Discussing Creationism and Evolution with @Andrew_X_Thomas

Recently on Twitter, @Andrew_X_Thomas and I had a disagreement--I think there is more evidence for creationism and he thinks evolution has more evidence. Instead of hurling insults like children we decided to have a civil and polite discussion on the matter here. So, I believe I have the privilege of making the opening statement.

What is Creationism?

First let me clear up exactly what I mean by creationism. A simple definition may be that God created organisms divided into kinds which may speciate, but may never change kind (eg. human kind, fish kind, dog kind, etc.) Taxonomically kinds may be defined as somewhere between class and family. As opposed to the "tree of life" used in evolutionary biology, a creationist would see the progress of life as below.

The what is commonly called "micro evolution" or speciation is not unique to the theory of evolution since creationism employs it as well.

The Problem with Abiogenesis

The major fundamental flaw with evolution is that there is no explanation for the origin of life. According to the theory of evolution there must be an abiogenetic method by which life has arisen. In the 50's, Miller and Urey did experiments in which a mixture of water and the gasses thought to be within the early atmosphere were passed through a system such as below which used electric discharges to simulate lightening on the early Earth.

The experiment yielded a mixture of amino acids and other organic molecules and the mechanism by which life arose was thought to be found.

But the experiment has serious flaws.

The mixture of gasses used were those that would be found in a reductive atmostphere, yet there is ample evidence that the early atmosphere was oxidative instead. This means that any amino acids or organic molecules produced would be oxidated shortly after they were formed and would not be usable as a building block of life. It is actually for this reason that the mixture of gasses used was reductive, because only a reductive atmosphere would be conducive to life.

Further, there is also a problem with the chirality of amino acids, DNA, RNA and sugars. All amino acids in the vast majority of species on Earth are homochiral left handed (with the exception of a handful of other species) and all DNA, RNA and sugars in all species on Earth are homochiral right handed (again with the few exceptions.) However, all organisms on Earth to have these same chiralities poses a problem since the results of Miller-Urey type experiments yield equal amounts of each handedness of molecule. Since the current evolutionary idea is that there was a "ring of life" in which life arose simultaneously in many areas one would expect there to be 4 distinct types of organisms with each possible combination of chiralities. However, only 1 combination (amino left handed and carbohydrate right handed) exists. This would either point to the idea that a single organism gave rise to all life (which science has rejected) or that life could not have arisen in its current form if Miller-Urey type pathways are responsible for the abiogenesis of life.

There are many more problems with Miller-Urey type experiments including the effects of Brownian motion, the origin of DNA and RNA, the concentration of organic molecules in primordial soup, etc. but the former two are the most succinct and immediate problems with this method of abiogenesis.

However, the major problem arises when one considers that if Miller-Urey type pathways of abiogenesis are discarded, there is no valid alternative to the problem with the origin of life. Some argue transpermia as an alternative, but all this explanation does is move the problem of abiogenesis to another planet. Since there is no viable, well supported theory of the origin of life; the naturalistic view of abiogenesis is essentially faith: Scientists know life arose by chemical means without the intervention of a God without any evidence or proof to support this position.

Due to technical difficulties you can read the debate on @Andrew_X_Thomas's website.

INFOGRAPHIC: Abortion: The Saddening Statistics

Rand Paul's Question

Yesterday I attended a meet and greet even in my hometown in south eastern Kentucky by Rand Paul. The event was short; he gave a ten minute speech about how the EPA and Obama's war on coal have destroyed the economy of this part of Kentucky and how many families have sunk into poverty because of the lost mining jobs. He spoke about how coal is the most economically viable and efficient means of energy production and is vital if the US seeks energy independence. He concluded his speech by showing how even when the government subsidizes "green" energy jobs (eg. Solyndra) these jobs are economic nightmares.

Rand Paul may have only spoke for a few minutes, but in those few minutes he spoke about economic viability, pragmatism, and true energy independence--essentially things liberals hate to talk about. This showed very clearly at the end when Paul asked if there were any questions. There was only time for three questions (sorry Virgil Edwards, I didn't get to ask.) The first of these three questions, however, showed me more than the answer to any question I could ask could have. It went like this:

PAUL: "So we have time for three questions or comments. Anyone?"
LADY: "Mr. Rand, you said that the EPA and Obama are causing miners to lose jobs, but that is untrue! It's because coal is harder to mine now so they have to mechanize the process and the people are losing jobs to the machines. The EPA regulations don't affect the mines."
PAUL: "Right...so the comment was that jobs are being lost because of machines, not regulation; but the coal industry is like every other industry: when they become mechanized there are more jobs created, not fewer. They become more efficient and can mine more coal, people work on the machines as mechanics, there are factories producing machines; but this isn't what is happening. Entire mines are being closed down because they're taxed to death....[Continues with a very thorough and concise argument]
LADY: [A frown permanently freezes on her face]

If you know anything at all about coal, this lady's argument is absurd. Coal mining has been mechanized for decades. From the early days when carts were used to rush coal to the surface to today when giant augers and drills are used, machines have always been inextricably linked to coal mining. This dissonance between the lady's perception of reality and how things actually are is (sadly) very common among liberals. They don't care about things like economics, reason, or even logic. They invent reasons why things are the way they are and ignore the facts.

Stereotypical Republican

DISCLAIMER: I am abundantly aware that conservative and republican do not mean the same thing. After all, if they did they would have the same spelling. However, it is true that in the US there is no conservative party (yet) so most conservatives vote republican.

Ask any person what a stereotypical Republican is and two polar opposites invariably are the answer. Either they are fat cat CEO's who, being the robber barons of industry, will do any unscrupulous thing to make a buck; or they are the uneducated, uncivilized country hicks who thump their Bibles while insisting they "don't need no education."

These two common perceptions of Republicans show some of the more serious flaws of liberal propaganda and even highlight the integrity of conservatives.

Whatever They Are, It's Bad!

This seems to be the common theme of ingrained societal stereotypes of Republicans. The image of an uncaring, fat cat is one of a person that, although intelligent and wealthy, has no moral character and is a slave to the love of money. The image of a country bumpkin is one of a person that, although moral and honest, is unintelligent and destitute (presumably because of their disregard for education.) The common themes in both these images are that Republicans are bad. That sounds pretty obvious, but due to the overarching failure of these stereotypes to be consistent, it is clear that there is no immediate flaws with the ideology, so instead invented personae have been constructed as straw men in order to be knocked down.

What We Really Are

So, what are Republicans really? Of course there are people who act exactly like the stereotypes, but these people are only an unimaginably small percent of all Conservative-Republicans. The true image? It is you, the average person. Republicans are the everyday, average people who want what is best for everybody. They are the critical thinkers and evaluators of history, science, and reason. They are those who have a stronger moral fiber and act accordingly. They are charitable, kind and generous. That is why any sane person would covet the title "conservative" and vote Republican.

Final Thoughts

There are stereotypes of every group of people imaginable. That includes liberals. However, stereotypes of liberals are based on legitimate flaws in their ideology and are universally consistent (unlike the Republican stereotypes.) While I in no way condone the labeling of people on stereotypes, it is interesting to see the disconnect between the image of Republicans and the way they really are.

How to Destroy America

The title may be a bit off-putting, so allow me to be clear: I write this article only to identify the ways in which America is currently being assaulted from within with the intent to quash these practices. I in no way wish to see the end of America--instead I wish to see its restoration.

America: The Monolithic Melting Pot

It's an old analogy that America, while still a British colony, was the great melting pot of cultures, languages and people. It was this early diversity and unification that lead to our national motto E Pluribus Unum which is Latin for "Out of many, one." This diversity made America strong because all people, cultures, ethnicity, and groups of people were unified under a single flag. Indeed, such a set up was ideal for propelling this country to the status of a world superpower in less than 200 years, a feat that has never been accomplished before. Diversity and unity were two dual and essential social concepts which made America the invincible nation.

E Pluribus Plures

If the national motto of a country which could not be defeated was E Pluribus Unum, then the polar opposite of such a country (one that is fragile and weak) is almost certainly E Pluribus Plures, "Out of many, multiple." Diversity without unity is a gun pointed at one's head. Indeed, perhaps the most cliched military tactics is "divide and conquer." A single, unified army is impervious to attack, yet many smaller ones easily fall.

Dividing the Whole

So from this we can see one of the most necessary components of destroying America: division. If America is divided into many smaller groups of people who hold loyalty only to their group then it can easily fall. When people identify as "African-American," "Asian-American," "Latino-American," or any other hyphenated group, they are drawing the lines of division that are the bane of America's strength. Divided along ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, gender, class, etc. America becomes not a single nation, but hundreds of smaller nations.

Liberal Division

In America today, division is being actively pursued by liberal policy. Affirmative action breeds contempt among races, insinuating that without government intervention minorities will be discriminated against which instigates race warfare. Welfare breeds contempt for those with more money, instigating class warfare. The systematic purging of religion from the public view breeds contempt between the religious and non religious, instigating religious intolerance. In the end, the lines of division are drawn from within. 

Final Thoughts

So what may we do to avoid this division and weakening of America? The single biggest thing is to stop identifying as "XXXX-American" and simply as "American." The second is to pursue rational and civil debates on differences in a polite and controlled manner. If these two things alone were practiced by the majority of Americans, our nation would remain true to its motto.

A Question for Atheists: The Book of God's Existence

Atheists maintain that rejection of faith is superior to practicing faith. However, despite this commonly held view, one may at least force an atheist to admit he/she is capable of practicing faith. Simply ask this question:

Suppose there exists a book simply titled "The Book of God's Existence" which, using formal logic and reasoning, proves the existence of God. However, if one who does not already believe in God reads this book that person is doomed to eternal damnation. Many prominent and vocal atheists have read the book intending to prove it wrong, but in each case they immediately become depressed believing their fate in Hell is assured.

You, as an atheist, are not convinced that the book is correct. In fact, you're almost certain that it can be proven wrong since you discover it is simply a modified ontological argument and have successfully found logical fallacies in numerous other similar arguments. What do you do?

There are only 3 valid actions that an atheist may take:

1. Refuse to read the book, but continue to deny God's existence. 
2. Refuse to read the book, but accept God's existence.
3. Read the book.

Each action requires a display of faith, either in God or one's self. Here's why:

1. If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I wouldn't believe in God either" they express a blind faith that the book is fallacious without examination of its contents and in direct conflict with the evidence that every atheist who has read the book believes in God--even those who were most vocal about their non belief.

2.If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I would believe in God's existence" they express a blind faith that the book is correct without examination of its contents and accept the testimony of those who have read it as correct without any real proof to validate their claims. Most importantly, however, they also express a faith in God.

3. Unfortunately, this is the choice most atheists would make. If they respond to the question with "I would just read the book" they express a blind faith that their intuition of the book's fallibility  is correct without any evidence. Further, they show a faith that the testimony of all the atheists who read the book is misguided despite the fact that each person who read the book was a strong atheist before, most likely including others that had also successfully refuted other ontological arguments. However, the greatest faith they place is in their belief that they will not be damned to Hell for reading the book without assurance.

Final Thoughts

In the end, each person is "granted a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3) by God, and an atheist is no different. Despite the claims that they will not express any faith, they are quite capable of doing so in many different situations. This question is simply a thought experiment to point out that they are indeed capable of faith.

********UPDATE********

Although not clearly explained in the question, one may assume that the reason for eternal damnation after reading the book is because a proof of God's existence means a person does not exercise faith in God or Jesus Christ, but instead logic. For this reason, the person commits blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (the only unforgivable sin) for essentially having no faith in God. After all, one doesn't have to have faith the sky is blue or any other proven thing.

Further, you can assume that the number of atheist who read the book is irrelevant.  Their combined knowledge covered every facet of atheism, agnosticism and ignosticism as well as every refutation for every argument for the existence of God. Suffice it to say they, as a group, represent the summation of all of atheist thought.

Finally, one can assume that the knowledge of the nature of the argument (ie. it's ontological) alone does not damn one to Hell, and this knowledge was gained from others who had read the work previously.

Discussion on the Origin of God with @NowAtheist

Who created God? This is one of the major questions that atheist use to justify their beliefs. It was first published by Betrand Russel and is still asked today by such prominent atheists as Richard Dawkins . However, lets dissect this question and find its logical conclusion.

We may provide the first premise the conclusion of the argument is based on which is everything with a beginning has a sufficient cause. This is simple enough: its straightforward logic. If a mirror shatters then something must have caused it to do so. Things do not spontaneously appear or happen (if it did then this would be a egregious transgression of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics) and thus one can safely assume this premise.

However, less intuitively the corollary of this premise, namely everything without a beginning has no cause. It makes sense that something that is truly infinite and eternal and able to transcend all universes would have no cause: nothing to make it appear or happen. Of course, such a situation cannot happen in our universe due to the aforementioned laws of physics. Therefore, it follows that any object that has no beginning is extraneous to the universe.

Further, we may also draw the premise that there must be a first cause. There really is no way around this. If the universe has a beginning (which it does) and the premise that everything with a beginning has a sufficient cause then it follows the universe had a cause. There are currently two explanations for this: either 1. it is a by-product of complex processes that operate in a multiverse in which new universes such as our own can be created or destroyed, or 2. it is a product of God. Naturally one may be inclined to accept the first as more reasonable, however, for the same reasons as our own universe, a multiverse must also have a beginning: some temporal point in which it existed that before which it did not. Of course, you could draw more elaborate hierarchies of multiverses to encompass our own, but this would always be subject to the same flaw: that it must have a first cause.

This is why God makes most sense. If God has no beginning, then He has no cause. This means He is a perfectly suitable entity to initiate the first cause of the universe (or multiverse.) Logically, the premises that lead to this conclusion may be summarized as follows:

1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
2. Everything without a beginning does not have a cause.
3. Because of the temporal geometry of the universe, there must be a first cause.
4. The first cause is either initiated by God or a mechanism of the multiverse.
5. The multiverse must also have a beginning such as our own universe.
6. Therefore, God is the most likely first cause.

Within the context of this logical framework the question "Who created God" is really moot. If there was an entity that created God, then that would violate the logic of first cause. Simply because God is the first cause, the intelligence that created the multiverse, and because He is extraneous to our own universe and therefore not subject to the same laws of physics as we are, it follows that God must not have a creator.