. There is a 97% scientific consensus on evolution enough said.

"But in the 1980s Richard Hardison, then at Glendale College, wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

"Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

You can deny science all you want but in the end I am just doing unpaid intellectual labor and being a denier ruins your credibility.

Barnardot

@just_sayin There might be dozens of theories all right but the worst and now completely dismiss ed theory is creation and so far there has never ever been one single peace of evidence for it. Yet there is heaps of evidence that life and existence simply happened weather you like it or accept it or not.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin There might be dozens of theories all right but the worst and now completely dismiss ed theory is creation and so far there has never ever been one single peace of evidence for it. Yet there is heaps of evidence that life and existence simply happened weather you like it or accept it or not.

Barnadot is almost as sharp as a bowling ball.  Bowling balls are offended when their sharpness is compared to Barnadot.

That's a very simple string that can help us better understand the situation.  Even though certain parts of the string repeat earlier parts, there are different letters elsewhere.  Intelligence can recreate that string.  While there are theories that nature could write that string, there is no evidence that it did.  There is evidence that intelligence can create code.  So your claim is a false one.  The evidence best fits with an intelligence.  That is exactly what the discoverer of DNA, Crick, argued.  He claimed the code for DNA, even simple single celled animals, was too complex for random happenstance to explain.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: That was in 1953 a lot more evidence has come into awareness since then.

@just_sayin

"Crick and Watson's paper in Nature in 1953 laid the groundwork for understanding DNA structure and functions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

Might as well as quote Sigmund Freud only to represent all of psychology and ignore all new developments.

This is honest as Paul Broun on embryology.

"By ignoring the fact that Haeckel is discussed as a historical figure-- and not as a contemporary source for scientific explanation-- they imply that modern science shares the weaknesses of Haeckel's ideas-- ideas disproved by modern science."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/what-makes-us-human/201210/so-whats-wrong-embryology

21CenturyIconoclast

@crossed

Crossed, the Bible ignorant pseudo-christian fool.

You have put the cart before the horse, Bible fool!  You have yet to explain biblically, that the earth AND universe is only approximately only 6000 years old!  

The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 goes from the mythical Jesus to Adam, a period of approximately 4000 years in generational time spans within the scriptures. Subsequent to the bible character Jesus until present day is approximately 2000 years. This totals out that the creation of man and the entire universe is only 6000 years old!  GET IT?

“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5) 

Now pseudo-christian Bible fool, explain to us when the Creation of man, the universe, and all living things in the two contradicting Genesis narratives within the scriptures approximately 6000 years ago, and then as proven, the dinosaurs were upon earth 243 MILLION YEARS AGO, where how can this be true if Jesus as God created everything 6000 year ago?!

I dare you to give me the 1000 days equal a day Satanic analogy, because if you do, I will BIBLE SLAP YOU SILLY®️, understood? Yes?

.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;There is evidence that intelligence can create code.

So what. Nobody can deny that but where is the evidence that that happened? There is none. All the evidence shows that life is through evolution through natural selection and survival of the fittest. Show in the Bible for example where that happened? Show any where where that that happend. Im afraid that the cant rule out argument is the only type of argument that you have. When it comes to reality the evidence for random selection and evolution is a matter of this is the evidence and these are the facts.

Instead of your supposes and might have beans and trying to bash evolution and randomness over the head how about you explain how creation happened and also mention the masses and evidence there is. Jesus I bet you could fill up books a million times bigger than the works of Shakespear with all the explanations and evidence for creation. But just one paragraph will do.

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@crossed

Crossed, the Bible ignorant pseudo-christian fool.

You have put the cart before the horse, Bible fool!  You have yet to explain biblically, that the earth AND universe is only approximately only 6000 years old!  

The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 goes from the mythical Jesus to Adam, a period of approximately 4000 years in generational time spans within the scriptures. Subsequent to the bible character Jesus until present day is approximately 2000 years. This totals out that the creation of man and the entire universe is only 6000 years old!  GET IT?

“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5) 

Now pseudo-christian Bible fool, explain to us when the Creation of man, the universe, and all living things in the two contradicting Genesis narratives within the scriptures approximately 6000 years ago, and then as proven, the dinosaurs were upon earth 243 MILLION YEARS AGO, where how can this be true if Jesus as God created everything 6000 year ago?!

I dare you to give me the 1000 days equal a day Satanic analogy, because if you do, I will BIBLE SLAP YOU SILLY®️, understood? Yes?

.

I am amazed at how little you know about the Bible and those who believe it.  Those who believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years, or longer if you have been keeping up with new data that came out in the last 2 months, have no problem with the genealogies.  Luke's genealogy sites from Genesis ch 5.  which most old earth believers, and that could be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, see the first chapters of Genesis not a actual history but mytho-history.  You see the same thing in Babylonian stories.  Babylonian genealogies claims a specific dynasty goes back to well over half a million years old, and have very long ages for those who are antediluvian.  They would point out that the writers of the Bible, knew the earth was more than 6,000 years old and recognized the purpose of the early chapters of Genesis is not to be understood as literal history.  William Lane Craig makes this argument in Quest for the Historical Adam.

If you are going to tell people what they must believe about the Bible, I think you should familiarize yourself with it first.  Just sayin

Barnardot

@just_sayin ; knew the earth was more than 6,000 

Come on. Your at it again with your Exstream mis quoting of quotes that didn't even add up in the first place there for making what you said there utter crap.

know very well if you actually red your reference that Craig used his so called interdisciplinary survey of scientific evidence to some how conclude that Adam lived between 750,000 and 1,000,000. And if you did actually read the book which I bet you didn't you will find that Craig played with figures so that Adam just happened to fit in with one of the early forms of humanoids. Which if you believe that crao still makes the earth and universe i million years and six days old at the most. The more you gravitate to utter wrong crap and liuers like that the more you become full of crap and liers yourself. And man are so ever full of it.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ; knew the earth was more than 6,000 

Come on. Your at it again with your Exstream mis quoting of quotes that didn't even add up in the first place there for making what you said there utter crap.

know very well if you actually red your reference that Craig used his so called interdisciplinary survey of scientific evidence to some how conclude that Adam lived between 750,000 and 1,000,000. And if you did actually read the book which I bet you didn't you will find that Craig played with figures so that Adam just happened to fit in with one of the early forms of humanoids. Which if you believe that crao still makes the earth and universe i million years and six days old at the most. The more you gravitate to utter wrong crap and liuers like that the more you become full of crap and liers yourself. And man are so ever full of it.

Craig believes in an old earth and thinks evolution happened.  He may have noted that mitochondrial eve can be dated back to only a million years ago or so (I think the actual date is about 200,000 years ago), however that is not his research, but that of geneticists, and it is not in dispute.  

Dee

@just_sayin

just_sayin

Dee said:

@just_sayin

I am so proud of you!  Way to go!!!  William Lane Craig is indeed a white guy.  Good job!  I hesitate to even mention this to you.  His degree is in philosophy, not theology though.  Shhh - don't make fun of guys with philosophy degrees.  You'll offend MayCaesar.  

Dee

@just_sayin

I am so proud of you!  Way to go!!!  William Lane Craig is indeed a white guy.

WHY YOU THOUGHT HE WAS BLACK ........WOW,


  Good job!  I hesitate to even mention this to you.  His degree is in philosophy, not theology though. 

WOW ! YOU DIDNT KNOW YOUR PIN UP BOY WAS A THEOLOGIST .....DEAR OH DEAR......

 Shhh - don't make fun of guys with philosophy degrees.  You'll offend MayCaesar.  

WHY WOULD MAY BE OFFENDED? EVERY ONE MAKES FUN OF LOONY CRAIG ...YOU DIDNT  kNOW THAT.?

MayCaesar

I remember the famous debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. Near the beginning of his opening statement William committed a pretty obvious fallacy, along these lines: "You can only know that murder is wrong if you believe in objective morals, and objective morals necessitate god". It is like saying, "You can only know that lightning causes forest fires if you believe in objective laws, and those laws necessitate Zeus". The fact that I believe some action to be morally wrong does not at all require me to subscribe to the idea of there existing a powerful deity - I can just think about it a little and understand the implications of that action. I do not never murder anyone because I am afraid of some divine retribution - and if someone only never murders anyone because of their belief in god, please keep that person as far away from me as possible. God's instructions may change, and the guy will yell "Allahu Akbar!" tomorrow and go on a murdering rampage.

A person making this kind of arguments in what is supposed to be the most important debate in recent history between an atheist and a theist is hardly someone to listen to when you want to learn about the history of life on Earth.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

I remember the famous debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. Near the beginning of his opening statement William committed a pretty obvious fallacy, along these lines: "You can only know that murder is wrong if you believe in objective morals, and objective morals necessitate god". It is like saying, "You can only know that lightning causes forest fires if you believe in objective laws, and those laws necessitate Zeus". The fact that I believe some action to be morally wrong does not at all require me to subscribe to the idea of there existing a powerful deity - I can just think about it a little and understand the implications of that action. I do not never murder anyone because I am afraid of some divine retribution - and if someone only never murders anyone because of their belief in god, please keep that person as far away from me as possible. God's instructions may change, and the guy will yell "Allahu Akbar!" tomorrow and go on a murdering rampage.

A person making this kind of arguments in what is supposed to be the most important debate in recent history between an atheist and a theist is hardly someone to listen to when you want to learn about the history of life on Earth.

I doubt you watched all of that debate.  Had you done so you would know that Craig won, both in public opinion and the audience vote.  Craig savaged Harris' claim that morals are just nature.  Craig got Harris to admit on stage that this was not supported. As Craig observed science can only tell us what is, not what it ought to be. He used the example of a man raping a woman.  From an evolutionary standpoint this allows the man to propagate, so it is evolutionary advantageous to him to rape the woman.  However, Harris claimed rape was morally wrong, though it clearly benefits the man.  Craig called Harris out for his speciesism for claiming that humans have objective moral truth rather than bees or spiders, which sometimes kill their mates.  He rightly pointed out that Harris provided no reason why the morals of humans since they arise from nature, if Harris is right, are better than any other species.  Craig called Harris out on his redefining good as doing what is in the best interest of the human.  Craig pointed out that he was using a tautology as Craig explained "“Why does maximizing creatures’ well-being maximize creatures’ well-being?” It’s just a tautology. It’s just talking in circles! So Dr. Harris has “solved” the Value Problem just by re-defining his terms. It’s nothing but wordplay."  

But where Craig really won the debate, and verbally slapped Harris around, was on the contradictory positions Harris holds on morals and free will.  As Craig aptly put the illogical conclusion of Harris' position, "if there is no free will, then no one is morally responsible for anything! "

I encourage you to actually watch the debate.

Dee

@just_sayin


ARGUMENT TOPIC : AMERICAN BAPTISTS BELOW EXERCISING THEIR " RIGHT" TO  FOLLOW GODS SUPERIOR MORAL DICTATES.......


William Lane Craig thinks American christians adhere to a superior moral code based on objective morality as dictated by God......sure thing ......


KKK is welcomed to a Baptist Church service in Portland, Oregon, 1922. (Oregon Historical Society, OrHi 51017.)






  As Craig aptly put the illogical conclusion of Harris' position, "if there is no free will, then no one is morally responsible for anything! 

But American christians exercising so called free will knowingly treated black Americans like animals up to the 1960's all because the bible contains the objective moral code christians claim they adhere to.

You always flee when asked to address the shameful oppression,brutality and demonisation of black people by a nation of people who identify as Christian

Objective morality my hat.



Let's look at just one example of the utterly ridiculous claims Craig has made in a debate with philosopher Stephen Law who made mince meat of Craig.......

theologian William Lane Craig’s ridiculous claim, made in a video debate with philosopher Stephen Law, that animals don’t perceive pain.  As Craig said then,

“Even though animals feel pain, they’re not aware of it.. . Even though your dog and cat may be in pain, it really isn’t aware that of being in pain, and therefore it doesn’t suffer as you would when you are in pain.”

And as I wrote at the time, this claim was motivated by Craig’s desperate attempt to explain away the problem of gratuitious suffering—in this case the suffering of animals:

The reason Craig and others argue that animals don’t suffer is because it eliminates one of the vexing aspects of the theological problem of evil (theodicy): why do innocent animals (who haven’t sinned) suffer? If you claim that they don’t suffer, that part of the problem goes away.

Seriously? Animals aren't aware of pain?
Lane Craig believes that killing infants and nursing babies is morally correct as god is commanding it , seriously why would anyone believe the words of a lunatic who thinks morality should be based on the arbitrary whims of a god?



ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SUPERIOR CHRISTIAN MORALITY AS RECOMMENDED BY GOD......"Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

just_sayin

Dee said:

@just_sayin


ARGUMENT TOPIC : AMERICAN BAPTISTS BELOW EXERCISING THEIR " RIGHT" TO  FOLLOW GODS SUPERIOR MORAL DICTATES.......


William Lane Craig thinks American christians adhere to a superior moral code based on objective morality as dictated by God......sure thing ......


KKK is welcomed to a Baptist Church service in Portland, Oregon, 1922. (Oregon Historical Society, OrHi 51017.)






  As Craig aptly put the illogical conclusion of Harris' position, "if there is no free will, then no one is morally responsible for anything! 

But American christians exercising so called free will knowingly treated black Americans like animals up to the 1960's all because the bible contains the objective moral code christians claim they adhere to.

You always flee when asked to address the shameful oppression,brutality and demonisation of black people by a nation of people who identify as Christian

Objective morality my hat.



Let's look at just one example of the utterly ridiculous claims Craig has made in a debate with philosopher Stephen Law who made mince meat of Craig.......

theologian William Lane Craig’s ridiculous claim, made in a video debate with philosopher Stephen Law, that animals don’t perceive pain.  As Craig said then,

“Even though animals feel pain, they’re not aware of it.. . Even though your dog and cat may be in pain, it really isn’t aware that of being in pain, and therefore it doesn’t suffer as you would when you are in pain.”

And as I wrote at the time, this claim was motivated by Craig’s desperate attempt to explain away the problem of gratuitious suffering—in this case the suffering of animals:

The reason Craig and others argue that animals don’t suffer is because it eliminates one of the vexing aspects of the theological problem of evil (theodicy): why do innocent animals (who haven’t sinned) suffer? If you claim that they don’t suffer, that part of the problem goes away.

Seriously? Animals aren't aware of pain?
Lane Craig believes that killing infants and nursing babies is morally correct as god is commanding it , seriously why would anyone believe the words of a lunatic who thinks morality should be based on the arbitrary whims of a god?



ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SUPERIOR CHRISTIAN MORALITY AS RECOMMENDED BY GOD......"Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

@Dee

Why did you lie?  Why did you misrepresent what Craig said?  Here is what he said and the evidence to support it:

Now, let me say one other thing, however, that is a result of recent scientific discoveries that shed remarkable light on the problem of animal suffering. In his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw, published by Oxford University Press, Michael Murray explains that there is really a three-fold hierarchy of pain awareness. (Michael Murray, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).) On the most fundamental level there’s simply the reaction to stimuli, such as an amoeba exhibits when you poke it with a needle. It doesn’t really feel pain. There’s a second level of pain awareness which sentient animals have, which is an experience of pain. And animals like horses, dogs, and cats would experience this second level pain awareness. But they do not experience a third level pain awareness, which is the awareness of second order pain, that is, the awareness that one is oneself in pain. For that sort of pain awareness requires self-awareness, and this is centered in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain, a section of the brain that is missing in all animals except for the higher primates and human beings. And therefore, even though animals are in pain, they aren’t aware of it. They don’t have this third order pain awareness. They are not aware of pain, and therefore they do not suffer as human beings do.

Why did you lie and misrepresent Craig?

Barnardot

@just_sayin @Dee Here is what he said and the evidence to support it:

And he SAID totally nothing. Nothing at all did he. Thats right nothing. recent scientific discoveries is so non commital and says nothing. And  that shed remarkable light totally says nothing at all. And so it goes for the rest of his misleading book. He says totally nothing at all He only ever alludes to things and uses every trick in the book to make speculation and inferences to look like fact. 

Just ripe for total dyke heads to believe and dishonest liers to use for quoting. And he laughs all the way to the bank. Dont you think?

Dee

@just_sayin

I didn't lie the quote I provided is straight from Craig's mouth.

You're that dishonest you have to lie for Craig who was put in his place several times regarding this ridiculous claim


Stephen Law who thrashed him in debate said......

Indeed, that animals aren't aware that they are in pain is a remarkable "recent scientific discovery", said Christian apologist William Lane Craig in his debate with me, for example. Craig claimed that all animals other than higher primates lack a pre-frontal cortex, and thus are unaware that they are in pain (see Craig speaking in the video below from about 2 mins 30 secs - P.S. he says e.g. cats have a level of pain awareness, but he maintains science has shown that cats are unaware that they are in pain, which, he says, will be a great comfort to animal lovers like himself).

Actually, that's a load of pseudo-scientific rubbish, as scientists in this new video explain (the video has nothing to do with me btw).

The first responds directly to what William Lane Craig said: "that's not true". (at 6 mins 20 secs)

Another, Professor Bruce Hood, confirms that Craig's key "scientific" claim that animals other than higher primates don't have a pre-frontal cortex is just wrong (from about 8 mins)

Indeed, Joaquin Fuster, the author of a classic textbook on the pre-frontal cortex, says about Craig's statement that it is "wrong on several counts", and explains that all mammals and some birds have a pre-frontal cortex (from about 9 mins 30)

As the commentator points out, "that so many animals possess a pre-frontal cortex is just a google search away."

Oh, and by the way, the source Craig quotes to back up his "scientific" claims is not a scientist - Michael Murray is actually a Christian apologist and philosopher.

Several of the scientists also point out that, in any case, even if some animals did have no, or a smaller, pre-frontal cortex, that wouldn't justify the conclusion that they are unaware that they are in pain.

P.S. Hopefully Craig is a straight enough guy to issue an unqualified mea culpa on this one. He's just got the science very wrong.

Of course Craig being a proud dishonest ( like you) so called Christian refuses to acknowledge his ignorant uneducated comments on animal suffering.

Nice swerve as usual from  you  to avoid addressing your truly ridiculous opinions on objective morality.

Your ignorance and  st-pidity I try make allowances for now your latest tactic is lying but hey you're a ......christian so nothing new there.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

I doubt you watched all of that debate.  Had you done so you would know that Craig won, both in public opinion and the audience vote.  Craig savaged Harris' claim that morals are just nature.  Craig got Harris to admit on stage that this was not supported. As Craig observed science can only tell us what is, not what it ought to be. He used the example of a man raping a woman.  From an evolutionary standpoint this allows the man to propagate, so it is evolutionary advantageous to him to rape the woman.  However, Harris claimed rape was morally wrong, though it clearly benefits the man.  Craig called Harris out for his speciesism for claiming that humans have objective moral truth rather than bees or spiders, which sometimes kill their mates.  He rightly pointed out that Harris provided no reason why the morals of humans since they arise from nature, if Harris is right, are better than any other species.  Craig called Harris out on his redefining good as doing what is in the best interest of the human.  Craig pointed out that he was using a tautology as Craig explained "“Why does maximizing creatures’ well-being maximize creatures’ well-being?” It’s just a tautology. It’s just talking in circles! So Dr. Harris has “solved” the Value Problem just by re-defining his terms. It’s nothing but wordplay."  

But where Craig really won the debate, and verbally slapped Harris around, was on the contradictory positions Harris holds on morals and free will.  As Craig aptly put the illogical conclusion of Harris' position, "if there is no free will, then no one is morally responsible for anything! "

I encourage you to actually watch the debate.

I have watched it in its entirety thrice. Harris also made a lot of blunders in that debate, but he did not go to the level of intellectual dishonesty, or weakness, or both that Craig did. The episodes you pointed out you presented from one side, completely dismissing Harris' responses to these criticisms. Harris has explained his world view (that starts with the "absolute worst possible misery for everyone" and its opposite as extremes, and a moral landscape in between) quite well, and it is very clear what he means by "well-being" - and that said well-being is achieved by acting in one's best interest is not trivial or obvious. Many things in life do not work so directly - for instance, if you want to have sex, then being direct about it and jumping at the first female you see is a poor strategy for getting it.
To claim that raping someone "clearly benefits the man"... Have you ever heard stories of actual rapists? Did they become happy, successful, fulfilled individuals, or did they end up rotting in cages, hated by everyone and raped, in turn, by other prisoners? Getting a few seconds of physical gratification, followed by a lifetime of pure hell - that is no benefit, my man.

See, you claim that Craig won, but use the same simplistic (and easily destroyable) arguments as him. It seems to me that we are dealing with the same case as a bully in high school, punching a smart kid in the face and yelling, "He is a looooooser!" - and his thugs agreeing with him. This is not an intellectual support, but a tribal one - and such support is extremely cheap. I do not care what the public or the audience thinks, but I personally do not account for peer pressure and henchmen when it comes to determining who made a more compelling argument.

I have seen debates in which the religious person made a better argument than the non-religious one. This one is not one of them: this one, if anything, made me wonder how Craig came to even be a PhD in Philosophy. Then, again, Philosophy is such a sleezy field nowadays... If this kind of argument (the one I mentioned above) flies there, then it is not science.

Fredsnephew

@just_sayin

Science is simply a methodology that attempts to get to the bottom of things. Whereas the Christian GOD was simply a wild stab in the dark 2000 years ago.

just_sayin

Fredsnephew said:

@just_sayin

Science is simply a methodology that attempts to get to the bottom of things. Whereas the Christian GOD was simply a wild stab in the dark 2000 years ago.

I agree that science is just a tool.  And what does it tell us about our universe - a) that it had a beginning, b) that it is ridiculously fined tuned to support life, with all of the fundamental forces needed being fine tuned to incredible degrees (examples - low entropy level needed for expanding universe odds 1 in 10 to the 123rd power, odds that a beryllium isotope could merge with helium atom before it disappears is over, 1 in 10 to the 120th power.  Without which we have no carbon or nitrogen in the universe).  3) That even the simplest single celled  organism has an incredibly complex DNA that still can't be explained scientifically, with at least 10 known miracle level issues needed to be resolved before a naturalistic explanation is even viable. 

MayCaesar

I should add that I do not really understand why universities give PhD degrees and faculty positions to people like Craig. It would be like giving a faculty position to a Star Wars fan who has read all the books, watched all the movies and memorized all the maps, read all the lore entries extensively and has developed a very sophisticated view of the Star Wars universe. Such a person surely has some great insights, but... those are insights on a fantasy world. There is no "PhD in philosophy of Star Wars", so why is there a "PhD in philosophy of Christianity"?

I have worked in a number of different fields, from very hard scientific fields such as mathematical statistics to fairly soft ones such as genetics. In none of those fields even a grain of fantasy was allowed. If you are working on a novel model, you have quite a bit of freedom regarding the assumptions of that model - but if your model is not testable and falsifiable with the real data, you do not get published in a decent journal, you do not get invited to important conferences, and you do not get many collaborators interested in spending their valuable time entertaining your fantasies. It is a bit worse in certain areas of theoretical physics where sometimes a lot of hand-waving is going on: "My model is not testable now, but in 200 years... who knows?" But it is called "theoretical" for a reason, it does not get nearly as much funding as more applied areas, and your model has to look pretty darn promising for this kind of argumentation to fly.

In philosophy, it appears, all of this is quite irrelevant. Find enough people interested in the same fantasy world as you and convince them that your take on it is novel and unique - get your degree, publications and positions. I envy those guys. Their lives are so much easier...

ZeusAres42

Argument Topic: Flawed and outdated argument

The fine-tuning argument, while intriguing, is fundamentally flawed in its application of scientific principles and understanding. It relies on speculative interpretations of probability, a narrow view of life, and a misunderstanding of the anthropic principle. The history of scientific discovery suggests that naturalistic explanations are likely to be found for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. Therefore, the resolution that the fine-tuning of the universe indicates a designer or supernatural cause is not supported by the current understanding of science and cosmology.