Saturday, December 22, 2007

Oh My God!

 
According to a report in the Toledo Blade a recent survey of 1005 American adults reveals the following astonishing facts [Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin].
--75 pecent believe that Jesus was born to a virgin. Mary

--69 percent of adults believed Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana.

--68 percent believed Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed a crowd of 5,000.

--64 percent believed the Earth was covered by a flood in which Noah, his family, and numerous animals were spared by living on an Ark.

--56 percent expressed literal belief in the Bible account of the devil, disguised a serpent, tempting Eve to eat forbidden fruit.

--49 percent accepted as accurate the Bible story of Samson losing his legendary strength when Delilah had his hair cut.
Guess what folks? This survey was not taken in 1500 AD. These are the opinions of people today in 2007!

[Photo credit: Zarna (Oh My God!)]
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

74 comments:

  1. I highly doubt that many people actually believe the virgin birth. There are some cognitive dissonance issues that come in to play when people have to answer questions in ways not conforming to their religion. Probably most moderate Christians would say "yes" to the virgin birth even though they personally find it unlikely.

    (I'm an atheist and I love pointing and laughing at the religious, but I think this survey asks us to believe too many people are crazy.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Someone on Dawkins' site noted that the question may have been "Was Jesus born of a virgin?", and some of the yes answers would have been like yes answers to "Does Santa Claus live on the North Pole?" (especially 15% of the atheists who said yes??!)
    Then again, the stats for Noah's ark suggest this effect is probably not that big.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think these people are actually honest in their answers. It's sad and another sign that the cockroaches will eventually win out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess that for people who believe that genetic codes wrote themselves, land dwelling mammals became giant whales, and lizards turned into birds, accepting that a Supernatural God can actually do supernatural acts seems "insane". Right? Right?
    But, hey, you keep your magical beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A quote from the article:

    Except for atheists and agnostics, of whom just 15 percent took the virgin birth story as historically true, a majority of all other subgroups believed it to be factual.

    There must be a sub-story here. Perhaps it's like asking if you thought Robin Hood or King Arthur existed. Some might answer yes if they thought there was even a kernel of truth in the story as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mats, do you believe that the Earth was covered by a world-wide flood and the only survivors were Noah and his pets?

    That may have been a supernatural act but there's absolutely no scientific evidence that it ever happened.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm betting these percentages are lower than they were 50 years ago. So even though it seems pathetic (and it is), I'm guessing we are slowly making progress. At least I hope so.

    Hey mats, I don't think you have a very good grasp of time. Evolution doesn't happen overnight. Remember, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I notice the article says the poll was conducted by telephone. I have not been lucky enough to be polled on such an interesting subject, but in other polls I have particpated in, there is sometimes considerable interchange between the pollster and and the person being asked the questions, especially if the responder is a little vague in his first response.

    Also I remember when the Canadian census was done by door-to-door workers. I gave false answers to the religion question a couple of times. (This may actually be before your time, Larry).

    My point is that interacting with a live pollster, even over the phone, could distort the results in various ways.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nobody ever went broke betting on the general ignorance of the average American, close to 15% of whom couldn't even find the United States on an unlabeled map of the world according to a recent poll by the National Geographic Society.

    The U.S. is currently at war in Afghanistan, but 88% of young adult Americans can't find Afghanistan on a world map.

    Mats, you would benefit greatly by putting down your Wholly Babble long enough to actually learn a few things about the world around you.

    Stories about talking snakes and burning bushes don't add much to your knowledge of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But- but- the Courtier's Reply proponents keep telling me that people like those poll respondents are just a straw man erected by Dawkins and aren't representative of real Christianity, which is a subtle affair that takes years of theological training to comprehend. I'm so confused- who should I believe? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Larry asks:
    Mats, do you believe that the Earth was covered by a world-wide flood and the only survivors were Noah and his pets?

    In deed I do, and so far, I have not found any reason to doubt that historical event.


    That may have been a supernatural act but there's absolutely no scientific evidence that it ever happened.


    Except for the million of death things buried in rocks layers, laid down by water all over the globe, right?
    There is no shortage of evidence that is in agreement with the World Wide Flood of Noah.

    For more inormation, read:

    1. "Dinosaur graveyard may unearth new reasons for their extinction"

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2963586.ece?Submitted=true


    2. " Massive graveyard of duck-billed dinosaurs in Mongolia"
    http://www.creationontheweb.org/content/view/5387


    Here are some gems:
    " How do you fossilize 187 parrot-billed dinosaurs? Bury them quickly, of course.
    Of course. And that creates a puzzle for the paleontologists who recently excavated a fossil site in Mongolia and reported 187 fossils of Psittacosaurus".

    Hundred and eighty seven dino fossils buried in the same place. hmmm. Maybe they all ate something that tasted bad, and all died on the spot. Or maybe magical evolution killed them all, and opened a way for the evolution of mammals.
    Or....perhaps they were all buried in a catastrophic event. You be the judge, Larry. Meanwjhile:

    "‘Just as politicians rewrite human history, so geologists rewrite earth history. For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of “catastrophic” events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bruce said
    "Hey mats, I don't think you have a very good grasp of time. Evolution doesn't happen overnight. Remember, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000."

    Ah, yes, the magical effect of time.

    Waldteufel said:
    "Mats, you would benefit greatly by putting down your Wholly Babble long enough to actually learn a few things about the world around you."
    I did, and that is why I know that the magical forces of natural selection and random mutations are not enough to explain the complexity and the beauty in the living world.

    "Stories about talking snakes and burning bushes don't add much to your knowledge of the world."

    But stories about land mammals that turned into whales, and lizards that turned into birds, and apes that turned into men sure adds a lot to our knowledge of the world, right?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Matt,

    Do you subscribe to the Noah Flood Myth, the Babylonian Flood Myth (pre-dating the biblical accounting of Noah’s flood), another myth, or the scientific work by William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University in their book Noah’s Flood (1997), which hypothesises a physical flooding of the Black Sea area as a foundation for ancient flood myths (Biblical, Babylonian, others)? I assume that you're a Noah guy but how much of the earlier flood myths do you feel is reflected in the Noah account?

    Also, is it safe to say that you completely reject the geological accounting of the fossil record based on scientific principles?

    I’m just trying to evaluate if by “historical event” you mean a historical record based on empirical facts or one based on one or more myths. Do you accept some science and some myth or does your world view only allow a 100% myth foundation. If you only accept a mythical foundation how did you arrive there? If you mix science and religion how do you weigh the merit of one vs. the other?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  14. JimmyRayBob has an interesting way of asking things. However, before I dwell into that, let me beging by saying that the shifting of the issue from the magical beliefs of evolutionists into the Genesis historical accounts of the Flood hasn't passed by unnoticed.

    Jimmy asks:
    " Do you subscribe to the Noah Flood Myth,"

    First of all, is it a myth? Aren't you assuming that?

    "the Babylonian Flood Myth (pre-dating the biblical accounting of Noah’s flood), another myth, or the scientific work by William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University in their book Noah’s Flood (1997), which hypothesises a physical flooding of the Black Sea area as a foundation for ancient flood myths (Biblical, Babylonian, others)?"
    Mr Pitman and mr Ryan can hypothesize as much as they want. The observeable facts is that there are millions of dead animals buried in rock layers, laid down by water. The best explination for that is a world wide flood.
    Secondly, they are making a hypothesis. Everyone is entitled to make one.

    "I assume that you're a Noah guy but how much of the earlier flood myths do you feel is reflected in the Noah account?"
    I think the better question would be:
    How come there are so many common elements in the many and dispersed flood stories all over the world? How come people in south americanhave world wide flood stories which, strabgely, resemble the biblical and historical one. Isn't it evidence for.....common descent?

    "Also, is it safe to say that you completely reject the geological accounting of the fossil record based on scientific principles?"
    IS the modern day geologicala consensus based on scientific principles?

    "I’m just trying to evaluate if by “historical event” you mean a historical record based on empirical facts or one based on one or more myths. "
    I mean historical facts, and present day evidence.

    "Do you accept some science and some myth or does your world view only allow a 100% myth foundation. "

    The myth department is on the darwinian floor.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Matts

    "But stories about land mammals that turned into whales, and lizards that turned into birds, and apes that turned into men sure adds a lot to our knowledge of the world, right?"

    Matts, do you also find stupid the story of a fertilized egg that - according to scientists - magically turns into a human being after 9 months? Not one week mind you, it has to be 9 months... Ah! the magical effect of time!

    I also like the story that, according to "experts" (engineers) planes can fly through purely naturalistic forces!! Well try this: pick up a pebble and throw it up into the air. Then wait... Oh! look! It's fallen back on the ground. And they want us - you, Matts, and I - to believe that something so much more heavier than a rock can actually fly! Nonsense! The only LOGICAL solution is that angels are supporting the plane, and that's why it flies!

    Logic, people, logic! You should learn to use it!

    You and I against the fools, Matts!

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mats,

    Where's the water?

    An extra 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water required for a global flood.

    Go find it and a nice Swedish uncle will hang this gold medal around your neck. Go now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mats,
    My question is obvious. How did all the animals from Noah's ark get to their present day locations from Mount Ararat after the flood? And why do we see this specific pattern of distribution? In other words, what is your explanation of the post-diluvian diaspora?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Matts: ...let me beging by saying that the shifting of the issue from the magical beliefs of evolutionists into the Genesis historical accounts of the Flood hasn't passed by unnoticed.

    Your point? I was responding to what you'd said previously in responding to Larry. I was interested to get a little better feel for how you differentiate magical from fact.

    Matts: How come there are so many common elements in the many and dispersed flood stories all over the world? How come people in south americanhave world wide flood stories which, strabgely, resemble the biblical and historical one. Isn't it evidence for.....common descent?

    It seems perfectly reasonable to trace most, or maybe all, flood myths (or stories) to some common source. It may or may not be the case, but if you subscribe to this as a reasonable approach then do you feel that the pre-Biblical Babylonian flood story is the basis for the Noah flood story? Could the basis of the flood story be a non-supernatural event?

    Matts: Mr Pitman and mr Ryan can hypothesize as much as they want. The observeable facts is that there are millions of dead animals buried in rock layers, laid down by water. The best explination for that is a world wide flood.

    Matts: IS the modern day geologicala consensus based on scientific principles?

    Matts from earlier comment: "‘Just as politicians rewrite human history, so geologists rewrite earth history. For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of “catastrophic” events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable"

    I take it that you know nothing of geology or the scientific method. The source that you copy and paste from is similarly ignorant or intentionally misleading. A one-time, worldwide flood event cannot be supported by the geological record. Large localized catastrophic geological events are well known to modern geological understanding.

    Matts: Secondly, they are making a hypothesis. Everyone is entitled to make one.

    Yes, and then they take it a couple of steps further by collecting evidence and submitting the work, along with their assumptions and conclusions, to critical review.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I suppose belief in a God entails willingness to believe he acts, so the remarkable belief would I think be this basic one, belief in God, unless there is good evidence for such a being.

    "Men are reluctant to pass over from the notion of an abstract and negative deity to the living God. I do not wonder. Here lies the deepest tap-root of Pantheism and of the objection to traditional imagery. It was hated not, at bottom, because it pictured Him as man but because it pictured Him as king, or even as warrior. The Pantheist's God ... there is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should flee away at his glance. It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. An 'impersonal God'--well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads--better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, the king, husband--that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion ('Man's search for God!') suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?"

    "So it is a sort of Rubicon. One goes across; or not. But if one does, there is no manner of security against miracles. One may be in for anything." (C.S. Lewis, condensed from "Miracles")

    ReplyDelete
  20. mats,

    Indeed I do, and so far, I have not found any reason to doubt that historical event.

    Then you have surrendered any right to engage in serious scientific discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Robert says:
    "Matts, do you also find stupid the story of a fertilized egg that - according to scientists - magically turns into a human being after 9 months? "

    No, it's not stupid. It's testable, empirical, falsifiable and easily verifiable, However, lizards turning into birds, land mammals turning into gigantic whales, and dead chemicals writting theor own self-reproducing code is not:
    1. empirical (no one has ever seen it)
    2. Testable (how do we test the claim that dinosaurs turned into birds?)
    3. falsifiable
    4. and defently not verifiable.

    "Not one week mind you, it has to be 9 months... Ah! the magical effect of time!"
    All the information/programning necessary to build the human body was present at the start. What you need to tell me is how did that programing got there in the first place. Which natural force is able to write genetic algorythms? If there is none (and there isn't), isn't it logical and rational to conclude that a mind (or Mind) programed the genetic code?

    "I also like the story that, according to "experts" (engineers) planes can fly through purely naturalistic forces!!"


    But planes don't come into existence by purely naturalistic forces, do they?

    Secondly, they don't fly by purely naturalistic forces even so. The intelligent man in the cockpit is driving the plane all along.
    That is strike two for you, mister.

    Well try this: pick up a pebble and throw it up into the air. Then wait... Oh! look! It's fallen back on the ground.

    Yes, it's the empirical and testable forces of gravity. Unlike darwinism, we can actually see the process happning in front of us. When it comes to Darwinism, we cannot see impersonal forces creating genetic codes, nor can we see lizards turning into birds.



    Lim Leng says
    Mats, Where's the water?
    An extra 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water required for a global flood.

    Oh, it's still here. Read Genesus 6 and 7 andsee where did the water come from.

    -------------
    Post Diluvian Disapora says:
    Mats,
    My question is obvious. How did all the animals from Noah's ark get to their present day locations from Mount Ararat after the flood?

    How do animals move around today?

    And why do we see this specific pattern of distribution? In other words, what is your explanation of the post-diluvian diaspora?

    What kind of explination are you talking about?
    ---------------------------
    jimmiraybob says:

    Matts: How come there are so many common elements in the many and dispersed flood stories all over the world? How come people in south americanhave world wide flood stories which, strabgely, resemble the biblical and historical one. Isn't it evidence for.....common descent?

    "It seems perfectly reasonable to trace most, or maybe all, flood myths (or stories) to some common source."

    Exacly. It makes perfect sense, giving the preponderance of evidence, to deduce that the myriad of flood legends alll over te globe are all poiting to one single world wide event.

    "It may or may not be the case, but if you subscribe to this as a reasonable approach then do you feel that the pre-Biblical Babylonian flood story is the basis for the Noah flood story?

    I say that the Gilgamesh account and the Biblical acount point to the same event. The diference is that the Biblical one portrays thigns are they really happened, while the Giglamesh one, not being under GOd's inspiration and supervision, suffered a lot of mythical additions along the years.
    However, the mythical part of the Gilgamesh account should not make us dismiss all the event entirely.

    Could the basis of the flood story be a non-supernatural event?
    Hardly.

    A one-time, worldwide flood event cannot be supported by the geological record.
    Sure it can. The evidence fits.

    Large localized catastrophic geological events are well known to modern geological understanding.
    The fact that "large localized catastrophic events" happen, doesn't anul the fact that a world wide deluge happened.

    Matts: Secondly, they are making a hypothesis. Everyone is entitled to make one.

    Yes, and then they take it a couple of steps further by collecting evidence and submitting the work, along with their assumptions and conclusions, to critical review.

    You forgot to add:
    "The same papers wherien they publish their hypothesis consistently avoid/deny the opposing viewpoint from being considered scientifically"
    So basically, uniformtiarianism wins, not because it has the evidence on its side, but because the opposing viewpoint (Biblical catastrophism) is considered "outside of science".

    ReplyDelete
  22. The fact that "large localized catastrophic events" happen, doesn't anul the fact that a world wide deluge happened.

    Actually it does, because the Flood is supposed to be reponsible for the entire geologic column. So any localized flood that can be identified within the column (if it is more than 6000 yrs old) refutes the Flood theory.

    ReplyDelete
  23. JRB: Could the basis of the flood story be a non-supernatural event?

    Mats: Hardly.

    I guess that this sums it up as well as anything. Thanks for playing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The fact that "large localized catastrophic events" happen, doesn't anul the fact that a world wide deluge happened.

    Actually it does, because the Flood is supposed to be reponsible for the entire geologic column. So any localized flood that can be identified within the column (if it is more than 6000 yrs old) refutes the Flood theory.


    Obviously, you assume that. First of all, there is no "geological column". But for the sake of the arguement, let's assume there is. What you didn't know is that no creationist scientist says that ALL the geological features on earth are the result of the world wide deluge.
    So basically, you have erected a false dilema.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So basically, you have erected a false dilema.

    No I have not because you have to account for the distribution of the fossils embedded in the column. Just too much explaining away to do!

    Yes there is a column. What there is not is a creationist scientist. I mean there may be a scientist who is a creationist, but there is no such thing as creation science, hence no creation scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Actually Mats, whilst there are YECs (like Woodmorappe) who deny the reality of the geologic column, plenty use it as a working framework. They includes those who favour the more "recolonisation model", like Dave Tyler and more trad YECs like Snelling and others.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It's one of the mysteries of life why someone like Mats wants to hang around a science blog, when his only response to being told anything about science is to stick his fingers in his ears and hum as loudly as he can while shouting "I can't hear you!" Strange.

    Anyway, felix dies natalis Solis Invicti, amici! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  28. I really hope he (Mats) is not from Sweden...

    ReplyDelete
  29. HAPPY DAWKOMAS TO ALL SANDWALK READERS! I’m just off to indulge my residual and ancient superstitions at the local 1000 year old cathedral for midnight communion!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mats,
    What a surprise...an ID proponent that also believes in noah's arch? I think Mats is about to deliver us a sermon. Reach out for your bibles, people. Its the only book a "real" scientist needs, no? Hehe.

    The bible story of noah and the flood is not consistent with the current state of knowledge of geology and biogeography, even though it was once the established, received view. Yet already in the XVIII century, ID believers like cuvier were proponing at least several deluges or cataclismic events. Your noachian explanation contradicts everything we know about geology and the natural history of planet earth. Maybe you have an intelligent geology" theory in mind?

    Indeed, having all the fossil taxa living at the same time and saying that they are the evidence of the global flood is about the level of goofiness I expect from a completely typical dogmatic bible-bonker young earth creationist.
    IIf Mat won't even admit he is a creationist, how can we expect him to be portraying himself sincerely as an "old earth" creationist? I see absolutely no good reason WHY Mat would NOT be a young earth creationist. After, all, all h has to do is deny scientific fact when they do not fit his scheme.
    We' re curious mat. What convinced you that the earth is actually older than around 6000 years?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Mats, Where's the water?
    An extra 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water required for a global flood."

    Oh, it's still here. Read Genesus 6 and 7 andsee where did the water come from.

    I assume you mean Genesis 6 & 7. I've read it. There isn't anywhere near 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water in the "windows of heaven" (total atmospheric water is about 13000 km3), and also nowhere near that amount in the "fountains of the great deep" (total ground water about 23 million km3).

    The shiny golden medal is still dangling there for you - find the extra water, Mats.

    Of course I know that you will never find it. Just like you will never find a single genesus in a bible, let alone 4.5 billion genesuses.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Another stat in this study was that 15% of American Atheists and Agnostics believe in the virgin birth?!?!

    http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/15-of-american-atheists-and-agnostics-believe-that-jesus-was-born-of-a-virgin/

    ReplyDelete
  33. paul01 says:

    So basically, you have erected a false dilema.

    No I have not because you have to account for the distribution of the fossils embedded in the column. Just too much explaining away to do!


    You mean, I have to tell you why there are plenty of dead animals engraved in rock layers laid down by water? Gee, hard to know what kind of event would quickly bury living animals in sediments.

    Yes there is a column. What there is not is a creationist scientist.


    There are plenty, and youknow it.

    I mean there may be a scientist who is a creationist, but there is no such thing as creation science, hence no creation scientist.

    You are free to have your religious beliefs, just bear in mind that they contradict the evidence.

    ...........
    Steve LaBonne said
    It's one of the mysteries of life why someone like Mats wants to hang around a science blog,

    A science blog or a darwinian blog? Anyway, whatever it is, what's wrong in having a non-darwinist put forth his 2 cents in a darwinian blog? It's a fantastic time for darwinists to "convert" me to their faith, by showing me the magical powers of impersonal forces at work!
    Seriously now, in order to have a fruitful blog, I believe that is healthy to have people with diferences of opinion, so that all sides might have a hearing. I don't think that anyone in here tinks that his/her beliefs are threatned by hearing/reading conflicting theories.

    ..............
    l_johan_k said
    I really hope he (Mats) is not from Sweden...

    Why is that? Don't you like swedes?

    .......................
    El Topo said
    Mats,
    What a surprise...an ID proponent that also believes in noah's arch?


    Being an ID "endorserer" and believing in the historical world wide flood are not mutually exclusive.

    The bible story of noah and the flood is not consistent with the current state of knowledge of geology and biogeography, even though it was once the established, received view.

    I am glad you agree that the view the founding fathers of modern sciece had regarding geology were much in line with Biblical catastrophism rather than unscientific uniformitartianism.
    Secondly, so far, and as far as I know, there hasn't been proposed any better and explination for the masses of animals buried in rock layers all over the world. Better yet, the evidence to date is in harmony with the world wide flood, so there is no reason to doubt it.

    Yet already in the XVIII century, ID believers like cuvier were proponing at least several deluges or cataclismic events.

    And why was he proposing THAT? Could it be because the geological evidence DOES point to catastrophic geological events in the past? Now, what do you make of those geologists who believe on faith that uniformitarianism is scientific, when we have empirical evidence that there has been geological cataclisms in the past?

    Your noachian explanation contradicts everything we know about geology and the natural history of planet earth.

    Except that it doesn't.

    If Mat won't even admit he is a creationist, how can we expect him to be portraying himself sincerely as an "old earth" creationist?

    I never said I was an "old earth creationist". Do you know any OEC who accepts the Biblical Flood as being world wide?
    We' re curious mat. What convinced you that the earth is actually older than around 6000 years?


    I don't believe that the universe is millions of years old.

    ................
    Lim Leng Hiong said:

    "Mats, Where's the water?
    An extra 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water required for a global flood."

    Oh, it's still here. Read Genesus 6 and 7 andsee where did the water come from.

    I assume you mean Genesis 6 & 7. I've read it. There isn't anywhere near 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water in the "windows of heaven" (total atmospheric water is about 13000 km3), and also nowhere near that amount in the "fountains of the great deep" (total ground water about 23 million km3).


    That is because you didn't understand what I meant. Contrary to what you might think, there is enough water in the world TODAY to cover up the land masses up to more than 9,000 miles (Dr Walt Brown):

    "If the solid earth were perfectly smooth, water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere," says Brown, author of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. "Therefore, the flooded earth has enough water to cover the smaller mountains that existed before the Flood."

    ................
    * Walt Brown holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

    A West Point graduate and tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Dr. Brown taught physics, mathematics and computer science at the college level. He served as head of science and technology studies at the Air War College and was a National Science Foundation fellow.

    oh, and he is a former darwinist.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html

    Amazing how that skin lasted for 65 millions years, right? Isn't natural selection great?!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. That is because you didn't understand what I meant. Contrary to what you might think, there is enough water in the world TODAY to cover up the land masses up to more than 9,000 miles (Dr Walt Brown):

    "If the solid earth were perfectly smooth, water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere," says Brown, author of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. "Therefore, the flooded earth has enough water to cover the smaller mountains that existed before the Flood."


    Are you referring to Walter Brown's ridiculous Hydroplate Theory?

    Where superheated steam shoots out of the ground hot enough to cook the Earth and fast enough to reach escape velocity?

    http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html

    Glenn Morton has this to say:

    Consider a 1 square meter tube with 577 cubic m/s emanating from it. Due to the fact that 2.02 atmosphere is the weight of 20 meters of water, water coming up the crack will not change to steam until the final 20 meters. With the velocity of 577 meters per second coming out of the crack, this means that 577 cubic meters each second will occupy 814 times the volume that it used to. As a water surface passes the point at which it turns into vapor, it will, within one second, be pushed 577 x 814 = 469,779 m. This is a velocity of 469 kilometers per second. There would be no flood since none of the vapor would remain on the earth. The earth's escape velocity is about 11 kilometers per second. Any object that exceeds 11 km per second leaves the earth and never returns. How could this theory cause a flood?

    In reality these numbers would be somewhat smaller due to frictional effects, but even if they are off by 99%, the steam escaping is still above escape velocity for the earth. The steam would be sent to Alpha Centauri!!


    Indeed I don't understand what you mean.

    Well, to prove me wrong you can try get to get all that water back from Alpha Centauri, and while you're there do us a favour and stay there.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Now, what do you make of those geologists who believe on faith that uniformitarianism is scientific, when we have empirical evidence that there has been geological cataclisms in the past?

    Back to my false dilemma! Oh, well.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think mats points are extremely illuminating in regards to the problem of faith versus science. He is certainly not alone in his views, all of us have come up against numerous similar arguments from creationists. One usual method of countering these types of arguments is to refute them on empirical grounds - the talkorigins approach. In my opinion this is useful for middle ground theists but hopeless against creationist/IDiots. Those types know so little basic science that they are immune to facts - it is like trying to point out mistakes in swahili grammar to a non speaker.
    In my personal experience the only thing that gets through to them is argument through the medium of faith. I've entered online debates with creationists in the past where, as an experiment, I've argued positively for the flying spaghetti monster version of creation - it was like turning up to the Dracula family reunion with a garlic cake.
    They ABSOLUTELY get the message when you do this. In order to attack the FSM they are forced into empiricism - the thinnest of ice a creationist could fear. I seriously think that this is the tactic we, as scientists and science supporters need to use tactically against creationism/Idiocy to destroy the one thing they currently exploit in their favor - the false dichotomy of science versus a single form of creationism. Remember, they are not competing against methodological naturalism, they are competing against thousands of supernatural stories - and only then against science.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I knew it. "The history of earth for bible lovers" standard edition.

    This means that because of their narrow literalist interpretation of the bible, these people need to find themselves a theory of "intelligent geology" to replace plate tectonics and continental drift, you know...everything we know about the history of planet earth .

    I wonder why don't they apply their narrow literalist interpretations of the bible when they go into books of the bible such revelation, daniel, or exequiel, for that matter. In hose books, most people understand there are symbols and metaphors, not to be taken LITERALLY. But genesis, they take literally.

    I think that is typical of barbaric, immature evangelical religions. The catholic church, in change, accepts the facts of evolution and an old earth.

    Science has found evidence of several world-wide cataclisms such as asteroid impacts or mega- volcamic eruptions. And of course, at the smaller scale, floods and sandstorms can quickly bury a group of animals. Paleontology counts with several such great findings from all ages of earth.

    Yet, there is no evidence whatsoever of a flood capable of covering the entire earth.

    Plus, only a stupid person could think that the earth momentarily smoothened for the flood. Honestly, Mats. What's wrong with your brain?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think mats points are extremely illuminating in regards to the problem of faith versus science.
    Assuming there is a problem between faith (Christian Faith) and science, obviously.

    He is certainly not alone in his views, all of us have come up against numerous similar arguments from creationists.
    And we are still waiting for the testable evidence.


    One usual method of countering these types of arguments is to refute them on empirical grounds - the talkorigins approach. In my opinion this is useful for middle ground theists
    Fence sitters, you mean?

    but hopeless against creationist/IDiots. Those types know so little basic science that they are immune to facts
    It depends on what you men by "basic science".

    In my personal experience the only thing that gets through to them is argument through the medium of faith. I've entered online debates with creationists in the past where, as an experiment, I've argued positively for the flying spaghetti monster version of creation
    I never did understand how the FSM could be an arguement, or evidence, against the Biblical God. But then again, for people who believe that everything made itself, jumping from on myth to another is a small step.

    They ABSOLUTELY get the message when you do this. In order to attack the FSM they are forced into empiricism - the thinnest of ice a creationist could fear.

    You obviously assue that empiricism is a threat to YEC.

    I seriously think that this is the tactic we, as scientists and science supporters need to use tactically against creationism/Idiocy to destroy the one thing they currently exploit in their favor - the false dichotomy of science versus a single form of creationism.
    No creationist uses the "science vs creationism" dichotomy.

    Remember, they are not competing against methodological naturalism, they are competing against thousands of supernatural stories - and only then against science.

    Actually, we (and many non-creationists) are competing against a theory that uses public money to spread itself, but has offered no evidence to suport its mechanism (the creative powers of unguided/impersonal/undirected forces of nature).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Wow! After reading the preceding comments, I find myself feeling totally unprepared to express my "feelings" on the subject, but as a Christian philosopher, I also find myself compelled to try. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle we "Christians" have in communicating our realities to the unexperienced is the bible. Jesus had the same problem and it cost him his life. If there is superior living intelligence , as I believe, that is proactive in everything that exists, He will not be discovered by reading scholarly texts; he will be perceived through personal experience, in a word, pragmatists. Although Darwin was a scholar, he abandoned the current textbook theories of his day and began to form opinions based on his own experience. The bible people were not at all pleased. Are there truths within the bible? Absolutely. Does the bible make truths? Absolutely not. Do I have a problem with scientific explanations of origins? Only if I want to have a magician for a god.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi, mats, a couple of questions I'd like to ask - I'll take them one at a time if you don't mind. The first is, how do you interpret Joshua 10:13 (see http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm )? That is, do you understand this as requiring the sun to revolve around the Earth (since the passage refers to the sun standing still), or do you understand it as describing God halting the Earth's rotation so the sun appeared to stand still? (Or do you have a different understanding of the passage than the two interpretations I've described?)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Please refer to the 10/7 topic in order to get the jist of this post.
    I just happened to come across it and posted a response there. But I thought it worthwhile to present to a more contemporaneous audience, the conceptual elaborations of the discussion. I don't possibly have the time to address all of the propaganda Moron speaks in this overall (the web site) continuous attempt to continue to propagate substantially unsupported ad infinitum assertions and try to perpetuate some sort of sense that this forum belongs in any serious discussion of science. But I will post these thoughts here as well.


    Per Moron:



    "Apparently he does because he doesn't mention replisomes, photosynthesis complexes, blood clotting cascades, the citric acid cycle, or any of the other molecular machines and complex systems where we have a good handle on how they evolved."


    Then a response:


    Regarding blood clotting cascades, Behe goes into great detail on how Doolittle seems to "knowlittle" regrading the evolution in an area that presumably he is a "world expert" on. You can go to the listed site below, which I found on a site entitled Evolution Audio Video, and listen to a lecture he gave a couple of years ago. In it he describes Doolittle's blundered critique of the concept of irreducible complexity in the blood clotting cascade, and leads Behe to the conclusion that this foremost expert doesn't know how the cascade evolved and is incapable of showing any kind of convincing evidence via years of research that would lead anyone to believe anybody has a "good handle" on it.
    Check it out at: http://maclaurin.org/mp3s/copyright_maclaurin_institute__michael_behe.mp3

    Or go to the other mentioned website and find it under Michael Behe.

    So If Larry Moron implies that the blood cotting cascade is one of several molecular machines and complex systems whose evolution is adequately demonstrated with actual results and understood, I am a little suspect (although I don't know) that perhaps he hasn't bothered to adequately study the research papers of any of them. Or maybe not in any kind of critical fashion. So maybe it is the old deal of "well, somebody in the field must have proved it, that's what I have been told, therefore it must be true". Just the kind of thing that non-creationists along with creationists (who modern evolutionists love to label any one who sees the problems, just load em all onto the Titanic and shove it off)are tired of. Assertions and conclusions which have not been ADEQUATELY supported by the research, but "gosh darn it, I can imagine that it might be compatible with my beloved dogma. We've been able to sell it so far. Screw the inconvenient details. Everybody knows we are the experts. And besides there are no other foxes in the chicken house but us."

    Tuesday, December 25, 2007 5:39:00 PM

    ReplyDelete
  43. "continue to propagate substantially unsupported ad infinitum assertions and try to perpetuate some sort of sense that this forum belongs in any serious discussion of science."

    Let me clarify this statement to make sure people do not misconstrue what it is that is the point regarding in my last post. Science can obviously observe what is happening and describe it in "scientific" terms. That isn't the problem what so ever!!!!!! When "science" (I don't think it is) attempts to claim that it has any kind of significantly demonstrable "grasp" and can "confirm" the "evolutionary" progression of processes that somehow results in what is currently observable biochemical and cellular processes,
    It has significant shortfalls.
    These assertions are at best philosophical and contra theological. Why f__k with it? MOve on to what the majority of individuals supporting scientific endeavors would like to see. (Picture yourself with a tumor that you would like to have destroyed so you could live longer!!!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  44. thanks for rooting for me mats. god bless.

    ReplyDelete
  45. So If Larry Moron implies that the blood cotting cascade is one of several molecular machines and complex systems whose evolution is adequately demonstrated with actual results and understood, I am a little suspect (although I don't know) that perhaps he hasn't bothered to adequately study the research papers of any of them.

    OK, so you are resorting to name-calling. Since you think that science is really about curing cancer, why do YOU find some creationist/ID method of curing cancer?

    Don't waste your time here trying to teach biochemistry to a biochemistry professor. Give us a good, clear, testable prediction.

    If your method works, you will save millions of lives, the "darwinists" will step back and you will get a nice gold medal, made in Sweden.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "OK, so you are resorting to name-calling. Since you think that science is really about curing cancer, why do YOU find some creationist/ID method of curing cancer?"

    You fool. As if any of this "name calling" or any of the rest of this, "how stupid can these people that disagree be!!!!!!" That kind of thing is irrelevant but I guess it is what keeps jerks like you coming back to this ridiculous forum. And my hunch is that Moran is either disengenous or he is old enough (he knows how to work the frig___ing system) to understand how to keep uninformed idiots such as yourself coming back to his ego driven drivel center to probably make another buck and or to bolster his publically funded ego burst, (which includes sucking off the uniformed public for so long the way he has in order to make his living AND perpetuate his philosophical preferences)you ignoramous.
    Meanwhile, there are suffering individuals begging for real time real scientifically supported results to in some significantly contemporaneous fashion, potentially to cure their miserable bodies so they can have their lives extended towards what most of us would prefer as well!

    The appearance of "design" in nature (or whatever you contentious idiots want to call it)is undeniable. You have anti-religious zealots like Richard Dawkins admitting that.
    There are systems, subsystems, subsytems etc etc etc that, according to unbiased interpretations of the real ------- evidence have a more likely than not "designed" component to them.

    But you and millions like you are arrogant enough to think you and anybody, even supposed experts, have the experience and totality of knowledge to make the proclaimations that you make even though you have existed for what? 20-80 friggin years on this earth?

    You arrogant bu__ho_es. MOve on to REAL SCIENCE and do yourselves and your relatives potentially some real good. (Let alone those whom you clearly don't give a s__t about!!!)

    Wow!!!! "Name Calling"!!! Come on you hypocrite!!!! As if you never "name called" for the sake of your insidiously ridiculous arguments.

    Go back and follow the suggestions I made regarding the scientific elements to my posts!!!!!

    By the way, I would suppose that "intelligent design" proponents would probably claim utilizations of their conceptualizations may shed significant light on biological techniques that could help identify methods of irradicating said illnesses.

    I mean, really, if given the chance how can their hypothesis' be demonstrated to be significantly inferior is this regard to "evolutionary" research? Good question eh moron?

    What the _____ does has the philosophy of evolution contributed to curing cancer in any kind of direct significant fashion?

    Yours truly,
    Neal

    ReplyDelete
  47. You fool. As if any of this "name calling" or any of the rest of this, "how stupid can these people that disagree be!!!!!!" That kind of thing is irrelevant but I guess it is what keeps jerks like you coming back to this ridiculous forum. And my hunch is that Moran is either disengenous or he is old enough (he knows how to work the frig___ing system) to understand how to keep uninformed idiots such as yourself coming back to his ego driven drivel center to probably make another buck and or to bolster his publically funded ego burst, (which includes sucking off the uniformed public for so long the way he has in order to make his living AND perpetuate his philosophical preferences)you ignoramous.

    That is a serious charge. Since that is directed to Larry, I'll leave him to address it.

    You arrogant bu__ho_es. MOve on to REAL SCIENCE and do yourselves and your relatives potentially some real good. (Let alone those whom you clearly don't give a s__t about!!!)

    Well, I'm already doing science - studying PhD in developmental biology focusing on molecular genetics. Which area of science are you currently working on, sir?

    Wow!!!! "Name Calling"!!! Come on you hypocrite!!!! As if you never "name called" for the sake of your insidiously ridiculous arguments.

    I trash arguments, not call names. If you claim that I have called people names before, then show us an example of it.

    By the way, I would suppose that "intelligent design" proponents would probably claim utilizations of their conceptualizations may shed significant light on biological techniques that could help identify methods of irradicating said illnesses.

    I mean, really, if given the chance how can their hypothesis' be demonstrated to be significantly inferior is this regard to "evolutionary" research? Good question eh moron?


    I've never discounted the possibility of a design hypothesis. Which is why I eagerly await your testable prediction.

    Look here, mister. You charge in here screaming "Larry Moron" and now you're all pissed off when I point out that you're rude and have no testable predictions.

    And then you call me a jerk, an uniformed idiot and a moron. Unwarranted insults.

    Are you going to apologise, Neal? The choice is yours.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Impressive. If Neal's head starts spinning it may be time to call the exorcist.

    You have to feel sorry for them. They think that proper natural history is motivated by atheism; yet many men of faith have contributed to this grand accumulation of knowledge. Reverend William Buckland, for instance, was among the XIXth century early geologists who begged for a non-literal interpretation of the scriptures.

    Unfortunately, some 21st century fools are less enlightened. They reject great research as inherently disgusting and don't stop to think they never really look into it. They just choose to ignore the tons of cool stuff that we know about the natural history of life on earth as if it were all about atheism.
    That is false. Our knowledge of natural history is simply where the puzzle-solving of science will lead any person that approaches the data sincerely. A contribution are made b atheist as theists of any particular religion. Scientific discussion sees no race, class or religion. That's much of the beauty of it.

    ReplyDelete

  49. Although Darwin was a scholar, he abandoned the current textbook theories of his day and began to form opinions based on his own experience.


    Yes, and we all know where that ended. At one time Darwin proposed that whales evolved from....bears!


    The bible people were not at all pleased.


    Neither were many of contemporany scientists. They argued with Darwin and told him pretty much what darwin skeptics say today: There is no evidence.
    ..................
    Jud said
    Hi, mats, a couple of questions I'd like to ask - I'll take them one at a time if you don't mind. The first is, how do you interpret Joshua 10:13 (see http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm )?


    The same way I interprete weather forecasters when they use words like "sunrise" and "suntset".

    ...............
    el topo said:

    They think that proper natural history is motivated by atheism;


    We know that atheism has had very little influence in the flourinshing of science. However, atheists believe (on faith) that Biblical Christianity played no positive role in the scientific revolution.


    yet many men of faith have contributed to this grand accumulation of knowledge. Reverend William Buckland, for instance, was among the XIXth century early geologists who begged for a non-literal interpretation of the scriptures.

    Which passages did he "beg not to take a literal intepretation" ? The ressurrection? The miracles?


    Unfortunately, some 21st century fools are less enlightened. They reject great research as inherently disgusting and don't stop to think they never really look into it. They just choose to ignore the tons of cool stuff that we know about the natural history of life on earth as if it were all about atheism.

    You should be telling that to the atheists, who think that Biblical Christian faith is somehow an enemy of operational science.


    That is false. Our knowledge of natural history is simply where the puzzle-solving of science will lead any person that approaches the data sincerely.

    Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "aproaching the data sincerely".

    A contribution are made atheist as theists of any particular religion. Scientific discussion sees no race, class or religion. That's much of the beauty of it.


    You show send these words to atheists like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Dennet and Hitchens.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mats said:
    "Yes, and we all know where that ended. At one time Darwin proposed that whales evolved from....bears!"

    While the creationist morons propose that we come from a supernatural, superbeing in the sky...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Somebody who is afraid to give us their real name, says

    So If Larry Moron implies that the blood cotting cascade is one of several molecular machines and complex systems whose evolution is adequately demonstrated with actual results and understood, I am a little suspect (although I don't know) that perhaps he hasn't bothered to adequately study the research papers of any of them. Or maybe not in any kind of critical fashion.

    The blood clotting system is described is a series of postings on this blog in case you don't know what you're talking about [Blood Clotting].

    I didn't describe the probable evolution of this system—perhaps I should if the creationists are still sticking their finger in their ears and shouting "PRAISE BEHE!!!"

    (While at the same time, diverting attention away from the other systems that scientists have explained. Note that our anonymous reader doesn't say anything at all about the citric acid cycle or, indeed, any of the other supposedly irreducibly complex systems that have an evolutionary explanation.)

    I realize that talking science to "anonymous" is probably a waste of time but for those intelligent readers out there, let me explain the scientific position of blood clotting.

    It might never be possible to discover the exact history of the modern mammalian blood clotting system. It looks very much like an accidental cobbling together of various proteases that are similar in function and sequence. One thing we can say for sure is that it certainly doesn't look like it was designed by anything intelligent.

    What Doolittle (and others) have done is to describe a perfectly reasonable evolutionary pathway that could have given rise to the modern system. This is all that's logically required to refute Behe, since he claims that such a pathway is impossible in principle.

    Naturally the anti-evolutionists, being IDiots, will reject the possible evolutionary pathway because it's not detailed enough, or because there's not enough experimental evidence. This is called moving the goalposts.

    But have you noticed something about the IDiots? They no longer refer to the blood clotting cascade in their books and articles. They don't trot it out as an example of irreducible complexity any more.

    Isn't that interesting? Why is it that among the millions of possible examples of design they always fall back on single example— the bacteria flagella?

    From time to time they bring up other possibilities but when scientists present an evolutionary explanation, they drop them like a hot potato. Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

    So maybe it is the old deal of "well, somebody in the field must have proved it, that's what I have been told, therefore it must be true". Just the kind of thing that non-creationists along with creationists (who modern evolutionists love to label any one who sees the problems, just load em all onto the Titanic and shove it off)are tired of. Assertions and conclusions which have not been ADEQUATELY supported by the research, but "gosh darn it, I can imagine that it might be compatible with my beloved dogma. We've been able to sell it so far. Screw the inconvenient details. Everybody knows we are the experts. And besides there are no other foxes in the chicken house but us."

    Some of what you say is true. Since we're dealing with things that evolved several hundred million years ago it's not surprising that we don't have a precise handle on all the details.

    The problem with Intelligent Design Creationism is that it is essentially a way of finding gaps where God can hide. As the bigger gaps are closed the creationists are more than happy to hide their God in smaller and smaller gaps. Now they're down to basing an entire superstitious philosophy on a few "inconvenient details."

    ReplyDelete
  52. I asked mats whether he interpreted Joshua 10:13, where the sun is said to stay still in the sky (see http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm) as meaning (1) the sun revolves around the Earth, or as meaning (2) that the sun *appeared* to stand still in the sky.

    mats replied, "The same way I interprete weather forecasters when they use words like 'sunrise' and 'sunset.'" I take this to mean he interprets the passage in accordance with alternative #2. If I'm wrong about that, mats, please correct me.

    My next question is this: Do you agree that at the time of Galileo, the interpretation of Joshua 10:13 adopted by the Roman Catholic Church was in accordance with my alternative #1 above?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Neal says,

    Meanwhile, there are suffering individuals begging for real time real scientifically supported results to in some significantly contemporaneous fashion, potentially to cure their miserable bodies so they can have their lives extended towards what most of us would prefer as well!

    The appearance of "design" in nature (or whatever you contentious idiots want to call it)is undeniable.


    Am I the only one who sees the irony (and humor) in those two juxtaposed sentences?

    ReplyDelete
  54. I thought I would point out another famous Canadian, this time doing a xmas song "Silent Night". Deanna Durbin. She also does a good "Come all ye faithful".

    I hope I don't inadvertently make any converts.

    http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=pIUcTcVdXH8

    There are many good things by her on youtube.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Larry wrote:

    "Neal says,

    'Meanwhile, there are suffering individuals begging for real time real scientifically supported results to in some significantly contemporaneous fashion, potentially to cure their miserable bodies so they can have their lives extended towards what most of us would prefer as well!

    'The appearance of "design" in nature (or whatever you contentious idiots want to call it)is undeniable.'

    "Am I the only one who sees the irony (and humor) in those two juxtaposed sentences?"

    Irony, sure. But in the current situation in the U.S., where disdain or outright hostility toward some scientific research by a large proportion of the Administration's political supporters is reflected in decreased funding (private as well as public), you'll pardon me if I don't feel all that much amusement.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "We know that atheism has had very little influence in the flourishing of science. However, atheists believe (on faith) that Biblical Christianity played no positive role in the scientific revolution"

    Well, that is probably because biblical christianity was already there and was therefore not the innovation that we could blame the flourishing of science for.

    "Which passages did he "beg not to take a literal intepretation" ? The ressurrection? The miracles?"

    Not at all. Buckland was convinced of the raality of the miracles. Buckland was referring to the 6 pre-human days of genesis not being literal days; as I said, he was an early geologist, realizing that a long pre-human existence of an old earth was the reality.

    The resurrection and the miracles have never been denied by truly religious scientists, and I'll give you two mouth-gaping examples. I doubt that in the entire mid XXth century and right ino the 70's there were hardly any evolutionary biologists as highly influential as Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky. Just wikipedia them. These were the true champions of the modern synthesis and neodarwinism.
    Well, they were both devout christains that believed in the reality of the resurrection and the miracles.
    See, these scientists knew perfectly well that what they believed happened in the resurrection (for instance) was not what precisely what science would prescribe. Indeed, if not, they would not be true miracles, wouldn't they.

    The difference with you creationists, is that you are too dumb to KNOW when you ARE charging against sound, proper scientific knowledge.

    (Another interestig guy: paleontologist Robert Bakker, perhaps the coolest man alive. He helped to establish the fact that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. He is a church pastor, too. The list of christian evolutionary biologists continues...
    Note, too that Dawkins himself acknowledges Air Ronald Fisher to be nothing but the greatest since Darwin. Yes, darwinists drool at Fisher)

    "You should be telling that to the atheists, who think that Biblical Christian faith is somehow an enemy of operational science".

    I do, but it's hard to make the point come across when some christians like yourself DO indeed negate the validity of soundly established scientific knowledge in favor of a narrow, literalist interpretation of genesis. You are living proof that bad religion can go out of its way to attack science. .
    "You show send these words to atheists like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Dennet and Hitchens"

    None of which I agree with, for the same reason. Those authors contribute to the false notion that evolution=atheism. Of course guys like you make them a great service since you play into exactly the same dichotomy. You DESERVE each other.

    ReplyDelete
  57. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the noah's flood creationists like Mats have a bit of a problem. What happened to the plants?

    They would have died being covered with water. So after the flood, where did the new plants come from? I don't remember hearing about gawd making a second creation at the time.

    Since there were no plants, how did noah and his animals live after the flood?

    Furthermore, researchers have now placed the origin of flowering plants at about 120 million years ago. Before that, there were other plants around for hundreds of millions of years, some ones of which evolved into flowering ones.

    I gave the link to a program from Nova, "First Flower" in the earlier thread.

    ReplyDelete
  58. el topo says,

    The resurrection and the miracles have never been denied by truly religious scientists, and I'll give you two mouth-gaping examples. I doubt that in the entire mid XXth century and right ino the 70's there were hardly any evolutionary biologists as highly influential as Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky. Just wikipedia them. These were the true champions of the modern synthesis and neodarwinism.

    Oh, I dunno ... I'm kind of partial to J.B.S. Haldane, Julian Huxley, and Ernst Mayr. Wikipedia them to see if they were among the truly religious scientists.

    You really don't want to get into a contest where we compare the number of influential religious scientists to the number who don't believe in God. You won't win that pissing contest.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I also sympathize more with those. The important thing is that both religious and non-religious scientists have helped build our current knowledge on evolution and the natural history of life on earth.
    Creationists only fool themselves when they think that evolutionary science is nothing but the the product of atheism; great evolutionary scientists have been christians. "Radical atheists", like creationists, are also discomforted by this fact, since notorious figures of evolutionary science must therein be considered "superstitious". As you can see, radical atheists and creationists are bound together by a similar foolishness.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Look, your arguments are ridiculously deplete of any kind of significantly verifiable data that any somewhat informed IDIOT would even bother to put 2 f------ cents on a bet!!!!!!!!

    Anybody who wants to perpetuate the feeble (and growing at unbelievably rapid exponentially rates) explanations compared to the data real science (non "evolutionary dogma") is producing that continues to mock your personally driven philosophically preferred interpretations of the vastly "uninterpreted" is just visibly wallowing in some sort of cesspool of personal crap. I smells and stinks and is obvious to anybody, who with any kind of open mind is "looking in to this debate". The public is REALLY WISING UP TO YOUR STUPID A-- GIG! Position yourselves in some other part of science that is actually productive, or leave it alone!!!!! And 99.999999 percent of sciences ARE what most would consider "productive". The distinctions between traditional evolutionary "philosophy" and real science are becoming more and more and more and more, (etc.) clear by the friggin day!!!!!!! Remove your personal romantic agendas from what real science is, or others will do it for you!!!!!!!

    Neal

    ReplyDelete
  61. Just another chain of thoughts (explain that phenomena in bottom to top science as_____s.)
    The vastly philosophically interpretative derivitives of "evolutionary" sciences are "cherry picking the sh__ out of actual observations. "Evolution" in the sense you understand, want to be true and unabatedy masturabatorily promulgate are just being greedily and stupidly shat upon the unsuspecting public. (Those that have no fu____ choice but to pay you pathetic as---- for the fairytail, philosophically preferred interpretation of publicly funded research results.)
    If any of you were even half way honest you would admit publicly, " we aren't even f______ close to explaining how chemicals became living ecosystems, regardless of the time frame involved (criticizing "young earth creationism" as a basis for "large scale evoltuion" is just an amazingly obvious and stupid "cop out"). And honestly we have nothing significantly definitive to publiclly declare in that regard. We are still working on it and we reserve judgment until we have adequate verifiable evidence to support whatever claims the evidence supports." Jeez, Moron, wouldn't that be refreshingly novel for the growing "skeptical audience" that is so sick and tired and "skeptical" of the vastly unsubstantiated CRAP (based on available SIGNIFICANT TO THE CLAIMS evidence) that your philosophically biased "camp" continues to promote on public funds based on what many consider to be HUGELY OUTDATED laughingly biased interpretations of evidence?

    How old are you moron? Shi- grow up you pr----!!!!!

    Neal

    ReplyDelete
  62. Neal, you think evolutionary science is intrinsically atheistic, so you'll never give it a chance. Just letting you know, in a friendly way, and for your own good, that that is simply not true.
    Remeber: 'When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation'"—Proverbs 18:13
    Its about time you acknowledged unto yourself that you have truly no idea of what you are talking about. Because we know that is the truth.
    Also, you are giving a quite sad spectacle of yourself with so much insolence and mindless hatred, which I find delighting becuause it shows just how empty yor arguments you really are. Please, continue to make an embarrassment of yourself. It's clear creationists have nothing to do with science and all to do with simply making noise.

    And these are my last words! Enough of antiscientific fools!

    ReplyDelete
  63. "And these are my last words! Enough of antiscientific fools!"

    Please dont go!!! What you say is I think means a lot to this discussion.
    I just believe we have to seriously consider in ways we havent had the abilities to really consider what our capabilities can actually allow us to realize regarding these questions!!!!
    I really love you. Believe me please!

    ReplyDelete
  64. "And these are my last words! Enough of antiscientific fools!"

    Please dont go!!! What you say is I think means a lot to this discussion.
    I just believe we have to seriously consider in ways we havent had the abilities to really consider what our capabilities can actually allow us to realize regarding these questions!!!!
    I really love you. Believe me please!

    Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:22:00 AM


    I forgot to identify myself in the last post. But it is me, Neal.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Its about time you acknowledged unto yourself that you have truly no idea of what you are talking about."

    I really do know what I am talking about. I have been studying it for many years. I guess the lesson is that it is impossible to make my points to an audience that is unable to really grasp the conceptualizations, but also are ignorant regarding the unbiased interpretation of scientific evidences that are so available
    to anyone that has a serious interest in the topics at hand!

    Neal

    ReplyDelete
  66. "The difference with you creationists, is that you are too dumb to KNOW when you ARE charging against sound, proper scientific knowledge."


    I am an accomplished professional, and don't consider myself to be a prototypical "creationist". My perception is that most people that I associated with through time do not consider me "dumb". Even though I will honestly admit, that I am not a "scientific professional" I believe that I have a relatively high level of scientific knowledge and have the analytical abilities required for unbiased interpretation of such information. After all is "said and done" I just can't "buy" into the
    "Darwinian" or what seems to be called "Neo-Darwinian" Interpretation of the scientifically derived data at this point in time. And my informed opinion is one that says, it isn't going to get any better for the paradigm as time goes on, with the powers of observation and experimentation available even just now.

    Your emotionally charged accusations just kind of underscore your "personal bent" in these issues!!!!! Please, forget the "creationist vs. evolutionist" "debate" and follow the data where ever it goes, without trying to "squeeze the interpretations of such" into any kind of philosophically driven agenda!!!!!


    Neal

    ReplyDelete
  67. Topo: Resurrected (version Chucky)Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:11:00 AM

    It's not that you are dumb; I think you have some problems with being honest to yourself as to what you know and your own religious indulgence. Evolutionary science is not some kind of atheistic contamination.. You have fooled yourself about something you really have no idea.

    Since you (evidently) are not an expert, you may ask yourself how and why evolution has produced so much academic research. Ask yourself why ID, no matter how loudly it claims revolution, continues to produce no peer-reviewed research. It is a pop cultural-phenomenon, but academically, it is non-existent.

    Our similarities and differences with Gorillas and chimps, the fossil forms like all the Australopithecines, Homo habilis, H erectus, H. neanderthalensis... what do you think is the SCIENTIFIC way of explaining to these data?
    That god was snapoing his fingers each time we have a new species? Or is it common ancestry and branching (for instance, we share a more recent common ancestor with H. erectus than with the chimpanzee?

    Indeed, how do new species originate if not by reproduction from some previously existing species? is godly intervention a proper scientific explanation?

    Evolution is simply the proper scientific way of combining what we see in the fossil record with what we know about reproduction, descent and modification. It is truly very silly to think there is any atheistic motivation. It's just unscientific to assume anything else. Why invoke a miracle if there is a perfectly good scientific explanation?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Neal, I'd really like to hear your answer to the questions posed by Topo: ...

    You consider yourself to be reasonably intelligent and yet you reject the fundamental concept of biology that has been worked out by science professionals over a period of 150 years.

    How do you justify the fact that all those scientists can be so wrong while only people like you are right? Doesn't it bother you that those who are opposed to evolution tend to be non-scientists while those who support it are the ones who study it for a living?

    Are there any other groups of professionals who are as stupid as scientists, in your opinion? Have doctors misunderstood the fundamentals of medicine? Are lawyers ignorant of the law? Do engineers not know how to build bridges?

    I assume that it's only professional scientists who you disparage. Why is that? What do you think we're doing wrong in our universities that we educate everyone else but fail to teach the "correct" fundamentals of biology? Is there something odd about biology Professors that makes them so incompetent?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I am always amazed at the emotional energy invested it these kinds of discussions on both the "scientific" and "religous" sides. Defining the external universe appears to be no less emotionally dificult than defining the internal universe.

    ReplyDelete
  70. demanding god to be responsible by special creatio for the origin of every living and fossil type is as vulgar as demanding that miracles be performed every day.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "68 percent believed Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed a crowd of 5,000."

    That's no miracle, he was the low bidder and received the catering contract for Air Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Wow! 72 comments, and nobody Googled the pollsters? As it happens, Barna Group has a pretty clear mission statement: "We seek to use our strengths in partnership with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States."

    That information is, of course, not enough to invalidate the results -- but perhaps their methodology should be more closely examined.

    ReplyDelete
  73. For all of you out there that don't believe in the Bible or in God, this is all I have to say and not in a rude or "so there!" manner: How do you know that the wind exists? You can't see it. I thought atheists didn't believe in things they couldn't see with their own eyes. We believe that the wind exists because we can see it's effects as the leaves in tree move, or a piece of paper blows through the street, or we feel it against our skin. In the same way we can see God's effects. I truly don't believe that all of a sudden Earth, flowers, water, animals, and humans just popped out of thin air.

    ReplyDelete