User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1777104-20100706145325

Destroyanator said:


 * you say that because science cant explain why the universe was born, science is wrong and therefore must be regected. that's logical fallacy.


 * I did not say that. So you are using a "logical fallacy" known as a "straw man," building an argument against a statement that is obviously weak enough to be easily destroyed.  I said that Knowledge, once obtained through the scientific process and confirmed through repeatable experiments, is "what we know."  All other theories and conjecture are suspect.


 * if science can't explain something NOW, that doesn't simply imply that science is inadequate, simply that sciences has explained it yet. 100 years ago, science couldn't explain why the sun kept burning. so does Gods will keep that giant ball of fusing hydrogen there? no.


 * "Science" is by nature "inadequate" to explain the unknown. Today's knowledge of the sun's interior is still just theory, for we have not sent measuring devices into it (assuming we could devise materials that could go there).  It could be fusion, or it could be gravity, or it could be something we have not figured out yet.  But whatever it is, it by design WORKS because God "keeps it burning."


 * also, why would God (who, according to the bible, is a kind and loving god) create a universe in which simple observation would drive humans away from Him?


 * Simple "observation" does not drive humans away from God. The speculations of God-denying men, with minds dead set against being ruled by Him, drive humans away from God.  God created a universe that was perfect, and mankind rejected that perfection in a vain attempt to "understand" the unknowable.  Ever since, the perfect has been becoming less perfect -- running down.  God is no less "kind and loving" because His creation is broken.


 * finally, you state that "no new information is gained" when adaptation and speciation occurs. let's assume for a moment that Adam and Eve really did exist, and they had caucasiod features. so, when their descendents encountered the harsh african sun, how would they have adapted to their environment without "adding new information"?


 * The faulty premise - that Adam and Eve were white - leads to a fauty conclusion. As the first parents, their features contained much more information than their children would receive from them.  They were most likely a mid-brown or maybe reddish ("Adam" is the same word as "Edom" and can mean "red")  Each child would recieve only half the information from each parent.  At the beginning, based on the similar DNA, the "copy" would be very much like the originals -- but the recombination of the four to six genes, in their permutations, would provide a wide range of pigmentations -- from the darkest brown to nearly white "pink."  When their descendents encountered conditions that were detrimental to the pigmentation, those individuals would either improvise (find shelter) or die young without children.  The "survival of the fittest" as well as the preferences of the parents for mates "like them" (and more likely to provide children that would survive).  In this way, the "all black" genetic material (which cannot produce light-skinned children) would prevail, and thus a LOSS of information.


 * In all likelihood, based on the story of the Bible, the humans that migrated to Africa from the area around the Euphrates and Tigris rivers already HAD the desirable specialized pigmentation (a gracious "loving" provision from the very God who "banished" them to that land). The same goes for the "White" peoples that migrated to the north to meet the special requirements of that harsh environment.  "All White" genes also lack the information to produce darker skinned offspring.  The vast majority of humanity, though, has a mix that allows for variation.