The Religious Right Aren't, and Scientific Creationism Isn't.
Creationist claim 1: -
"Evolution is a religion. A religion seeks to answer four questions. Here they are.
- 1) Who are we (and what are we worth)?
- 2) Where did we come from?
- 3) Why are we here?
- 4) Where are we going?
Both Christianity and evolution seek to answer these four questions. "
Wrong. Those are the primary intentions of religion.
RELIGION : - "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Let's go through them one by one.
a. BELIEF: - Evolution is NOT a belief. Evolution is a scientific model which describes a biological process where change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, is determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Evolution, as a scientific model, is a continuous process of observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. It is essential that people understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis. Contigent to scientific study is the concept of falsifiabily. The concept of falsifiability is why science is self correcting, and why scientific models, such as the model which supports evolution and natural selection, are not considered absolutes.
b. CAUSE: - Evolution does NOT describe the "cause" of the universe, neither does it claim that the universe is "caused" or "uncaused."
c. NATURE: - Evolution as a scientific model describes biological processes of the natural world.
d. PURPOSE: - Evolution does NOT describe the "purpose" of the universe. It is a scientific model which describes biological processes. Human beings attribute purpose or non-purpose according to either their individual or their collective political, social, cultural or religious contexts.
e. SUPERHUMAN AGENCY : -Evolution does not attempt to describe (a,b,c and d) through belief in a superhuman agency or agencies. Evolution is neutral towards supernatural explanations of the universe because evolution as a scientific model can only describe the natural world. Evolution neither endorses nor disendorses god belief. The existance or non-existance of a god or gods is not in the purview of scientific models.
Evolution as a scientific model provides explanations of the natural world through the continuous processes of observation, measurement, experimentation and testing of the natural world. Whereas theology, (god belief and the study of religions), provide an explanation of the natural world through the various beliefs and religions associated with a supernatural entity and or a supernatural world. Evolution does not attempt to describe (a,b,c,and d) through belief or disbelief in a supernatural agency or agencies and is therefore NOT a religion.
g. Evolution does not not have religious devotional and religious ritual observances.
Devotional: - "Of, relating to, expressive of, or used in devotion, especially of a religious nature."
Evolution neither requires nor demands any religious devotional observance. It is merely a scientific model which explains the natural world. This scientific model is continually assessed and evaluated in the light of new knowledge.
Ritual: - "The prescribed order of a religious ceremony."
Evolution neither requires nor demands any religious ritual obervances. Once again, it is only a scientific model which explains the natural world through the observation of the natural world.
h. MORAL CODE: - Evolution through natural selection does not claim to provide a moral code which governs the conduct of human affairs. Evolution describes what it observes in the natural world. It does not include a moral opinion about that which is observed. Evolution and natural selection as described by Darwin, do not have anything to do with a human sense of morality. They do not have anything to do with morality in the same way that the processes of photosynthesis or gravity have anything to do with morality. They merely examine the processes as they occur in nature. It takes a human agenda to ascribe a morality or immorality to a natural process.
We don't claim that gravity is immoral when a tree falls on a little, fluffy bunny. We don't claim that photosynthesis is immoral because green plants thrive in the presence of sunlight. We don't claim that evolution though natural selection is immoral when certain alleles are not passed on to the next generation. Evolution through natural selection as espoused by Darwin, exists regardless of human intention and deliberation. It is not involved in determining the "worth" or "value" of living organisms according to a preconceived human standard.
Artifical selection, eugenics, social darwinism, and selective breeding attempt to use the information learned through the study of evolution and natural selection in order to intentionally and deliberately bring to fruition a human political, religious, cultural or social goal. That is, they are models of human political, social, economic or cultural intentionality. In this way they are diametrically opposed to evolution through natural selection.
To assume, or to claim that people who accept evolution and natural selection also accept whatever is done in the name of artifical selection, eugenics, social darwinism, or selective breeding is either naively disingenuous or blatantly obfuscatory.
Creationist claim: 2
"Evolution says that we are all animals, just advanced amoebas that got washed up on some beach, and we are worth nothing to any one. Christianity says that we were created by Almighty God, and thus we are worth more than anything else in this universe."
Evolution does claim that from a biological perspective we are animals. Biologically we are members of the Animalia Kingdom.
PRIMARY DEFINITION OF ANIMAL : - "any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. (This primary definition demonstrates that biologically human beings are animals.)
Biblically, the word "animal" was used in a way that made distinctions between humans and other organisms. These differences are usually concerned with the belief in a human soul which is capable of transcending physical death or a human purpose which is superior to that of other creatures. Therefore the secondary definition of animal is the one which some religious people prefer.
SECONDARY DEFINITION OF ANIMAL: - "any such living thing other than a human being."
Evolution does NOT claim that human animals are without value. It also doesn't claim that we have a soul or that we don't have a soul. Whether or not human beings have a soul is outside the purview of evolution. Evolution also doesn't claim that there is a god or that there isn't a god. Whether or not there is a god/gods is outside the parameters of evolution. It is outside the study of evolution because evolution oberves, describes and examines the natural world, not a supernatural one or a metaphysical one.
Creationist claim 3: -
"Evolution says (if you believe the big bang) that we are the result of a cosmic explosion. I’m not sure what the latest hypothesis is, but I’m sure that it is just as full of holes as all the others were."
Evolution is not the "big bang" the "little bang" or the "medium sized bang." Biological evolution through natural selection is not cosmology. Cosmology involves the study of the origins of the universe. The universe in cosmological terms, is the finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist. Some scientists hypothesize that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse. There are various disciplines associated with cosmology. Some of these include:
- a. Physical cosmology which studies the universe through physics and astrophysics. b. Metaphysical cosmology which studies the universe through philosophy and metaphysics.
- c. Religious cosmology which attempts to explain the universe through scripture, and religious dogma.
- d. Esoteric cosmology which attempts to explain the universe through esoteric and occult teachings.
Creationist Claim 4: -
"Evolution says that we have no purpose, and we might as well have fun and do whatever we want. “If it feels good, do it.” And why not, if there are no absolutes, than morality is relative."
Once again, evolution through natural selection does not define a human purpose in the same way that gravity does not define a human purpose, or the second law of thermo-dynamics does not define a human purpose. Natural selection occurs despite human intention or a human attributed purpose. Evolution through natural selection does not prescribe fun, boredom, morality, immorality, Nindendo games or clubbing until 3am in the morning. Natural selection occurs despite our opinion of it.
Creationist claim 5: -
"Evolution says that when we die, we will be buried and get recycled into an earthworm or a plant."
Once again, evolution does not describe, or observe what may or may not happen after death from a religious point of view. Science cannot observe the departure of souls from the physical body. If anything happens outside of the natural realm of death, neither evolution, nor science (as far as I am aware), have any valid, verifiable or consistent method for testing these religious claims.
Evolution and god belief are not mutually exclusive. Many people accept evolution and believe in a god or gods at the same time. Many people who believe in a god or gods consider evolution to be one of god's mechanisms. I don't have any massive objections to them doing this except that they are committing a logical fallacy in doing so.
It is an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and goes something like this.
1. My god/gods created everything.
2. Evolution through natural selection exists.
3. Therefore my god/gods created natural selection.
This fallacy, which is just shoehorning scientific knowledge or information into an already held religious belief, is a popular fallacy with some religious people. It is a way to rationalize new information so that it doesn't conflict with already held religious beliefs.
Some religions, however, are not compatible with evolution. These religions include the more fundamental versions of christianity and islam. New earth creationists and bible and quran literalists also find it difficult to reconcile scientific knowledge with their inflexible religious dogma.
"Evolution does not require the nonexistance of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistance of God more than they fear God Himself." - Keith Doyle (talk.origins posting)
New York Dolls - "Dance Like A Monkey"
evolution , religious right , creationism , scientific creationism , science , religion , dance like a monkey , new york dolls , youtube , cosmology , natural selection , big bang
posted by beepbeepitsme | 1:35 pm
54 Comments:
Beepbeep.
Definition of religion, ‘a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…’
Fits evolution perfectly.
‘especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies…’
Note the word ‘especially’ here.
‘usually involving devotional and ritual observances…’
Here note the word ‘usually’
‘and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.’
And last but not least note the word ‘often.’ I could rest my case right here but I’m not going to.
‘Evolution is NOT a belief.’
Yes it is, you believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old even though you have no proof whatsoever. In fact, there is far more proof that God exists than that the earth is millions and billions of years old.
‘Evolution is a scientific model which describes a biological process where change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, is determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes.’
Any one here heard the fairy tale about the princess and the frog? For those of you who haven’t, basically what happens is that a princess kisses a frog and the frog turns into a prince. Now, you tell that tale and nobody believes you. Now you retell that tale and say that the frog turned into a prince over millions and billions of years, and bingo! you have modern science.
‘Evolution, as a scientific model, is a continuous process of observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.’
Nope, science is neutral. Real science would look at the evidence and say, ‘does this evidence best support the idea that the earth is old or does it support the idea that the earth is young? Does it support the idea that there most likely has to be a god of some kind out there or that we all got here by chance?’ THAT’S science. Evolution is 100% biased that there is no God, Creation is 100% biased that there IS a God.
‘Scientific theories, like evolution…’
Once again, evolution is not science, and in all reality, it has not even gotten off the hypothesis stage. There is WAY too much evidence against it.
‘…relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification.’
The hypothesis of evolution has zero credibility.
‘It is essential that people understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis.’
I agree 100%.
‘So, contingent to scientific study is the concept of falsifiabily. The concept of falsifiability is why science is self correcting, and why scientific models, such as the model which supports evolution and natural selection, are not considered absolutes.’
But let it be known, the idea that the earth is millions and billions of years old and the idea that we just evolved is NOT falsifiable, and anyone who says so shall risk the wrath of the ‘scientific community’! And just to let you know, Creation science is technically falsifiable, but no one has been able to disprove it yet.
‘Evolution does NOT describe the "cause" of the universe, neither does it claim that the universe is "caused" or "uncaused."’
Than what was the big bang? Are atoms eternal? In order to have any credibility, you have to have a reasonably sound idea of where the earth came from. So you are saying that we all came from primordial soup, but you have no idea past that? How is it that your tremendous knowledge suddenly drops off at this point? Can I then really believe the rest of what you are telling me?
‘Evolution as a scientific model describes biological processes of the natural world.’
I could say the same thing about Creation science. Creation as a scientific model describes biological processes of the natural world.
‘Evolution does NOT describe the "purpose" of the universe.’
Yes it does, to ‘evolve and become better,’ other than that, anything goes.
‘It is a scientific model which describes biological processes.’
I’ve harped on the error of that kind of statement long enough.
‘Human beings attribute purpose or non-purpose according to either their individual or their collective political, social, cultural or religious contexts.’
Yes! And according the religion of evolution of evolution, you all have NO purpose. So let’s all eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!
‘Evolution does not attempt to describe 1,2,3,4 through belief or disbelief in a supernatural agency or agencies and is therefore NOT a religion.’
Reread this part of your definition. ‘ESPECIALLY when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies….’ Last time I checked, ‘especially’ did not mean only, and allowed for some exceptions, in this case evolution.
‘Evolution does not have religious devotional and religious ritual observances.’
I am going to have you do a lot of rereading throughout this section. ‘USUALLY involving devotional and ritual observances…’ There’s a word that allows for exceptions again! Too bad! You needed a definition with more absolutes. Oh yeh, you don’t believe in absolutes, my mistake. I guess you’re stuck then.
‘Evolution neither requires nor demands any religious devotional observance.’
And the definition of religion does not require it either.
‘It is merely a scientific model which explains the natural world. This scientific model is continually assessed and evaluated in the light of new knowledge.’
And so is Creation. The only difference is that evolution is constantly proven wrong, while Creation is demonstrated to be right.
‘Evolution through natural selection does not claim to provide a moral code which governs the conduct of human affairs.’
Yes it does, its moral code is no morals, everything is relative.
‘Evolution describes what it observes in the natural world. It does not include a moral opinion about that which is observed.’
It includes an opinion that there is no God, and thus that there are no morals.
‘Evolution and natural selection as described by Darwin, do not have anything to do with a human sense of morality. They do not have anything to do with morality in the same way that the processes of photosynthesis or gravity have anything to do with morality.’
Natural selection does not, evolution does.
‘They merely examine the processes as they occur in nature.’
Science does that, evolution does not.
‘We don't claim that gravity is immoral when a tree falls on a little, fluffy bunny. We don't claim that photosynthesis is immoral because green plants thrive in the presence of sunlight. We don't claim that evolution though natural selection is immoral when certain alleles are not passed on to the next generation. Evolution through natural selection as espoused by Darwin, exists regardless of human intention and deliberation. It is not involved in determining the "worth" or "value" of living organisms according to a preconceived human standard.’
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, I agree with the concept of natural selection. But the word selection implies that there is something to choose between. Dogs to dogs, I agree with that, rocks to people, I have a problem with that.
‘To assume, or to claim that people who accept evolution and natural selection also accept whatever is done in the name of artificial selection, eugenics, social Darwinism, or selective breeding is either naively disingenuous or blatantly obfuscatory.’
What about those who accept natural selection, but reject evolution?
Creationist claim: 2
"Evolution says that we are all animals, just advanced amoebas that got washed up on some beach, and we are worth nothing to any one. Christianity says that we were created by Almighty God, and thus we are worth more than anything else in this universe."
a. Evolution does claim that from a biological perspective we are animals. Biologically we are members of the Animalia Kingdom.
‘PRIMARY DEFINITION OF ANIMAL : - "any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. However, the word "animal" is used biblically in order to make distinctions between humans and other organisms.
(This primary definition demonstrates that biologically human beings are animals.)’
How so?
‘Biblically, the word "animal" was used in a way that made distinctions between humans and other organisms. These differences are usually concerned with the belief in a human soul which is capable of transcending physical death or a human purpose which is superior to that of other creatures. Therefore the secondary definition of animal is the one which some religious people prefer.
SECONDARY DEFINITION OF ANIMAL: - "any such living thing other than a human being."’
The difference between people and animals is that people are created in the image of God, animals are not. People have eternal souls, animals do not.
‘Evolution does NOT claim that human animals are without value. It also doesn't claim that we have a soul or that we don't have a soul. Whether or not human beings have a soul is outside the purview of evolution. Evolution also doesn't claim that there is a god or that there isn't a god. Whether or not there is god/gods is outside the parameters of evolution. It is outside the study of evolution because evolution observes, describes and examines the natural world, not a supernatural one or a metaphysical one.’
Yes it does assume the non-existence of God. It assumes that God had nothing to do with the formation of the earth or the life thereon. All the evidence points to the existence of God but the evolutionists blatantly ignore the evidence and try to silence all those who would make the truth known.
Creationist claim 3: -
"Evolution says (if you believe the big bang) that we are the result of a cosmic explosion. I’m not sure what the latest hypothesis is, but I’m sure that it is just as full of holes as all the others were."
‘Evolution is not the "big bang" the "little bang" or the "medium sized bang." Biological evolution through natural selection is not cosmology. Cosmology involves the study of the origins of the universe. The universe in cosmological terms, is the finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist. Some scientists hypothesize that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse. There are various disciplines associated with cosmology. Some of these include:
a. Physical cosmology which studies the universe through physics and astrophysics.
b. Metaphysical cosmology which studies the universe through philosophy and metaphysics.
c. Religious cosmology which attempts to explain the universe through scripture, and religious dogma. d. Esoteric cosmology which attempts to explain the universe through esoteric and occult teachings.’
So… evolution only goes back to just after the origin of the earth? Nice, But I can explain everything from the origin of the earth to the purpose of life.
Creationist Claim 4: -
"Evolution says that we have no purpose, and we might as well have fun and do whatever we want. “If it feels good, do it.” And why not, if there are no absolutes, than morality is relative."
‘Once again, evolution through natural selection does not define a human purpose in the same way that gravity does not define a human purpose, or the second law of thermo-dynamics does not define a human purpose. Natural selection occurs despite human intention or a human attributed purpose. Evolution through natural selection does not prescribe fun, boredom, morality, immorality, Nintendo games or clubbing until 3am in the morning. Natural selection occurs despite our opinion of it.’
Yes it does. It says that there is no God, no absolutes, and that morality is relative.
Creationist claim 5: -
"Evolution says that when we die, we will be buried and get recycled into an earthworm or a plant."
‘Once again, evolution does not describe, or observe what may or may not happen after death from a religious point of view.’
And once again it does. It says that there is no God and no absolutes (are you absolutely sure of that fact?), when we die we’re gone, done, dead. That takes a lot of faith.
‘Evolution and god belief are not mutually exclusive. Many people accept evolution and believe in a god or gods at the same time. Many people who believe in a god or gods consider evolution to be one of god's mechanisms.’
Yes they are mutually exclusive. Mixing them is a bunch of baloney.
‘I don't have any massive objections to them doing this except that they are committing a logical fallacy in doing so.’
Well I DO have massive objections with people mixing Christianity and evolution. You cannot mix two different religions. And I agree that mixing them is a logical fallacy.
‘It is an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and goes something like this.
1. My god/gods created everything.
2. Evolution through natural selection exists.
3. Therefore my god/gods created natural selection.’
A bunch of garbage.
‘This fallacy, which is just shoehorning scientific knowledge or information into an already held religious belief, is a popular fallacy with some religious people. It is a way to rationalize new information so that it doesn't conflict with already held religious beliefs.’
Not smart.
Some religions, however, are not compatible with evolution. These religions include the more fundamental versions of Christianity and Islam. New earth creationists and Bible and Quran literalists also find it difficult to reconcile scientific knowledge with their inflexible religious dogma.
You can’t mix God and Satan. But evolution is the one trying to make modern science compatible with their preconceived beliefs. Modern science fits perfectly with Creation.
‘"Evolution does not require the non-existence of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the non-existence of God more than they fear God Himself." - Keith Doyle (talk.origins posting)’
Evolution does not require the non-existence of God, but it assumes it.
Daniel
I do SO freakin' love that song and video!
Two words: you rule.
Evolution is NOT a belief.
Their real beef, of course, is with the notion that science proceeds by seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena.
Why can't science posit supernatural explanations?, they whine.
Ergo: evolution is a religion, and so is meteorology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc . . .
Cool quote at the end...
I have been saying this, in many many more words, and much more wine....
"Evolution does not require the nonexistance of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistance of God more than they fear God Himself." - Keith Doyle (talk.origins posting)
Keep it up BeepBeep
Benedict
A whole site dedicated to what you *don't* believe in? I'd find that too depressing to maintain.
I doubt you'll change anyone's mind - but I'm guessing that is not your purpose. I'm thinking you just want to jump up and down and say "I'm smart, they are dumb, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!" And, indeed, the internet gives you that ability.
Enjoy...
RE craigs:
My intention is to get a few things off my chest. I am sure your blog also gives you that ability.
If you appear dumb in contrast, that is not my intention, you may just have to live with that reality.
RE anonymous daniel:
1.By your interpretation of the definition of religion, virtually any area of study could be defined as a religion. This should set off warning bells in your head, but I know it won't.
2. Evolution is not a belief unless every area of study, according to your definition is also a belief. This should also set off warning bells in your pea-brain, but once again, I know it won't.
3. No one needs to believe that the earth is millions of years old. There is mountains of evidence to support this scientific claim. You don't accept it because it doesn't support your book of religious babble.
4. Evolution shows common descent. It is able to do this once again because of the the immensity of evidence.
5. Evolution is a scientific model which best explains the origin of life through common descent. Thousands of pieces of factual information have lead to the theory of evolution.
6. Evolution is not biased against god belief. Science cannot test for the existence of the supernatural. When it can, I will let you know.
7. Evolution is science. All your creationist screaming at the top of your naturally selected lungs will not alter that fact.
8. Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made.
9. Evolution does not describe "the big bang", "the little bang" or the "medium sized bang." You are confusing evolution with cosmology.
10. Creation science describes the processes of the world according to the bible, not to what is observed, measured and tested through academic rigor.
11. Evolution does not describe the purpose of the universe. It describes the biological origins of life on planet earth.
12. How can you say in one breath that evolution has a purpose which is to "evolve and get better" and in the next breath you say that according to evolution "you all have NO purpose?" Oh, I forgot, you can say those things because you have no idea what you are talking about from one moment to the next.
13. Once again, by your interpretation of what constitutes a religion, any and all areas of study or endeavour would be considered a religion. That seems rather pointless, rather like your posts.
14. Creation "theory is NOT continually assessed and evaluated in light of new knowledge. If it was, you would have re-evaluated the "talking snake theory."
15. Evolution through natural selection does not claim to provide a moral code which governs the conduct of human affairs. You claim that it has a moral code, which is ammoral. You seriously need to understand language. You have just done the same thing again, claim one thing, then change your mind a second or two later. Do all creationists suffer from religious aphasia or is it just you?
16. Evolution does not include an opinion on either the existence of god or the non-existence of god. You just have your baby, tightie whities in a bunch because it doesn't profess god belief in every sentence.
17. You obviously have no idea of the differences between evolution, natural selection, artificial selection, selective breeding, eugenics and social darwinism. You consider all of these things to be evolution.
Evolution and natural selection are the biological processes which scientists study. You seem to have confused all of them as "evolution" in the same way that a chid might confuse all soda pop as coca cola. When scientists mention evolution, they are specifically referring to the darwinian model of natural selection.
18. If you accept natural selection, it means you accept the theory of evolution.
19. Evolution doesn't claim that we came from rocks.
20. Human beings are defined as animals from a biological perspective. This is not the same as denying the existence of a soul, or a god. The definition of an animal shows how, and why we are classified biologically as animals.
21. Evolution does not claim that there is no god or gods. You may find people who accept evolution who say they have no belief in a god or gods. But evolution as a scientific theory doesn't make any claims about gods.
22. I know you believe that your book has all the answers to life, the universe and everything. Obviously, I think that most of those answers are terminally retarded.
23. Once again, the theory of evolution does not make a claim about gods at all. It makes no claims about what is moral and what is immoral or ammoral either.
And because it doesn't make claims about morality, it doesn't claim that morality is relative. You have asserted this position many times. I think it is time you showed me in the theory of evolution where it talks about morality.
And I don't mean your pastor's opinion on evolution, I mean from the theory of evolution.
24. Evolution and god belief are not mutually exclusive but your interpretation of the bible excludes the majority of scientific knowledge.
25. Evolution doesn't assume the existence or the the non-existence of krishna, buddha, allah, jesus or the flying spaghetti monster. It can't test for them. Neither can geology, archeology, paleontology, biology, ecology, chemistry, or physics.
Beep, why don't you pose a serious topic for a change, perhaps something that requires long comments?
Outstanding and educational "freethought" blog. I love it. Greetings from San Francisco!
If you appear dumb in contrast, that is not my intention, you may just have to live with that reality.
Indeed, I am dazzled by your brilliance...
RE craigs:
And I am dazzled by your pithy retort.
RE daniel: Yes, I know. Some of the replies are like essays.
Daniel:
Fits evolution perfectly.
Do you ever tire of being wrong? Evolution isn’t faith-based. It’s fact-based.
Note the word ‘especially’ here.
Definition of ‘especially’: To an extent or degree deserving of special emphasis; particularly.
Here note the word ‘usually’
Cherry-picking.
And last but not least note the word ‘often.’ I could rest my case right here but I’m not going to.
You’re kidding, right? You HAVE NO CASE.
Yes it is, you believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old even though you have no proof whatsoever. In fact, there is far more proof that God exists than that the earth is millions and billions of years old.
Next you’ll be claiming that we are simply having ‘faith’ in the evidence.
Any one here heard the fairy tale about the princess and the frog? For those of you who haven’t, basically what happens is that a princess kisses a frog and the frog turns into a prince. Now, you tell that tale and nobody believes you. Now you retell that tale and say that the frog turned into a prince over millions and billions of years, and bingo! you have modern science.
Bingo! We have a real idiot here.
Nope, science is neutral. Real science would look at the evidence and say, ‘does this evidence best support the idea that the earth is old or does it support the idea that the earth is young?
Oh my goodness, write it on the calendar! You got 1 right!
Does it support the idea that there most likely has to be a god of some kind out there or that we all got here by chance?’ THAT’S science. Evolution is 100% biased that there is no God, Creation is 100% biased that there IS a God.
½ a truth mixed w/ ½ a lie is oftentimes the blackest lie of all.
Once again, evolution is not science, and in all reality, it has not even gotten off the hypothesis stage. There is WAY too much evidence against it.
HAHAHAHAHA! Christlation: “I don’t like it, don’t show me any evidence!” Way too much evidence. Did you even graduate from HS?
The hypothesis of evolution has zero credibility.
Keep repeating that: it’s still a lie.
I agree 100%.
Cherry-picking.
But let it be known, the idea that the earth is millions and billions of years old and the idea that we just evolved is NOT falsifiable, and anyone who says so shall risk the wrath of the ‘scientific community’!
Bullshit. There’s oodles of ways to falsify it, but it has not happened. Provide a full vertebrate fossil from the pre-Cambrian era. Provide an animal (any!) that doesn’t have junk genes.
And just to let you know, Creation science is technically falsifiable, but no one has been able to disprove it yet.
Keep up those extravagant claims, you’re cracking me up here.
Than what was the big bang? Are atoms eternal? In order to have any credibility, you have to have a reasonably sound idea of where the earth came from.
???? Thought you were talking evolution, not abiogenesis.
So you are saying that we all came from primordial soup, but you have no idea past that? How is it that your tremendous knowledge suddenly drops off at this point? Can I then really believe the rest of what you are telling me?
Standard red herring. Next thing, you’ll be demanding witnesses.
I could say the same thing about Creation science. Creation as a scientific model describes biological processes of the natural world.
Creationism, again: NOT A SCIENCE. Creationists had to CREATE THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Oh, & spare me the horseshit ‘those nasty old scientists won’t let us vote on it’ garbage.
Yes it does, to ‘evolve and become better,’ other than that, anything goes.
Wrong again.
I’ve harped on the error of that kind of statement long enough.
No, you’ve provided nothing other than a severely uninformed opinion.
Yes! And according the religion of evolution of evolution, you all have NO purpose. So let’s all eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!
You can take that hedonistic garbage & stick it, bucko. NOT A RELIGION. We make our own purpose.
You’re too weak to do it w/o being threatened by ghosts? Not my problem.
Reread this part of your definition. ‘ESPECIALLY when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies….’ Last time I checked, ‘especially’ did not mean only, and allowed for some exceptions, in this case evolution.
That was YOUR definition. Nice try at moving the goalposts.
I am going to have you do a lot of rereading throughout this section.
I am going to have YOU do a lot of reading. ‘Especially’ REAL science books & links, since you don’t know diddly-squat what you’re talking about.
‘USUALLY involving devotional and ritual observances…’ There’s a word that allows for exceptions again! Too bad! You needed a definition with more absolutes. Oh yeh, you don’t believe in absolutes, my mistake. I guess you’re stuck then.
Any time you want to bring real facts into the discussion, please do so. Otherwise, you’re blowing smoke out your ass.
And the definition of religion does not require it either.
What dictionary are YOU using.
And so is Creation. The only difference is that evolution is constantly proven wrong, while Creation is demonstrated to be right.
This is a joke, right? You gotta be fucking kidding me.
Yes it does, its moral code is no morals, everything is relative.
Wrong again.
It includes an opinion that there is no God, and thus that there are no morals.
Wrong again.
Science does that, evolution does not.
Wrong again. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
a. Evolution does claim that from a biological perspective we are animals. Biologically we are members of the Animalia Kingdom.
Your point?
How so?
I suggest you re-read the definition.
The difference between people and animals is that people are created in the image of God, animals are not. People have eternal souls, animals do not.
Either put up or shut up.
Yes it does assume the non-existence of God. It assumes that God had nothing to do with the formation of the earth or the life thereon. All the evidence points to the existence of God but the evolutionists blatantly ignore the evidence and try to silence all those who would make the truth known.
Your evidence being? Oh, rigghhhttt…you don’t have any besides your big mouth.
So… evolution only goes back to just after the origin of the earth? Nice, But I can explain everything from the origin of the earth to the purpose of life.
No, evolution only covers Man’s ascension.
Yes it does. It says that there is no God, no absolutes, and that morality is relative.
Evolutionary science doesn’t posit any of that. It’s a simple presentation of facts: it’s up to the logical person to evaluate them.
And once again it does. It says that there is no God and no absolutes (are you absolutely sure of that fact?), when we die we’re gone, done, dead. That takes a lot of faith.
If you can’t prove otherwise, quit repeating yourself.
Yes they are mutually exclusive. Mixing them is a bunch of baloney.
Religion is bunch of bullshit.
Well I DO have massive objections with people mixing Christianity and evolution. You cannot mix two different religions. And I agree that mixing them is a logical fallacy.
HELLO! Evolution: not a religion.
A bunch of garbage.
Perfect description of creationism.
Not smart.
No, you are not.
You can’t mix God and Satan. But evolution is the one trying to make modern science compatible with their preconceived beliefs. Modern science fits perfectly with Creation.
Hey, you can mix 2 imaginary friends together at will. ‘Evolution’ isn’t doing any such thing. You’re reifying like crazy, & poorly at that.
Evolution does not require the non-existence of God, but it assumes it.
Hey, the supernatural explanations failed so often (100%, in fact), that scientists switched to the materialistic method. Voila! It works!
Here’s a link to Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
Try doing some actual research, rather than parroting your pastor.
Idiot.
Hey Beep, off-topic but can I swipe that comic from you? I've got a couple guys over on Talk.Origins I'd like to dump it on...
RE: iamb
Yeah, go for it.
I do think that morality evolved in us, and it is hardwired in our brains. If we as a species raped, stole and murdered randomly without guilt, we would not be here today.
In fact, most animals do not kill within their own species or own community, and most innately have a great respect for things like "their space"
I thought of a great analogy when it comes to those who blame Hitler's breeding philosophies on Darwin. It is like blaming guns and bullets on Newton.
Oh dear, someone's mad.
RE mad
Nothing surpasses the Mad Hatter's Teaparty.
In my version of the story, the Mad Hatter is played by a fundamental christian or muslim.
RE AJ:
It just evolved faster in some of us. ;)
under_the_mercy:
Oh dear, someone's mad.
Nothing personal, I get a little riled at uneducated johnsons who spout the same damn drivel day in & day out, w/nothing to back up their claims but some cultist pseudoscience that got smacked down a 1/4 of a CE ago. It gets old, tired, & terribly repetitive to answer these stupidities politely. BBIM has more patience w/this than I do, but I've learned the hard way: being reasonable almost never works.
& when some asshat claims that The only difference is that evolution is constantly proven wrong, while Creation is demonstrated to be right. , w/o much more than some blustering bullshit to back the play, I call it the way I see it.
Face facts: creationism is errant nonsense. It's nothing more than Man's arrogance, an effort to cast our shadow upon the universe, & claim the universe is our shadow instead.
& science is not a democracy.
Evolution is the backbone of so many disciplines, it's mind boggling. From biology to medicine, ecological genetics to forensics to simple flu shots. If it is consistently proven wrong, why the wild successes, then?
This projection crap is crap. It's not a conspiracy among the scientists: IT WORKS.
I've got oodles of links I can provide, but for 1 thing:
It needs be approached w/an open mind.
‘Thou shalt not kill’ is as old as man himself, inasmuch as most men object to being murdered - Ingersoll
I only got this far into anon's comment before I switched off;
"In fact, there is far more proof that God exists than that the earth is millions and billions of years old."
Ok then, let's see it.
Lovely post, I just cant keep up with you Beep! You're a volcano!
Regarding the lenght of some posts, it's usually the fundies' ones. It's like if they're trying to reassure themselves, like if writing down thousands of words could make pink unicorns true. Of course it doesnt but it makes you believe they are!
I'm sorry, but what is the connection between flu shots and evolution?
RE under
Viruses evolve.
under_the_mercy:
I'm sorry, but what is the connection between flu shots and evolution?
Here, I'll do your homework for you -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/29/MNGQV5SIDC1.DTL
"Lindberg said the site tries wherever possible to show how evolution affects people in everyday life, and he offers flu shots as an example. "The power of the flu vaccine doesn't just wear out year by year," he explains. "But we need new shots each year because new species of the flu virus continually evolve that are resistant to the previous year's strains of the virus that are used in the shots."
RE ka
Thanks for the post. I simply couldn't be bothered posting information to someone who doesn't realise that viruses evolve through natural selection.
Yes, thats micro-evolution. But you were talking about macro-evolution.
I don't see any mention of micro or macro evolution in previous comments.
Beepbeep.
‘By your interpretation of the definition of religion, virtually any area of study could be defined as a religion. This should set off warning bells in your head, but I know it won't.’
Show me.
‘Evolution is not a belief unless every area of study, according to your definition is also a belief.’
But evolution isn’t scientific theory; it doesn’t even have enough credibility to be a hypothesis.
‘This should also set off warning bells in your pea-brain, but once again, I know it won't.’
More mud-slinging?
‘No one needs to believe that the earth is millions of years old. There is mountains of evidence to support this scientific claim. You don't accept it because it doesn't support your book of religious babble.’
Show me one iota of evidence for that claim. While you are trying to dig one up, I’ll give you one against it. It has been pointed out that the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying regularly since it was first measured in 1835. Scientists have determined that the earth’s magnetic field would have been equal to a star as little as 10,000 years ago, or at the max, 20,000 years ago. That means that more than 10-20,000 years ago, life on the earth would have been impossible. Want more? Just let me know.
‘Evolution shows common descent. It is able to do this once again because of the immensity of evidence.’
Between a Doberman and a dingo? Yes I agree. Between a gnat and an elephant? I don’t think so!
‘Evolution is a scientific model which best explains the origin of life through common descent.’
True, but the ‘origin of life through common descent’ is not the best explanation of life.
‘Thousands of pieces of factual information have lead to the theory of evolution.’
Please show me.
‘Evolution is not biased against god belief.’
Yes it is, it assumes that God had nothing to do with the creation of life.
‘Evolution is science. All your creationist screaming at the top of your naturally selected lungs will not alter that fact.’
Show me. Evolution is a bunch of fairy tales for adults.
‘Evolution does not describe "the big bang", "the little bang" or the "medium sized bang." You are confusing evolution with cosmology.’
Than what, according to evolution, is the origin of life?
‘Creation science describes the processes of the world according to the bible, not to what is observed, measured and tested through academic rigor.’
Is, then, the fact that all of the evidence supports Creation coincidental?
‘Evolution does not describe the purpose of the universe.’
Yes it does, it say that there is no purpose.
‘It describes the biological origins of life on planet earth.’
And what, pray tell, are those origins?
‘How can you say in one breath that evolution has a purpose which is to "evolve and get better" and in the next breath you say that according to evolution "you all have NO purpose?”’
You basically say that mankind will gradually get better, smarter, etc. Evolution continues on its never ending course, but life has no purpose. There is no reason for life. Read Ecclesiastes and just skip all the parts about God giving meaning to life and you get a good idea of the purpose of life with evolution.
‘Once again, by your interpretation of what constitutes a religion, any and all areas of study or endeavor would be considered a religion.’
Pure science is not religious, evolutionary and creationist sciences ARE religious.
‘That seems rather pointless, rather like your posts.’
Then why respond to then?
‘Creation "theory is NOT continually assessed and evaluated in light of new knowledge. If it was, you would have re-evaluated the "talking snake theory."’
What impact does that have on geology, biology, etc? If God is powerful enough to create the universe out of nothing, than I’m pretty sure that He is powerful enough to create a being that could talk through a snake.
A side note. I thought about your example of God putting tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden being comparable to putting a gun in the middle of a room with two toddlers in it faulty. A better example would be putting a bottle of poison in the middle of a room with two 12 year olds in it, telling them that if they drank it they would die, and then leaving then alone.
Anyway, back to topic.
Evolution through natural selection does not claim to provide a moral code which governs the conduct of human affairs. You claim that it has a moral code, which is amoral. You seriously need to understand language. You have just done the same thing again, claim one thing, then change your mind a second or two later. Do all creationists suffer from religious aphasia or is it just you?
I said that evolution’s morel code was that there are no morels, what’s your problem?
‘Evolution does not include an opinion on either the existence of god or the non-existence of god. You just have your baby, tightie whities in a bunch because it doesn't profess god belief in every sentence.’
Where does it allow for even the possibility of the existence of God?
‘You obviously have no idea of the differences between evolution, natural selection, artificial selection, selective breeding, eugenics and social Darwinism. You consider all of these things to be evolution.’
And you obviously believe that I must take them all as a package deal. I don’t have to. I accept and agree with natural selection, artificial selection, and selective breeding, but not the others.
‘Evolution and natural selection are the biological processes which scientists study. You seem to have confused all of them as "evolution" in the same way that a child might confuse all soda pop as coca cola. When scientists mention evolution, they are specifically referring to the Darwinian model of natural selection. If you accept natural selection, it means you accept the theory of evolution.’
You obviously aren’t getting it. The words natural selection and evolution are not interchangeable. If they were, than why are the two separate terms? I am going to resort to belittling right now. GET IT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD; NATURAL SELECTION AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME!!! Wow, they must really have dumbed down public schools since they put evolution in.
Alright, I’m done belittling now.
‘Evolution doesn't claim that we came from rocks.’
Prove me wrong.
‘Evolution does not claim that there is no god or gods. You may find people who accept evolution who say they have no belief in a god or gods. But evolution as a scientific theory doesn't make any claims about gods.’
Except that God had absolutely (oops! there’s that word again) nothing to do with the origin of life.
‘I know you believe that your book has all the answers to life, the universe and everything. Obviously, I think that most of those answers are terminally retarded.’
Let not the truth interfere with your opinions concerning science or the Bible!
‘Once again, the theory of evolution does not make a claim about gods at all. It makes no claims about what is moral and what is immoral or ammoral either.’
Except that God had nothing to do with the origin of life, there are no absolutes, and morals are relative. Nope, nothing at all.
‘I think it is time you showed me in the theory of evolution where it talks about morality.’
Are there any absolutes? No? Then everything is relative.
‘Evolution and god belief are not mutually exclusive but your interpretation of the bible excludes the majority of scientific knowledge.’
Evolution is the one excluding the majority of scientific knowledge, or you would be able to answer most/all of my questions. All the evidence fits perfectly with creation.
‘Evolution doesn't assume the existence or the non-existence of Krishna, Buddha, Allah, Jesus or the flying spaghetti monster.’
It assumes their non-existence.
‘It can't test for them. Neither can geology, archeology, paleontology, biology, ecology, chemistry, or physics.’
But geology, archeology, paleontology, biology, ecology, chemistry, and physics all give much evidence in support of God and the Bible.
Daniel
ka.
‘Do you ever tire of being wrong?’
I don’t know. I’m not sure how it feels to be wrong.
‘Evolution isn’t faith-based. It’s fact-based.’
And yet you believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old. That sounds like faith. There is absolutely ZERO evidence for that claim, and yet you trumpet it around like it is some kind of scientific fact.
Definitions.
None of the definitions are exclusive. Evolution is a religion because it has a belief about who are we, why are we here, where we come from, and where we are going. Any and every religion seeks to answer these four questions.
‘You’re kidding, right? You HAVE NO CASE.’
You have yet to show me that.
‘Next you’ll be claiming that we are simply having ‘faith’ in the evidence.’
You are believing a little bit of misinterpreted evidence, and deliberately ignore the mountains of evidence against your religious hypothesis.
‘Bingo! We have a real idiot here.’
If you are referring to anyone who believes in evolution, than I might be inclined to agree with you.
‘Oh my goodness, write it on the calendar! You got 1 right!’
And neither creation nor evolution does that. They both look for evidence that fits their preconceived belief system. Unfortunately for evolution, all of the evidence points to creation.
‘½ a truth mixed w/ ½ a lie is oftentimes the blackest lie of all.’
That is the reason why evolution is so evil.
‘HAHAHAHAHA! Christlation: “I don’t like it, don’t show me any evidence!” Way too much evidence.’
Translation. ‘I’m so stupid that I can’t show you any evidence, but I’m going to mock you and say that you don’t have any evidence, even though you have shown me evidence and I haven’t shown you any.’ Please. Get back to me once you actually have an argument.
‘Keep repeating that: it’s still a lie.’
You STILL haven’t given me one iota of evidence.
‘There’s oodles of ways to falsify it, but it has not happened.’
Yes it has, you just don’t want to admit it.
‘Provide a full vertebrate fossil from the pre-Cambrian era.’
Show me evidence for ANY eras.
‘Provide an animal (any!) that doesn’t have junk genes.’
They all (as far as I know) should have them and that would fit perfectly with creation. If evolution was true, there should have been TONS of ‘junk genes’ accumulated over millions of years.
‘Keep up those extravagant claims, you’re cracking me up here.’
Assuming that evolution is true, has your brain gotten past the amoeba stage yet? Or assuming that creation is true, maybe God left out your brain in order to give the rest of us a good laugh.
‘Thought you were talking evolution, not abiogenesis.’
I’m asking WHERE did life come from? So far, everyone has dodged my question because it shows just how ridicules the whole idea of evolution is.
‘Standard red herring. Next thing, you’ll be demanding witnesses.’
No, just some believable evidence will suite me just fine.
‘Creationism, again: NOT A SCIENCE. Creationists had to CREATE THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.’
Is it my fault that evolutionists are too chicken to do any debating with creationists?
‘Wrong again.’
Got any evidence this time, or are you still saying, ‘I’m right you’re wrong.
‘No, you’ve provided nothing other than a severely uninformed opinion.’
Behold, the great un-opinionated evolutionist! HAHAHA, stop it, you’re way too funny! HAHAHA!
‘You can take that hedonistic garbage & stick it, bucko. NOT A RELIGION. We make our own purpose.
You’re too weak to do it w/o being threatened by ghosts? Not my problem.’
You can stick with your evolutionary garbage all you want. What, are you afraid of the existence of God? Are you afraid that if He is real, that heaven and hell would be too? Unfortunately for you, they are real whether you think it is or not.
‘That was YOUR definition. Nice try at moving the goalposts.’
Beepbeep gave the definition, not me.
‘I am going to have YOU do a lot of reading. ‘Especially’ REAL science books & links, since you don’t know diddly-squat what you’re talking about.’
Why don’t you read some REAL science books yourself. If evolution is true than you should have no problem refuting my arguments.
‘Any time you want to bring real facts into the discussion, please do so. Otherwise, you’re blowing smoke out your ass.’
I am, you are just trying to shout me down, displaying your own ignorance all the while.
‘What dictionary are YOU using.’
Whatever dictionary that beepbeep got hers from.
‘This is a joke, right? You gotta be fucking kidding me.’
Got any evidence against my statement?
‘Wrong again. … Wrong again. … Wrong again. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?’
As usual, no evidence.
‘Either put up or shut up.’
Oh, don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion!
‘No, evolution only covers Man’s ascension.’
Soooo, you have no idea about how the building blocks for life got here, but got here they did and now here we are? Thanks but no thanks.
‘Evolutionary science doesn’t posit any of that. It’s a simple presentation of facts: it’s up to the logical person to evaluate them.’
And the facts points to a young earth and a creator.
‘Religion is bunch of bullshit.’
Religion, yes, Christianity, no.
‘HELLO! Evolution: not a religion.’
HELLO! Evolution: a religion (for above said reasons.).
‘Perfect description of creationism.’
More like evolution.
‘Hey, you can mix 2 imaginary friends together at will. ‘Evolution’ isn’t doing any such thing. You’re reifying like crazy, & poorly at that.’
Two imaginary ‘friends,’ yes. Two real beings who are at war, no.
‘Hey, the supernatural explanations failed so often (100%, in fact), that scientists switched to the materialistic method. Voila! It works!’
All I see is shootings in school, rape and murder rampant, and homosexuality accepted. How’s that for working? When Christianity was still taught in schools, those things were there, but WAY less prevalent. So, Christianity works, evolution doesn’t.
‘Here’s a link to Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2’
If I read the sites that you tell me about, will you read the sites I tell you about?
‘Try doing some actual research, rather than parroting your pastor.’
Haven’t talked to my pastor at all about this. Why don’t you leave your evolutionary fairy tales and come back to reality?
‘Idiot.’
Come on, you don’t have to insult yourself like that.
I have to tell you, ka, your whole argument had no reason whatsoever in it. This sentence sums it up nicely, ‘I’m right and you’re wrong hahaha, you’re so stupid. Why don’t you go and read up on this before you reveal you ignorance to the world. Take some lessons from beepbeep, who actually knows how to debate without making herself sound like a complete and utter idiot. I know that it will be hard for you but you can do it! Until then, be quiet and just read and learn.
Daniel
under_the_mercy:
Yes, thats micro-evolution. But you were talking about macro-evolution.
Do some more research. They're the same thing. The only differential is HOW.
BBIM:
Thanks for the post
Hey, de nada.
It'd be nice if they googled something once in a while, ey? ;)
RE: anonymous daniel:
RE definition of religion
According to your loose definition of religion, history, for example, would also be considered a religion.
Your definition: "Evolution is a religion. A religion seeks to answer four questions. Here they are. 1) Who are we (and what are we worth)?
2) Where did we come from? 3) Why are we here? 4) Where are we going?
History, through the study of mankind's past, attempts to explain who we are, where we came from , why we are here and where we are going. Yet, this loose definition could be interpreted to apply to virtually any area of study, and consequently would not be considered a workable definition of "a religion."
RE: " But evolution isn’t scientific theory; it doesn’t even have enough credibility to be a hypothesis."
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
It is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
RE: age of the earth
Go here and read about it : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
When you have read it, post the evidence you have that the earth is 4000 years old, or whatever age you believe it is. I don't mean an attenpted rebuttal of the current science, as I have read those. I mean the scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal, for your claim of the earth's age.
RE: earth's magnetic field
"The earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate indicating that the earth must be young."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
RE: ‘Evolution shows common descent.'
Ken Miller - On Apes and Humans http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/11/ken-miller-on-apes-and-humans.html
RE: ‘Thousands of pieces of factual information have lead to the theory of evolution.’
The Scientific Case for Common Descent http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
RE: Evolution explains a biological progression of life through common descent. It doesn't claim that a god or gods had nothing to do with it.
RE : "Evolution isn't science"
Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.
Methodological naturalism observes events in nature. These events are explained by natural causes WITHOUT assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
RE: origin of life
As I have told you quite a few times now, one of the scientific explanations for the origin of life is abiogenesis.
RE ‘Creation science describes the processes of the world according to the bible, not to what is observed, measured and tested through academic rigor.’
There is no evidence for a biblical creation from a scientific point of view. Science cannot test for a god. The bible is the only dubious evidence for creationism.
Let me put this argument in some perspective for you, as it seems that many creationists have little if no grounded perspective. If all of evolutionary science, and every scientific discipline which independently supports evolution is wrong, the "talking snake theory" is still stupid.
And no squirming like a worm, your worldview relies on the literal belief that a snake talked.
I don’t know. I’m not sure how it feels to be wrong.
Ah, so you’re never wrong?
And yet you believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old. That sounds like faith. There is absolutely ZERO evidence for that claim, and yet you trumpet it around like it is some kind of scientific fact.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
“The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”
None of the definitions are exclusive. Evolution is a religion because it has a belief about who are we, why are we here, where we come from, and where we are going. Any and every religion seeks to answer these four questions.
Evolution doesn’t do any of that. It provides facts, something you seem to be lacking in.
You have yet to show me that.
I have to do all of your homework for you? Nice.
You are believing a little bit of misinterpreted evidence, and deliberately ignore the mountains of evidence against your religious hypothesis.
You’ll have to do better than that. What little bit? What mountains? Will the mountain come to me, or will I have to go to the mountain? Hehehe.
If you are referring to anyone who believes in evolution, than I might be inclined to agree with you.
Oh my, what witty repartee. I’m so utterly crushed by that! /sarcasm off.
And neither creation nor evolution does that. They both look for evidence that fits their preconceived belief system. Unfortunately for evolution, all of the evidence points to creation.
Bring it or piss off.
That is the reason why evolution is so evil.
Reification again. Gosh, you sure love that, dontcha?
Translation. ‘I’m so stupid that I can’t show you any evidence, but I’m going to mock you and say that you don’t have any evidence, even though you have shown me evidence and I haven’t shown you any.’ Please. Get back to me once you actually have an argument.
Keep parroting my commentary back to me. It shows how bright you really are.
You STILL haven’t given me one iota of evidence.
I’ve got tons of it.
Yes it has, you just don’t want to admit it.
Polly wanna cracker?
Show me evidence for ANY eras.
???? Cambrian? Pre-cambrian? Neanderthal? Australopithecus? What, you live in a bubble?
They all (as far as I know) should have them and that would fit perfectly with creation.
They ALL DO. Fits in perfectly? What?
If evolution was true, there should have been TONS of ‘junk genes’ accumulated over millions of years.
No, not tons. Specific amounts.
Assuming that evolution is true, has your brain gotten past the amoeba stage yet? Or assuming that creation is true, maybe God left out your brain in order to give the rest of us a good laugh.
Well, lessee, there is no gawd, there ain’t no ‘amoeba’ stage of the brain. Yep: you never graduated HS all righty.
I’m asking WHERE did life come from? So far, everyone has dodged my question because it shows just how ridicules the whole idea of evolution is.
Well, 1st off, it was Aristotle that started the whole concept of ‘spontaneous generation’. 2nd off, work in abiogenesis is still a work in progress, 3rd off, abiogenesis is a separate issue, which is why no 1 has answered your ‘question’.
No, just some believable evidence will suite me just fine.
Hey, I’ve already provided a few links: your self-honesty isn’t my lookout.
Is it my fault that evolutionists are too chicken to do any debating with creationists?
I debate creationists all the time. Check out Pharyngula. Do some research, fer cryin’ out loud.
Got any evidence this time, or are you still saying, ‘I’m right you’re wrong.
So now you know how it feels, eh?
Behold, the great un-opinionated evolutionist! HAHAHA, stop it, you’re way too funny! HAHAHA!
Polly wanna cracker?
You can stick with your evolutionary garbage all you want. What, are you afraid of the existence of God? Are you afraid that if He is real, that heaven and hell would be too? Unfortunately for you, they are real whether you think it is or not.
I don’t fear your savage little phantasm. 1 of the perks of atheism, is: I don’t scare easy. So fuck you & your god too.
Beepbeep gave the definition, not me.
Oh really? Go re-read YOUR definition.
Why don’t you read some REAL science books yourself. If evolution is true than you should have no problem refuting my arguments.
I don’t.
I am, you are just trying to shout me down, displaying your own ignorance all the while.
The argument ‘I know you are, but what am I’ is best suited for middle-school martinets.
Got any evidence against my statement?
Excuse me, but you’re the minority opinion here, & you’re the 1 making the claim.
As usual, no evidence.
Here, you go 1st.
Oh, don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion!
I don’t.
Soooo, you have no idea about how the building blocks for life got here, but got here they did and now here we are? Thanks but no thanks.
HELLO: talking about evolution.
And the facts points to a young earth and a creator.
Which ‘facts’ might those be?
Religion, yes, Christianity, no.
Both are.
HELLO! Evolution: a religion (for above said reasons.).
You’re still wrong.
All I see is shootings in school, rape and murder rampant, and homosexuality accepted. How’s that for working? When Christianity was still taught in schools, those things were there, but WAY less prevalent. So, Christianity works, evolution doesn’t.
Hehehehe. Must be soothing to be so naïve. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do w/any of that. Studies show that these things occur in RELIGIOUS societies. Secular societies have way less of these events.
If I read the sites that you tell me about, will you read the sites I tell you about?
Sure. I don’t read AIG, or anything from the cult Discovery institute, so you’d best make it good.
Haven’t talked to my pastor at all about this. Why don’t you leave your evolutionary fairy tales and come back to reality?
Unlike yourself, I don’t believe in fairies. Or zombies. Or ghosts.
Come on, you don’t have to insult yourself like that.
Your lack of creativity is duly noted.
I have to tell you, ka, your whole argument had no reason whatsoever in it. This sentence sums it up nicely, ‘I’m right and you’re wrong hahaha, you’re so stupid. Why don’t you go and read up on this before you reveal you ignorance to the world. Take some lessons from beepbeep, who actually knows how to debate without making herself sound like a complete and utter idiot. I know that it will be hard for you but you can do it! Until then, be quiet and just read and learn.
In all actuality, I was invited. I’m more than equipped to debate your puerile efforts: but I find that my courtesy has waned over the years in arguing w/your ilk.
I’ve been following this debate before I chipped in – I feel that I’ve adequately sized you up, & found you wanting in many respects.
Why DON’T you go & read up on this subject? You obviously know ZERO about the subject. You keep making these wild claims w/o backing it up w/anything. I on the other hand, keep up on the ‘debate’.
You creationists lost credibility in 1981, & it hasn’t got any better since. Same old, same old. You bring nothing to the table except what Arthur(?) refers to as PRATTs – points refuted a thousand times.
You, my friend, are simply another member of a discordant choir, singing the same disjointed tuneless song that proves nothing except that you’re just as gullible as the rest.
Lackwit.
Beepbeep.
‘According to your loose definition of religion, history, for example, would also be considered a religion.
Your definition: "Evolution is a religion. A religion seeks to answer four questions. Here they are. 1) Who are we (and what are we worth)?
2) Where did we come from? 3) Why are we here? 4) Where are we going?
History, through the study of mankind's past, attempts to explain who we are, where we came from, why we are here and where we are going. Yet, this loose definition could be interpreted to apply to virtually any area of study, and consequently would not be considered a workable definition of "a religion."’
History attempts to document the past as accurately as possible. History shows what happened, it doesn’t tell you who we are, it doesn’t tell you where we came from, (the Bible is the only accurate source for this time period and it only gives a few details after the creation for approximately 1,600 years, and evolution calls this area pre-history) it doesn’t tell us why we are here, just that we are here, (which I think that we all agree with, except for those few far out people that say that we really aren’t here at all) nor does it tell us where we are going, that is called prophesy.
‘In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.’
Yes, and evolution has been falsified.
‘It is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.’
Nothing wrong with that statement.
Re websites. I’ll propose the same thing to you that I proposed to ka, that if you read the sites that I bring to your attention, I’ll read the sites that you bring to mine. Deal?
‘Evolution explains a biological progression of life through common descent. It doesn't claim that a god or gods had nothing to do with it.’
If you say that a god MIGHT have had something to do with evolution, than I would say that that would be a pretty sorry god who has to make everything through trial and error.
‘Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.’
Than why all the deception, esp. concerning ‘missing links’? Things are being taught is evolutionary textbooks that have been proven wrong decades ago. Lucy is still a big hype right? She was a fragmented skeleton (it appears to have been of a chimp) with parts brought in from over a mile away. (Do you Aussies use the metric or English measurements? (Just for future reference for me.)) And the man who found Lucy was two weeks away from loosing his grant money when he found her.
‘Methodological naturalism observes events in nature. These events are explained by natural causes WITHOUT assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.’
Just the non-involvement of the supernatural. Real science simply looks at the evidence and tries to see where it would best fit, even if it would mean the existence of God.
‘As I have told you quite a few times now, one of the scientific explanations for the origin of life is abiogenesis.’
I looked up ‘abiogenesis’ on dictionary.com and found this definition.
‘The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.’
Oops! Next explanation.
‘There is no evidence for a biblical creation from a scientific point of view. Science cannot test for a god. The bible is the only dubious evidence for creationism.’
Science cannot test for God, but it can test His creation, and His creation shouts out His existence.
‘Let me put this argument in some perspective for you, as it seems that many creationists have little if no grounded perspective. If all of evolutionary science, and every scientific discipline which independently supports evolution is wrong, the "talking snake theory" is still stupid.
And no squirming like a worm, your worldview relies on the literal belief that a snake talked.’
In my last comment I said ‘If God is powerful enough to create the universe out of nothing, than I’m pretty sure that He is powerful enough to create a being that could talk through a snake.’ Who’s squirming?
Daniel
Any of you want to earn a quick $250,000? Here is an offer from Dr. Kent Hovind.
www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
I would have pasted it on here, but it was kind of long and this is not my website.
Daniel
RE anonymous:
Go and listen to Ken Miller's talk about apes and humans.
And then go away and cry for a while.
Then decide to be an adult and accept that your talking snake theory is stoopid.
Kent Hovind is in jail where the crook belongs.
30% of adults in the world are of stoopid children, what a bummer.
It might be a tad cruel to call children stupid. Afterall, they have not had as many opportunties for learning.
Adults, on the otherhand, have many opportunities. Some just choose to remain ignorant.
RE: "30% of adults in the world are of stoopid children, what a bummer."
And the source of this statistical analysis is where?
Oh, I forgot, you pulled it out of your ass.
Anonymous daniel:
I looked up ‘abiogenesis’ on dictionary.com and found this definition.
I'm going to contact them, as it is still in dispute, & not even on the discredited list.
I believe it is talking about this:
http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenesis
"Spontaneous Generation
Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat."
Yes, and evolution has been falsified.
No, it hasn't.
You're a Young Earther, right? Well, I'll tell you what most others are too polite to tell you: you are considered deranged amid the delusional. You can keep believing in your psychopathic invisible friend all you like, but this crap about 'scientific conspiracies' & 'evolution's been proven false' is all smoke & mirrors.
You've been lied to. You should be pissed off, not pissing on everyone else.
The earth is round, it's 4.5 billion yrs. old, & evolution has made your life easier in multitudinous ways.
So, here's the dilemma I pose to you: if evolution is 'evil', then you are bound & constrained to boycott any & all contributions it has made to your life, do you not? If so, then no more medicines: no insulin, no flu shots. Evolution is the backbone of biology, is it not? You will have to also forgo specific foods that are genetically enhanced thanks to evolution. Oh, & lessee, DNA testing, forensic criminology, & a plethora that I leave to you, o morally superior 1, to ferret out. If you're honest, that is.
I leave you w/this:
http://www.answers.com/evolution
"There is nothing in evolution that would lead to the conclusion that there is no God, that the universe is not God's handiwork, or that God does not continue to engage in a personal relationship with each human. Neither is there anything in evolution that would lead to the conclusion that God does exist. Rather, the matter of God is simply not relevant to the questions addressed by evolution. In other words, evolution leaves spiritual belief where it should be (at least, according to Christianity): in the realm of individual choice."
RE KA:
I have tried to expalin to him about evolution and that it neither endorses nor disendorses god belief. But he is too wound up over the fact that evolution does not support his 6 day version of creation. His basic problem is that his beliefs are scientifically untenable, but he is unlikely to admit that as he is a Kent Hovind fan. I can barely stifle a snicker at the mention of that crook's name.
ka.
‘Ah, so you’re never wrong?’
Concerning Creation vs. evolution, rarely if ever.
“The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”
If that were true, than why were live mollusks dated at 2,300 years old, fresh seal skins dated at 1,300 years old, and lava flows in Hawaii that took place in 1801 dated at 50 million years-14.6 billion years? By the way, don’t copy and paste with me unless you want me to copy and paste with you, because I’ll blow you away. I do not copy and paste with beepbeep, because she has asked me not to and as far as I can tell, doesn’t do it herself.
‘Evolution doesn’t do any of that. It provides facts, something you seem to be lacking in.’
Look who’s talking! You have not demonstrated a single fact to me yet.
‘I have to do all of your homework for you? Nice.’
Translation, ‘uh oh, he asked me for evidence but I don’t have any, what will I do? I know, I’ll throw out some remark and try to make him sound stupid while making myself sound smart!’
‘You’ll have to do better than that. What little bit? What mountains? Will the mountain come to me, or will I have to go to the mountain? Hehehe.’
If you really want me to I will, but if you’re just going to dance around with your fingers in your ears, than why should I bother?
‘Keep parroting my commentary back to me. It shows how bright you really are.’
I just figured that I would lower myself to your intelligence level so that you could understand me.
‘I’ve got tons of it.’
What was it that you said? Oh yes, something along the lines of ‘bring it on or get lost.’
‘Cambrian? Pre-cambrian? Neanderthal? Australopithecus? What, you live in a bubble?’
What about the bones and trees that pass through multiple ‘eras’? All those layers look an awful lot like a flood put them down to me.
‘They ALL DO. Fits in perfectly? What?’
According to Creation, God created man perfectly, man sinned, and now our bodies are deteriorating over time.
‘Yep: you never graduated HS all righty.’
Makes sense seeing as how I’m only 17. How ‘bout you? Did you make it through school, or have they dumbed school down so much that even people like you are allowed to graduate?
‘Hey, I’ve already provided a few links: your self-honesty isn’t my lookout.’
Only if you look at the links that I provide for you.
‘I debate creationists all the time. Check out Pharyngula. Do some research, fer cryin’ out loud.’
Than why are you doing such a poor job of debating me?
‘So now you know how it feels, eh?’
Yes, but do you?
‘I don’t.’
THAN REFUTE MY ARGUMENTS!!! What’s so hard about that concept? If you have evidence, than show me to be wrong!
‘Excuse me, but you’re the minority opinion here, & you’re the 1 making the claim.’
Ah, but I am denting the validity of evolution. What ever happened to the ‘burden of proof’?
‘I don’t.’
I can tell!
‘HELLO: talking about evolution.’
I am aware of that, but if you have no origin, than you cannot exist.
‘Which ‘facts’ might those be?’
All of them. Did you read any of my examples?
‘Both are.’
In your uneducated opinion.
‘You’re still wrong.’
You sound like a broken record.
‘Hehehehe. Must be soothing to be so naïve. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do w/any of that. Studies show that these things occur in RELIGIOUS societies. Secular societies have way less of these events.’
Than how come these things were pretty much non-existent before God, Creation, and prayer (to Jesus Christ) were taken out, and now that evolution has been substituted, these things are prevalent?
‘Sure. I don’t read AIG…’
Ok! Try these. But why not AIG? Were they proving you wrong all the time?
www.drdino.com
www.creationmoments.com
Try these for starters.
‘Unlike yourself, I don’t believe in fairies. Or zombies. Or ghosts.’
I don’t believe in them either.
‘Your lack of creativity is duly noted.’
When someone takes a shot at someone else and leaves themselves wide open, I consider them fair game.
‘I’m more than equipped to debate your puerile efforts: but I find that my courtesy has waned over the years in arguing w/your ilk.’
I’m not looking for courtesy, I’m looking for reason.
‘I’ve been following this debate before I chipped in – I feel that I’ve adequately sized you up, & found you wanting in many respects.’
Than you should be able to blast me away.
‘Why DON’T you go & read up on this subject? You obviously know ZERO about the subject. You keep making these wild claims w/o backing it up w/anything.’
Do you want to start a copy and paste argument?
‘I on the other hand, keep up on the ‘debate’.’
Than set your clock ahead about 20-30 years and maybe you’ll reach the present.
‘You creationists lost credibility in 1981, & it hasn’t got any better since. Same old, same old. You bring nothing to the table except what Arthur(?) refers to as PRATTs – points refuted a thousand times.’
From what I’ve seen, that comment is more appropriate for evolution.
‘I'm going to contact them, as it is still in dispute, & not even on the discredited list.’
Wow! You’re waaaaay behind on the times. That theory was discredited in the Middle Ages.
‘I'll tell you what most others are too polite to tell you: you are considered deranged amid the delusional.’
The feeling is mutual.
‘You've been lied to.’
You have not yet shown me how.
‘The earth is round, it's 4.5 billion yrs. old, & evolution has made your life easier in multitudinous ways.’
Round, yes, 4.5 billion years old, fairy tales, made my life easier, no, not really.
‘If so, then no more medicines: no insulin, no flu shots. Evolution is the backbone of biology, is it not? You will have to also forgo specific foods that are genetically enhanced thanks to evolution. Oh, & lessee, DNA testing, forensic criminology, & a plethora that I leave to you, o morally superior 1, to ferret out. If you're honest, that is.’
How are any of those to be credited to evolution? Oh, and by the way, genetically enhanced foods are not that good for your body. But going into health food would be a whole other debate that I don’t have time to go into right now.
Daniel
'Kent Hovind is in jail where the crook belongs.'
Show me the evidence. Last I knew, he was still at his work of showing everyone how foolish evolution is.
Daniel
Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.
Jo Hovind was charged and convicted in 44 of the counts involving evading bank-reporting requirements. She faces up to 225 years in prison but was allowed to remain free pending the couple’s sentencing on Jan. 9.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer said that Kent Hovind was a flight risk and a “danger to the community.”
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16451/kent-hovind-dr-dino-guilty-on-all-counts
RE: the dating of molluscs
He didn't measure the mollusks. He measured their shells. The whole point is that the process through which the mollusks builds its shell (taking carbon from the water it lives in and NOT the atmosphere) doesn't "reset" the C14 "timer".
In the 1963 paper by Keith and Anderson Table 1 on page 634 gives 7 dates from 3 different samples. The first set of 3 results come from "Marine samples", the second single date is from a "Lacustrine sample", and the last 3 dates are from "Fluvial samples".
The Marine samples give an uncorrected mean C14 date of 155, the Lacustrine sample as 440 and the Fluvial samples give a mean uncorrected C14 date of 1733 with the highest of those being the date of 2300(+/-200) years old (being the only date which Kent Hovind mentions).
On page 635, Figure 1 shows that the mollusks from rivers are not only deficient in C14 (as would be expected coming from a source, limestone, which has radioactively decayed and is not "recharged" like C14 in the atmosphere), but also were C13 deficient, explained by the concentration of leached humus in rivers and streams.
What Kent Hovind does not mention is that these are the exact results we would expect since carbon in limestone (C14 deficient) and humus (C13 deficient) that has been leached into the water should be at higher concentrations at their source (the streams and rivers which the samples were taken) than in lakes and oceans downstream which are affected by cleaner sources and that some samples used for C14 dating will give incorrect ages when the organism sequesters most of it's carbon from water.
The C14 dates in this paper are from these areas which contain "hard" water, heavy in dissolved solids from the surrounding landscape, and cannot be used to give accurate dates, which is the whole point of the paper.
RE: freshly killed seal was C14 dated at 1300 years old
Creationists who use this claim fail to understand where the seal got the majority of its C14 in the first place.
The zooplankton that the seal's prey fish feed on derive their carbon from nutrients brought up by currents from the bottom of the ocean, the carbon in which has been dated as being over a thousand years old.
In turn, since the seal had derived almost all of its carbon from these nutrient upwellings, it does not take a large step of logic to assume that it is this reason why the seal produced such an erroneous reading.
Damn! I haven't been around in a couple days and it looks like I missed some fun. Gotta hate when that happens.
You guys have a special treat here, Beep: rarely do you find creationists this stubborn who stick around for more than a couple comments. Consider yourself lucky. I'm still searching for a new pet troll ever since the last one got eaten...
P.S. Thanks for letting me swipe the comic!
Anonymous daniel:
My deepest & sincerest apologies. Here I thought I was debating an adult: you're just a child. I have helped raise a teenager, & I know this - teenagers are always right no matter how wrong they are. No matter how often you can prove it to them. You are probably homeschooled - either way, you debate like an adolescent.
Here's info on your beloved 'Dr. Dino':
http://www.answers.com/Kent%20Hovind
"Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American evangelist and prominent Young Earth creationist who is currently offering US$250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the universe and life arose. The self-styled "Dr. Dino" (whose Ph.D, from an unaccredited university, is in Christian education) established the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry in 1989. Hovind now speaks frequently in schools, churches, university debates and on radio and television broadcasts, and is the subject of controversy and public scrutiny. He is currently charged with 58 federal crimes, including separate counts of making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints and tax evasion."
The argumentum ad Hovind is considered an embarrassment by most creationists. This was prior to his being locked up for tax fraud.
Here's more on abiogenesis:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
"A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that."
You wouldn't happen to be posing as a Young earther, in order to get others to write your biology paper, would you?
Anyways, lotsa luck. Being so young, you should be able to outgrow most of this brainwashing nonsense you spout.
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead," - Thomas Paine
Beepbeep.
And the lava flows?
Daniel
P.S. If iamb wants to chat, I'm still here.
RE lava flows
Post the study, and I will take it from there.
RE iamb
I only become concerned if they take up residence and don't contribute to the rent. ;)
I don't mind the rent thing, as long as they don't shit on the carpet or claw the drapes. Rent's cheap around here anyway...
Besides, I have some regulars who seem to have a talent for eating trolls who don't behave. Pretty surprised actually that I've been at this for over a year and never had to ban or moderate even once...
David, I'll be periodically stopping in. I'll play for a little while, but I have this sneaking suspicion that you're immune to any sort of PRATT correction, and I have enough people like that on Talk.Origins to deal with so come up with something original (hint: look through the Creationist Claims Index on TO... if you see it there, don't bother. However, if you find something in the Index that you think is wrong and you can back it up, I'll be happy to have it changed for you...)
*Breath holding in 3, 2, 1...*
Wow! I'm bookmarking your site NOW
A fellow Aussie thinking like me, Yay!
Post a Comment
<< Home