Bitcoin Forum

The man clearly was well immersed into atheistic, evolutionary thinking - but in time, it was the evidence that changed his thinking.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/frantisek-vyskocil

Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil of Charles University in Prague is internationally known for his path-breaking neurophysiology research. Once an atheist, God opened his eyes through his scientific research so that he now firmly believes in intelligent design and a Creator God.

Changed his mind based on evidence.....none of which was presented. ....except the same old argument by creationists that the existence of similar genes and systems in lower and higher forms must be evidence of a creator and not evolution because God must have created the same system for everyone (that's not evidence by the way...its called storytelling). .....and mutation alone cant be enough (which we already knew long ago).     He published lots of papers...none of which also were on evidence against evolution. or for creation.

Does God believe in God?
Does he have any religious motives, or he acts in accordance with logic only?
If he has some kind of religious motivation, then what denomination he adheres to?

 :D

I'm an evolutionary biologist. What evidence?

EDIT: Oh I see he is NOT an evolutionary biologist. He's a doctor with no training in evolutionary biology.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/František_Vyskočil

He is attempting to use science to justify his new beliefs.   That's not science.  Its a creationist approach.
This guy is no different. See this quote below


Also, instead of unfairly attributing the amazing designs manifest in creation to blind chance, I and not a few other scientists ask ourselves, ‘How did God design this?’
   
This isn't science. He has already concluded that God designed it and attempts to explain it with in reverse with science. That is NOT how science works. This is nothing new for alleged Christian "Scientists".

not the first scientist i've heard

I'am a Muslim.
and I don't see why would someone think that there is no "GOD"
If there isn't .. who made us & made this planet ? it's that simple  >:(

Another atheist scientist discusses his journey.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/08/26/confessions-of-a-former-atheist

Sure, I could find sites all over the Internet that attempted to address these issues and how they didn’t disprove evolution, but what I was concerned with was the fact that they had never been brought up before. It was as if all the difficult spots in evolutionary theory had been whitewashed.

Here is another stupid statement.
Vyskočil’s doubts about evolution began during the time that he was studying neuron synapses: "I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense (Vyskočil 2011).

This is a gross misrepresentation of evolutionary science. It is not blind chance at all.  How can this professor evaluate evolution if he doesn't even understand what he is contemplating? This is inexcusable.

You know, this complicated genetics stuff just seems so...well...complicated.    I therefore think that Genesis is a far more logical explanation.   It all just popped into existence.  So much simpler.   The evidence led me to this conclusion.   Please don't ask me to present any of this alleged evidence.

Because they're not satisfied by religious explanation of everything. Allah, Buddah, Jesus were unable to explain why sunlight could cause cancer, for example. Some people are different, they need real answers, but not another illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

You're welcome.

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

There are difficult spots. For example the origin of life is a mystery. The worlds best biologists can not even tell you if life started on Earth. Physicists can't explain how living things stay alive. These a big questions that still have to be answered.
We may find answers to these questions eventually, but I don't think we are gong to find the answers in bronze age mythology.  

You forgot the 4th fact....he failed to mention any evidence for creation.   His only evidence was that he thought it was too complicated to happen by mutation alone (same old argument).  And guess what, if he weren't 80 years old and lost to modern science, he would know he is right and there are lots of other mechanisms.

An atheist can reject evolution if he/she chooses to. There are no absolutes when it comes to a person's beliefs. Beliefs are not nessasarily basic upon logic and facts. So this guy found god.

I work in evolutionary science as much or more than any neurophysiologist. None of his published work was relevant to the topic of evolution. 

It boils down to this .   Just because the petabytes of data supporting Evolution is somewhat lacking in its explanation of an eye protein or some other little known neuropathic process that represents 0.000000001% of the overall evidence for evolution....does not constitute a rational to reject the other 99.999999% of the petabytes of data.  .  And it most certainly does not constitute EVIDENCE  of the biblical story.   

Frank has drawn a CONCLUSION, but has not presented any sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion.

He is no different that you, who simply wishes to believe in a "creator" when there is  no evidence supporting his/your wishful thinking.

It the 800 pound gorilla in the room that you refuse to acknowledge....

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

#3 is correct - read the article a bit more carefully (have you read the article?).What you are objecting to is not what #3 states.

I read it.  There was no evidence of a creator in any of his studies.  He could not have been convinced of a creator because of evidence of a creator.  He found none.  What he is actually claiming is that he didn't think the evidence of evolution is satisfactory.  This is a different thing than evidence of a creator. 

If you believe he found evidence of creationism, please point it out to us in any of this gentleman's studies and let's discuss it.

Ok, there is a difference between these two statements, correct?

3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

VS

Scientific research shows that there is a Creator God.

Even if we all agree that he has not presented any such sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion - you are agreeing then with statement #3.
3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.
And if someone says he sees no evidence for something, and has his hands over his eyes, should I care?

Yes-
Refusing to acknowledge evidence should be a cause for concern, but that's beside the point.

In this case the point that has been made is there is no evidence. Admitting there is no evidence to see is not willful blindness.

No not really.  Only that in the first one he would have to be lying.  There is nothing in his research that provides evidence of god.  By saying his research has shown him god he is either delusional or dishonest or he merely hasn't presented the evidence of god form his research yet.  So he didn't in fact come to see there is a god through his research.   He came to BELIEVE there is a god like many before him who cannot understand something complicated and therefore attribute it to God.

What evidence do you refer to you above zolace? When are you ever going to present any evidence of God you repeatedly suggest exists?  What was the evidence of god in this guy's studies and why didn't he present it?

Saying that something is just too complex or too amazing for evolution to be the answer IS NOT NOW and HAS NEVER BEEN evidence of a creator or creationism.  Do you know what it is evidence for?   Human ignorance as to how things work. 

Or he sees something you (for various reasons) have not.But, regardless - its a fact that he notes this.  Are you saying he does not note this?

He claimed, through his research, he saw there is a god.   This is a lie.  There is nothing in the research that says there is a god.  Don't you think ICR would have asked him how he came to see there is a god?  Why would he not present the evidence of god if he sees it in his research?

He would have been correct to say that he feels that what he sees is too complicated to have evolved and therefore chooses to believe in a creator, (for which there is far less evidence.)

I wonder what our believers would say if he claimed he saw god in his research and it was Ahura Mazda, the god of Zoroastrianism. Many doctors around the world believe in Hindu gods, are they wrong? And what about the overwhelming majority that see no evidence whatsoever of a god? Why is this one guy right?

Zolace says maybe he sees things that no one else sees or that he wont tell us.  That could be it though Zolace, he may see evidence of god and he just doesn't want to tell anyone about it or show them.
 
Even if there were any valid evidence against evolution, it has never been, and never will be, evidence for a Creator.  All he has done is to say he feels something is too complicated to have evolved.  This argument has failed numerous times before has it not??

If he "saw" something during his "research", then he should be able to follow the Scienefitc Method and demonstrate the data using such means.

Where is it?  If it's there, I would like to see it as well!  I have an open mind. If there is proof positive for your "creator", I want to see it.

It's been a couple of years since I've stated my position.

For the record....

I have no problem beleiving in something that is currently beyond my education when it come to a "god-like force" in the universe.

I have a big problem with religious/ superstious idiots who believe thier religious bullshit supercedes empiricle science.

Why is there a need for life to evolve? Is gravity the force that pushes the rock up that hill? The petabyte of data explore the how. If you knew why life evolve you could be able to stop it too. As far as I know that is impossible. Life ALWAYS finds a way (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/microbial-life-found-living-on-the-exterior-of-the-international-space-station-say-reports-9682850.html) . But why the need to find a way?

For someone determined to live like an atheist, sure.  Nothing, but nothing, will count as evidence for the Creator.  Romans chapter 1.

He's not, he's just retarded:

Simple bacteria can divide each 20 minutes and have some 2000 different proteins each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains of say 200 amino acids. To be evolved via beneficial variants by single nucleotide mutations it should take, not 3 x 10^9 years (the expected time life existed on Earth) but some 10^50 years. There is simply not enough time (Vyskočil 2011).

I bet he thinks that 9 women can deliver a baby in a month. Maybe there existed 10^41 bacteria in the past, did he think about that?

Another retarded argument from the stupidity website:

Scientists now know that unrepaired single nucleotide mutations (STMs) are far too rare to serve as a major mechanism for evolution and most are deleterious or near neutral anyway.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3639319/
The major replicative DNA polymerases have evolved mechanisms to strongly favor correct over incorrect dNTP incorporation. In addition, several DNA polymerases contain an associated 3′→5′ exonuclease activity that can excise incorrect bases from the growing DNA chain, allowing another attempt at correct synthesis. In the event that the polymerase makes an error that escapes this proofreading activity, post-replication DNA mismatch repair monitors the DNA for errors, excises the error in the newly synthesized strand and then re-synthesizes DNA. In total, these three discrimination steps result in an in vivo mutation rate estimated to be lower than 1 ×10^−9, i.e., less than one error for every billion (or more) bases pairs copied .

The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. That means on average 2-3 translation error during cell division that are undetected and functional. This is the highest fidelity genetic process in the body. Normal DNA strands are then acted upon by lots of mutagens including... WATER, this happens about once per second in each of our cells (most of which are repaired unless they create valid encoding patterns).

To start with an obvious lie, then admit that you don't understand simple mathematics, does not constitute proof of aliens creating and colonizing the earth!

That is a central question! We know that life is some kind of a chemical/physical reaction that keeps itself going. But why? The most common interpretation is that once such a reaction happens by chance it is hard to stop. That could be right, but we really don't know because we really don't know what life is. It could be a normal outcome of the interaction of matter and energy. It could be a quantum phenomena that spans several dimensions. Perhaps we can't understand it because we can't see what is going on in those other dimensions?

Why indeed.  ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_Universe

I am familiar with that and I do think it is important. I'm an evolutionary biologist.  ;D

But I most interested in what is not known. That intersection of physics and biology is so fascinating.  My physicist friends all talk of "unifying" the small and large scale theories. For me you do not have a unified theory until you can explain the living state of matter. (or energy?).

My current pet theory rests in the work of steuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. They looked at quantum effects in the cytoskeleton of living cells. this has led to a slew of observations of quantum weirdness in living things, such as the discovery of ordered water in plants. It is not known what it means or if they are on to something, but it could lead to better questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

The article sounds just wierd.
A scientist sees something in the microscope and instead of finding out what it really is he starts to beleave in ghost and goblins..
"blind chanse"? I have a hard time to beleave that this is a real article since he clearly dont know what evolution is

If I were to post ad nauseum/daily basis.... " The FSM is real! It answers my prayers! I talk to it, and it answers me! I'm going to FSM heaven because I place my total faith in it!"

Would it be out-of-line for someone outside the loop to reasonably and respectfully ask, "Where the proof this FSM exists?