In Defence of God

Weighed in the Balance

That God exists should be obvious to any design engineer.  Two of a multitude of examples should suffice.

Our best mechanical designs produce products that require constant maintenance.  For example, our best valves, even when used exactly as designed, still leak over time, and leak more frequently with use.  Yet, once we do not misuse our bodies, our lips do not leak water when full, and we do not leak urine or stool.  This is similar for every animal.  The ‘valves’ in every species of every animal were designed and made perfectly from the very beginning.

When design engineers, with significant research and development funds, design a car, cell phone, or any other manufactured product, then it is normally hailed as the most elegant design imaginable.  Yet, within approximately 5 years, it appears clumsy and crude when compared with the new current model.  We can be sure that today’s model…

View original post 225 more words

29 Comments

Filed under Barbados

29 responses to “In Defence of God

  1. BFP

    Gosh, I don’t know….
    “Yet, once we do not misuse our bodies, our lips do not leak water when full, and we do not leak urine or stool.”

    Explain Depends adult diapers please.

    I’m not there yet, but ya never know how quickly that might happen!

    Robert.

  2. Too little too late

    God doesn’t need my defence.

  3. SB

    “That God exists…” – hmm – may be it should read “That ‘a’ God exists…” – and which ‘God’ are we talking about anyway? The ‘God’ of Christianity and the Jewish faith; the ‘Allah’ of Islam, or the ‘Great Spirit,’ older than any ‘god’ from the belief system of Shamanism. Whatever it / he / she is the belief in this imaginary concept of a higher being ‘better than yours’ that has caused more wars, murders, and human rights abuses through the millennia. We would all be far better off without religion and the concept of an all powerful ‘god’ (small ‘g’). Just look at the atrocities of the Islamic State. Aha – but we do have an alternative – it is called the ‘mighty dollar.’

  4. Bill Gibson

    „That God exists should be obvious to any design engineer. “
    Can you me explain why this should be so?

  5. Hi BFP:

    Adult diapers are normally used by those recovering from an illness or the elderly who depend on bathroom supervision. The valves are ok, but they cannot normally go when they want to – hence the diaper.

    Regards,
    Grenville

  6. ac

    some where in the back of all our minds there is a believe that God exist even the atheist although they might have chosen to live in denial,

  7. ac

    BTW Barbados free press have u guys heard anything from ross he used to be a frequent contributor to this blog but have been missing in action for quite a while

  8. Anonymous

    what a crock of shite. who ever posted this has a lot of reading to do. watchtower and such rags are not the type of reading i am referring to.

  9. St George's Dragon

    That evolution exists should be obvious to any design engineer.

  10. BFP

    Or that it is directed by an intelligence; to any mathematician

  11. St George's Dragon

    Why does evolution need to be directed by an intelligence? That’s the point of evolution, it is about millions of generations of organisms self-selecting the best traits to suit the environment they are living in. There is no need for there to be a “hidden hand” guiding the process and there is no evidence that there is.

  12. Anon: What are you so afraid of?

    St George: No one disputes micro-evolution (evolution within species) which is evident. Darwin assumed that since evolution exists within species, it probably exists between species (macro-evolution). If you read his work (Origin of Species, 1859), you will note that he admitted that he found absolutely no evidence of macro-evolution, but sincerely believed that abundant evidence would be found in the future.

    Darwin concluded that the discovery of abrupt appearances of species, without the gradual changes of modifications, would be fatal to his views. Now, 156 years later, the evidence has not been found.

    Scientists typically advance theories without supporting evidence, and then try to find that evidence. If the evidence is not found, then evidence-based scientist simply change course in their search for the truth. However, ideologically based scientists tend to become emotionally attached to a theory to the level of a cult. They either try to persecute the ‘unbelievers’ or refuse to discuss the issue with ‘unbelievers’.

    Regards,
    Grenville.

  13. St George's Dragon

    Assuming that by “macroevolution” you mean speciation, then you are wrong. There is lots of evidence of new species emerging – see here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
    And that is not fatal to Darwin’s theory of evolution, it supports it.
    On a slightly different note, I looked at the Republicans in America for years and wondered how people could vote for them when in the face of all the evidence, they denied that evolution took place and that climate change was man-made.
    Dare I ask what your view of climate change is? It might be helpful in placing your new political party on the political spectrum.
    Oh, and by the way – I think it’s a bit rich for someone who is clearly religious to talk about scientists who “tend to become emotionally attached to a theory to the level of a cult. They either try to persecute the ‘unbelievers’ or refuse to discuss the issue with ‘unbelievers’.” I thought that’s what religions did.

  14. Jimmy Hoffa

    “ideologically based scientists” lol we have another fox news drone here. lol. Sir, don’t talk darwin, talk jesus. Dont be dishonest and try to promote your religion surreptitiously by telling lies about the scientific method… Yep, its a method and not a person. You need to read past darwin sir. Darwin was not even aware of Genes. We became aware of them later on. He was the genius that was able to get the ball going with what he had available at the time, subsequent minds have moved the ball forward since his time. Its how human progress works.

  15. St George: All of the evidence that you referred to supports micro-evolution, where is no dispute. Please read Darwin’s theory for your self.

    Darwin described the micro-evolutionary variations within species which he observed, and expected that researchers would later find a multitude of intermediate forms in the fossil record between existing species. He then explained that the absence of these intermediate forms would be fatal to his macro-evolutionary theory.

    The multitude of intermediate forms have not been found. Until they are, all evidence-based scientists accept the observed micro-evolutionary variations within species, and continue with their research. The ideologically based scientists try to convince the gullible that their personal opinions are facts.

    Jimmy: Your method of responding is alarming. It is not taught in any of Barbados secondary schools. Please read the article and address the arguments made in order to facilitate a discussion.

    Regards,
    Grenville

  16. Jimmy Hoffa

    Sir, its you that needs to read, not i. You are alarmed because i am not taken in by your bullshit. You are alarmed that i am not impressed with your ego and the letters behind your name, or by the deceptive “thoughtful” and “benign” way you present your poor grasp of science. Yes much of what i say and my approach to religious nut jobs that want to peddle their beliefs as fact is certainly not taught in schools in Barbados. This is one of the highest compliments you can pay me sir. At this point you don’t need a discussion, you need a book other than your fictional bible and watchtower rag. In closing, at what point did you go to bed a child and wake up a man? Can you point to such a point in time ?

    Regards,
    Jimmy

  17. St George's Dragon

    @ Grenville
    ” Please read Darwin’s theory for your self.”
    Now that really is quite condescending. I read Darwin when I was about 16. I read the Bible in full about the same time. I came to the conclusion that it was better to think for myself rather than be told what to do by a book drawn together from various sources 1700 years ago when people thought the Earth was flat and people lived until they were 969 years old.
    I suggest you get a subscription to a decent science magazine – something like New Scientist. If you did you would realise that whether evolution exists or not isn’t questioned by anyone whose job is to study these things. Biologists and paleontologists all say that evolution took, and takes place – with no hair-splitting about micro or macro evolution.
    The only people who do not believe evolution exists are those who don’t study the subject and don’t want it to. Those who feel (for reasons I can’t quite comprehend) that admitting that evolution exists undermines the role of god.
    I notice you failed to answer my question about your views on climate change. Is that because the Bible doesn’t mention it?
    And by the way “your self” is one word. Sorry if that’s condescending.

  18. Dear Jimmy:

    Truth can be objectively determined, as it always has – through the scientific method of analysis. This involves honestly searching for and examining contrary evidence, and verifying, as much as possible, the assumptions on which the interpretation of evidence was based. The level of effort in finding contrary evidence, and the level of verification of assumptions determines the level of confidence placed in any conclusions reached.

    Evidence based researchers commonly use this method and typically engage in honest discussion. Ideologically based researchers do not engage in honest discussion, but ideologically driven debate, where they refuse to honestly examine contrary evidence.

    In my experience, I have found both types of researchers in every field of study, and I try to coax the ideologically based onto a more rational path. Since I refuse to spend the one life that I have pursuing error, I have adopted the evidence based approach in my pursuit of Truth. I trust that you will do the same.

    Farewell,
    Grenville

  19. St George:

    Ditto my comments to Jimmy.

    For completion on your question about climate change. If the objective measurement describes a trend of increasing or decreasing temperature, then there should be no dispute that the climate is changing. As is always the case with such disputes, ideologically based researchers deem it their prime directive to defend their initial positions, rather than honestly examine all available evidence and see where it leads.

    If you examine the history of scientific achievement, from the earliest historical records until the present time, you will find that the majority popular opinion was typically proven wrong. Therefore, I am reluctant to make a conclusive statement on anything that I have not personally studied.

    I have not gotten around to examining the evidence for climate change. The only reason for this is that the predicted effects on hurricanes, storm surges, etc that are relevant to my profession are well within the range of the safety factors that we normally apply to such design loads.

    Farewell,
    Grenville

  20. Looking for transitional love in all the wrong places

    The problem with trans-species ‘evolution’ is that it cannot be observed or duplicated. There should be thousands of clear examples of transitional species in the fossil record, but there aren’t. And where we do have clear layered fossil records, it shows a veritable explosion of life ‘as is’ with no transitional species.

    Oh dear! What to do when the scientific evidence doesn’t prove what you desperately want it to?

  21. St George's Dragon

    @ Grenville (and LFTLIATWP)
    Let’s stop beating around the bush here. You both believe that while evolution may happen it is gradual change within a species. You believe that God made all the animals, birds etc., at the beginning and they haven’t really changed since then.
    Why are you so shy about saying it?

  22. St George's Dragon

    @ Grenville
    Again, why are you so shy about saying you don’t think there is any evidence of climate change? If you are going to be a political party leader, you have to lead and that means saying what you think is true.

  23. Looking for transitional love in all the wrong places

    Hi St George’s Dragon,

    So what about the entire lack of transitional species in the fossil record? We have millions and millions of fossils and zero transitional species. We should thousands and thousands of inter-species transitions evident in the fossil record.

    But we don’t.

    Why? and what does it mean?

  24. St George's Dragon

    There is no lack of transitional fossils. Do a Google search and you will find lots of evidence of them:
    http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
    http://www.transitionalfossils.com

  25. Jimmy Hoffa

    For you creationists, check out Ray Comfort and Ken Ham on youtube. You will learn “science” like why there is no crocoduck and why bananas are “created” as they are.

    As for the “transitional” fossils I will just ask this. how often do fossils form and under what conditions? Should I expect to go to a graveyard in bds and dig up fossils? If not, why not.

    Does an animal go to bed as one type of animal and wake up as another type? The fact remains that its a continuum, just like your life span is a continuum, you don’t go to bed a child and wake up an adult or go to bed an adult and wake up an old man.

    There are in fact “transitional” fossils but every fossil is “transitional” if its on a continuum as it is.

    Finally, evolution is not only supported by fossil evidence, multiple branches of science have confirmed that evolution is a fact. (note I did not use the loose word “truth”) I will provide more on this hopefully tonight.

    The question/statement shows a poor grasp of the what evolution is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg have a glance at this in the interim – it has cute pictures/animations so hopefully it will keep your attention.

  26. St George's Dragon

    New research sheds light on when dogs split from wolves and became a separate species:
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630235.500-ancient-dna-suggests-dogs-split-from-wolves-40000-years-ago/
    So man might have been instrumental in making dogs – not god.

  27. St George's Dragon

    I posted this ages ago but it got caught in moderation:
    There is no lack of transitional fossils. Do a Google search and you will find lots of evidence of them:
    http://www.livescience (dot) com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory (dot) html
    http://www.transitionalfossils (dot) com

  28. St George's Dragon

    Scientists have found a fossil snake with four legs that shows how snakes evolved from four legged lizards:
    http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/23/a-fossil-snake-with-four-legs/
    Yet another transitional fossil.

  29. St George's Dragon

    If your contention that each species was made once and there is no evolution of one species into another is correct (I am paraphrasing as you seem a bit coy about coming out with it), this leads to two possible scenarios:
    – there cannot have been a single “creation” event. The fossil record clearly shows species emerging and disappearing at different geological times. Humans are not found in 350 million year old rocks, for example. Logically, if one takes your creationist view, species must have been created at different times.
    – if there was a single “creation” event, then the whole of the body of scientific knowledge about geology, radioactivity, the evolution of the Earth and the ages of rocks etc., must be wrong. A species cannot have been “created” at the beginning of the universe and end up in a 1 million year old rock.
    I am struggling; which one is correct?