The following was written by a friend of mine, Brady Clarke, on Tumblr. It struck such a chord with me that I’ve reposted it here (with permission). Make sure you follow Brady on the Twitters – @pressdarling - especially if you have the same taste in music that I do.
—
Humans did this. Humanity did this. We put a car-sized robot called Curiosity onto Mars. We control this robot from Earth. It took this picture. You’re looking at a picture that it took, made available on the internet hours after it was taken.
That’s right.
A photo taken on a different planet, available for you to see mere hours later.
If you’re fortunate enough to own a smart phone, you might be using it to look at this picture. How marvellous is that? You have a piece of technology that you carry around in your pocket every day that lets you see photos that were taken on Mars hours after they were taken.
Look at this.
Take for granted, if you will, that this technology all exists; it didn’t 100 years ago (we barely had heavier-than-air flight, radio and photography, let alone effective computers or space travel). Take that for granted if you want. But please don’t scoff at the fact that there is now a robot on Mars that is taking photos, that you can view on the little computer in your pocket.
You’re looking at a place far further away from home than any human has ever been.
Those who are swayed by arguments from ignorance are blithering ignoramuses — in my humble opinion.
I take it from that load of droppings you are incapable of explaining what your mechanism is?
"Keep worshiping your "mechanism" of randomness (…magic)"
I've already told you, there is no magic involved in any of the "naturalistic" mechanisms, stop trying to project your mechanism onto me. Magic only exists in your mechanisms, because it is your only mechanism (or are you actually going to explain another?). Also, randomness is only a part of the naturalistic explanation and I don't "worship" anything – unlike you. I have no dogmatic adherence to any doctrine, I am able to look where I want. What about you – would you be willing to admit that a part of your bronze age book of myths is wrong? I bet not, that makes you the dogmatic one, not me – you are the one that is unwilling to look outside of their myopic view of science and reality. If you could give any rational explanation as to why the, well known and demonstrated, mechanisms of evolution are wrong I would listen, but you can't because you are paralyzed by your dogma and since you have been brainwashed, probably at a young age, into creationism you are the proud owner of a creationist brain which implies that the logic and reasoning centers of said brain no doubt suffer from severe atrophy brought on by lack of use.
You really cannot process any ideas that don't agree with your preconceived dogma and it is painfully obvious. Not surprisingly, you haven't put forth anything close to a coherent, scientific argument for your magical mechanisms….nor should you, since there are none. The "magic" in your "naturalistic mechanisms" is BELIEVING THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH what they so obviously cannot. That is faith guy, whether you like it or not…which, contrary to your accusations of magic, puts you in the same camp as far as observation/science goes. Now, where your naturalistic stance falls well short of logical reasoning compared to design arguments is that we actually have experience, albeit human, with deisgn…how it works, what it resluts in, and what is required (intelligence and information). And you still can grasp it, and it is all too obvious why. Your only possible source for your blind faith is your strong belief, your ultimate desire and need for there not to be a God over you…who made you and who owns you. How sad, for it truly is a wonderful thing to recognize your Creator and marvel at His work.
Interestingly enough, simpleton, I was a BELIEVER in naturalistic faith for a long time. I actually argued the same silly things that you vomit out. Fortunately, and by God's grace, I was able to overcome my fear of God and my cowardice in ignoring solid, scientific arguments to begin to grasp reality. Most importantly, I think, was to finally own up to my own naturalistic presuppositions and face them against current biological evidence. Besides my hatred for God at the time, I had nothing of value to hang my intellect on, so to speak. Oh, I THOUGHT I was scientific and everyone else believed in fairy tales/magic, but that was before I was honest with myself. I totally understand were you are. Good news…there is still hope to defeat the brainwashing and face reality.
"You really cannot process any ideas that don't agree with your preconceived dogma and it is painfully obvious"
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Creationists are the best projectors in the business and you, kuho, are the best of the best!
The rest is just more of the same slop you serve up time and again.
1. Deny the evidence — "since there are none"
2. more projection of your ONLY mechanism — "The "magic" in your "naturalistic mechanisms""
3. projection of faith — "That is faith guy"
4. put forward the illogical design inference — " compared to design arguments"
5. mention that I hate god. How do you hate something that you don't think exists?
6. mention that you used to be an atheist, yeah right – pull the other one.
etc etc
All I want is for you to own up to your mechanism, is that to hard for you?
Mr. magic man…YOU have no mechanism, but keep believing that your randomness meets the criteria. I am not "projecting" anything, just stating the obvious. But since you have no answer for it, I'll take your "projection" accusation as a default answer when your close-minded brain has none. Naturalism at all costs, irregardless of the facts.
Since you are hell-bent on mechanisms for design, let me ask you this…what was the mechanism for Hamlet? A pen? Paper? A moving pen? Of course it was intelligence that created Hamlet…and pssst…..IT WASN"T MAGIC! Honestly, teenagers can figure this out so much easier than you…of course the haven't had the degree of indoctrination or the obvious hate you have for the idea of God ( oh i forgot…you can't hate what you don't believe in…do you really expect anyone believe that garbage?)
And for the record, I certainly was agnostic before I was willing to look at the facts without the indoctrinated naturalistic goggles on. I shouldn't have expected you to believe that after having witnessed your tactics from previous threads and observing your incompetence regarding biology.
"YOU have no mechanism"
Yes I do and I've given them to you, you just don't think they are viable – me giving you mechanisms and you rejecting them is not the same as not having any. On your side of the argument you have given NO mechanism. The reason you give no mechanism is that your only mechanism is magic and you realize that this is stupid so you refuse to acknowledge it.
"Since you are hell-bent on mechanisms for design, let me ask you this…what was the mechanism for Hamlet? A pen? Paper? A moving pen? Of course it was intelligence that created Hamlet…and pssst…..IT WASN"T MAGIC!"
Yep, it was intelligence that thought up the words of Hamlet but it was the mechanical process of writing it down that "created" it. Without writing it down Hamlet would have remained a thought in Shakespeare's head and not the actual physical writing. Just like your design theory. So lets look at it, your invisible wizard thinks up the universe, it has all the "designs" down pat – how did it make those thoughts into physical things? What was it's mechanism's? …and pssst…..IT WAS MAGIC! Honestly, teenagers can figure this out so much easier than you…of course the(y) haven't had the degree of indoctrination or the obvious hate you have for the idea of science ( and remember…you can't hate what you don't believe in… any sensible reasoned person can see this)
Oh guy…I am not “rejecting” any of your magical claims, nor is anyone else. If you had any clue about current biology, you would clearly understand that Science itself rejects your “mechanisms” …they are absolutely nothing more than wishful thinking and regurgitated dogmatic claims with zero scientific foundation. This isn’t assertion, just the plain facts…deal with it, or better yet learn some biology.
Your natural selection- randomness magical chant is nothing short of pontification. When all of life appears to be designed, shows the characteristics that we readily recognize in design detection (ie. forensics, etc.) and conversely you claim that there is this magical randomness and selective filter that actually “create” such things that go against our experience and logic, then the burden of proof lies with you. But, of course, you’d first have to exhibit intellectual honesty with your naturalistic theory and second have the capability to analyze your argument weighed against what is currently observed in nature. You have successfully demonstrated embarrassing failure at both….congratulations.
However, it was decent of you to recognize Intelligence as the real source and cause of Hamlet…a step in the right direction. Now only if you could see the blatant design biology offers, strikingly more impressive and marvelously more intricate than the aforementioned Hamlet. I will not hold my breath…we all understand what frail straws you’re grasping onto. Time to make yourself feel better, cueing “magical mechanisms” chant in 3, 2, 1…
"The simple fact is that science is not great. It does not know even the simplest things: how to make life, how to make a blade of grass, what is cognition, what is consciousness, what is thought, how the universe began, where matter comes from, etc., etc. Why there is music, poetry, art, philosophy and religion. Why human beings are so uniquely distinct from other species of life in their intellectual abilities. "
What a joke. You think that making life is one of the "simple" things? Seriously? Are you that delusional? I thought part of your argument was that life is complicated? In fact isn't it supposed to be to complicated for it to have arisen naturally? Now it appears that you think it is a simple matter to create life, which is it – simple or complex?
Life is neither simple nor complex, and is both simple and complex. Life can accommodate all contradictions, and produce them as well. A man can be a father, and he can also be a son. He can be both a killer (in war) and a kind friend to his neighbor.
Life is neither created nor destroyed. If you can accept such a thing for matter, why can't you accept the same conservation law for life. Death is not the negation of life. When someone passes away, where do they pass to, and what passes?
Life as cognitive is coupled with a structure, and molds or forms that structure according to its own cognitive quality and development. Consciousness forms the body, not that the body forms consciousness. This is the most ancient metaphysical understanding of life. How can that which overarches and comprehends the physical body, come from that body? Rather the body is the way consciousness materially expresses itself within the laws of the material nature..
Life is simple in that it is a one or unity, not a composition of pieces or parts. It is complex in that it is only the immediate existence of the mediated truth we call consciousness, which itself , as particular, is only one aspect of universal consciousness, etc. up to God and beyond.
Life is complex for the materialistic mind, that tries to analyze it in terms of molecules and their interactions. Not only complex, but inscrutable in that case. You forget that molecules and atoms are a model, a map if you will, of reality by which the simple minds of finite men try to comprehend what is ultimately divine in nature (and therefore essentially infinite.). The search for the ultimate elementary particle leads to only more particles, and thence to what they are made of,etc. ad infinitum, or to uncertainty or inscrutability in the end. If this is true of matter then what to speak of life.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.." Shakespeare's Hamlet
When you have nothing of substance to say, why vomit up a word salad? Honestly, do you really think there is anything in that reply that is actually real? I get sick of your twisted, tortured philosophy.
"God is not a machine"
No, I understand that. I just wish to know by what mechanism did it create life?
The rest of your post is just demonstrating you incredulity and ignorance, not really worth a response. Please try harder.
First it is necessary to understand that mechanism applies only to what is mechanically constructed or constituted. "Mechanical" means impersonal, causal, physical forces are sufficient to explain or create/construct a specific machine or natural structure. A crystal is a mechanically created structure. Its parts can be disassembled and reassembled. A car or a watch is a similar such structure.
Life can't be assembled and disassembled like that. Life comes only from life. It doesn't arise from a combination of its parts. This is what we KNOW. We are talking scientific knowledge here. Not ideological possibility. Puncture a living cell in a test tube of water and it dies. Its parts cannot be put back together again to make a living cell. Thus we KNOW that life does not meet the criterion of being a machine.
God is not an 'it". God is Life itself, and is therefore personal. God is the logical conclusion of the scientifically observed FACT that life comes from life. Who is the first life? Even the most ancient of people knew this truth. The only thing that prevents someone from understanding this simple truth is a preconceived worldview that does not allow for God. [Of course, the whole conception of temporality, of first or second, hsa no place in the Absolute. But that is for those who have graduated beyond the relativity of materialized thinking.]
The whole conception of evolution, big bang nonsense, and whatever so-called scientists say about millions and billions of years ago, is all bull feathers. Ask them what they had for lunch a week ago and they can't tell you. Yet they think they can hoodwink others to believe they know what happened billions of year ago. I am a scientist. I know what goes into making a theoretical concoction like that. They are simply brainwashed and those who believe them are the simply victims of their indoctrination.
Do you think your incredulity and ignorance of this viewpoint is not in question? Who has given you the high ground from which to judge what is correct or true, intelligent or ignorant? If you were not such a simpleton to naively believe everything scientists say, simply because scientists say it, then you might be able to arrive some realistic conception of actuality.
Scientists have been repeatedly wrong. Why? Because they are finite. Their finite minds can only know a finite piece of reality at a time, and even that in only a very imperfect way. THAT is not knowledge. Knowledge means to know what is what.
If a man is actually honest, he could only admit: I don''t really know anything. I simply have some considered opinions about different things. They are as good as anyone else's opinions.
The problem of knowledge is solved only if one has access to an infinite knower, who is beyond the limitations of finite mind. This is the traditional solution to the epistemological problem – if there is to be any true knowlede then God must exist from Whom all knowledge is revealed to us through God's word, through the works of God in Nature, and through the hearts of those who are surrendered to God's Will.
Life is never created. Life is a permanent (eternal) fundamental principle of reality, as is God. Matter is merely a temporary covering, a misconception, of what is ultimately fully conscious life. Matter or the material conception of life, is merely for those who want to waste their time exploiting the wealth of God's own Being, without recognizing Who and Where it is all coming from or belongs to.
Matter and life both come from God, Who is Life. Matter is simply the symbol of your unconsciousness of that truth. Without life there is no Nature, so Nature comes from life, not matter. These are all axiomatic truths. But you have to decide which axioms you want to start with. It is your free choice to decide which set of axioms you believe. You cannot prove an axiom. It is an a priori presumption at the foundation of all knowledge. All our knowledge thus rests on faith.
Just because someone holds a view completely different from yours, does not make them ignorant or stupid. Such an attitude means that you think you are smarter than anyone else, and that somehow you hold the truth from which you can judge everyone else. This is simply not the case, my friend, although there are definitely a lot of people who might think like that. Still, there is a more reasonable attitude one might adopt in which you can be a little more skeptical of your own position, instead of everyone else's.
In fact, instead of skeptical, I would prefer the concept "critical.' Critical realism/critical science. As for science, in so far as it promotes rational discovery it is valuable. When it becomes dogmatic, as in the case of the militant atheist/evolutionists, then it is misappropriated. This should be called out for what it is – Nescience. Nescience is just the opposite of science. It is darkness, ignorance and illusion.
"I am a scientist"
I suspect this to be a lie. Maybe a creation "scientist"? If I am wrong, then I apologize, but I doubt the apology is necessary.
"First it is necessary to understand that mechanism applies only to what is mechanically constructed or constituted"
Bullshit. Nothing but an attempt to run away from the question and shroud your sky wizard in a pile of misinformed and misinterpreted philosophy.
This rest of this useless word salad is really based on the ridiculous "life comes from life" statement. The fact that organic life replicates itself is not a pointer to the origin of that life. This argument is a non sequitur. The observation is consistent with any origin of life.
Every where you use that expression "can't make a blade of grass" is where you make that statement. Or is it that you don't actually believe that the fact we can't make a blade of grass is evidence of magical creation of life?
"Someone needs to put you in your proper place – to bring you back to reality."
lol, that's one of the funniest things I've read for quite some time. If you have any rational argument, make it. I've only seen illogical rubbish from you and your mate. The ever stupid "life comes from life" tripe to the most ridiculous "matter comes from life". You are nothing but a peddler of pseudo science and lies. I fail to see how you would convince anyone with these arguments except someone who is already brainwashed into your bronze age cult. If you think you can, bring it on.
We can't make a blade of grass. You admitted this yourself. Where does magic come in here? It is a statement of fact that everyone can agree on. It is not based on wishfull, or ideological or magical thinking. It is based on simple observation of reality. A statement/judgement of reality that corresponds with reality is what we call truth.
Does it imply magic? Where does that idea even come from? The Earth rotates on its axis. Does such a determination imply magic? Statements of fact do not implicitly or automatically call upon magical explanations. Because you ASSUME that life must be explained as arising from a combination of chemicals, you think that grass can be explained in those terms, and any other explanation is just magic.
The FACT that grass cannot be produced by combining chemicals gives us some information. We have to build up whatever scientific knowledge we develop using that basic FACT. We cannot construct a science based on what we would LIKE to be the case or facts. We have to base science on what we KNOW to be the facts.
YOU are the one engaging in immagical thinking (imaginary-magical) because you don't allow yourself to deal with the FACTS. You are in denial of this simple reality. What more can I do?
You in your superior attitude and tell me to stfu, but the very cause of your rude superiority is your own inferiority complex. You can't defend your position, not because you're incapable but because it is indefensible., But you think it is your incapability, so you become frustrated and take it out on me.
Staunch theophobia is the product of being a closet theist., as is the case with most phobias. Sympathetic and rational appraisal of both sides leads to a well balanced and well rounded life. There is no need to fear or hate God. One can love God and science and so many other things, just as you can love your mother and father and so many other persons. You will get much further in life and be more successful and intelligent if you can understand that.
Don't be such an extremist, if I may advise. There are hard questions and facts that science and materialism can't accommodate. Life or grass — what could be more fundamental. And science has no answer for how these things came to be. "Evolution" is not a mechanism, it is not an explanation of anything, and certainly it is not science. Popper called it a metaphysical research project. He was a philosopher of science. Thomas Nagel, another atheist philosopher called it simple "Wrong."
Why do so many scientists buy into it? It provides them an income. It pays them so they can eat, sleep and have sex. It has nothing to do with the search for truth. Sorry to be so blunt. The truth hurts, but the truth can also make you free. Try it.
You really are in a word salad mood.
Those first 2 paragraphs are meaningless.
"The FACT that grass cannot be produced by combining chemicals gives us some information."
Prove that grass can't be produced by combining chemicals. The FACT that we can't CURRENTLY "make a blade of grass" does not mean that it can't be done. To say otherwise is an argument from ignorance. hmmm, haven't we just covered that? I know you can be a little slow so please go back and read the posts above here and you can learn all about why this paragraph is an illogical pile of salad.
"YOU are the one engaging in immagical thinking (imaginary-magical) because you don't allow yourself to deal with the FACTS."
This was a joke.. right?
From there on you become will the psychiatrist. I had no idea how smart and talented you are!!! Not only a brilliant philosopher, physicist and biologist but also a psychiatrist! How proud your parents must be!
The Argument from Frustration/ aka Cognitive Dissonance
The cunning fox tries to get the grapes hanging above his head, but comes us short everytime he jumps for them. Finally he cries in frustration, "Oh those grapes were sour anyway!" And walks away.
It is a clear sign of their frustration and impotence when evolutionists can't rationally defeat a simple argument against their materialism, except with their wimpy "word salad" refrain.
Cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.
The Argument from Faith
"We haven't figured out how to do it yet but one day in the future we will do it."
Every age has its fundamentalists. We have ours in the 21st Century too – the materialist/naturalist/atheist/scientists. From an early age they are conditioned by family and society to think the way they do. It is not entirely their fault. Not everyone has the strength of character/intelligence needed to overcome that conditioning, and to keep up with the rapid change in knowledge and understanding that comes with the progress of actual scientific discovery.
And when fools are in the company of other fools like themselves, they smile at each other and think, "We know it all." All chance of convincing them of their folly is lost. My solution would be to send them to their own planet, let them live together with other insane persons like them, and thereby let them learn by experience what kind of life they will produce without the saner section of society to keep things going. How long do you think they will live on Mars with the faith that they will produce vegetation in the laboratory in the future. They can send Jack and his Yasses and see how long it will take before they change their tune. (Only kidding. What would we do without Jack to tease.)