Denyse O'Leary was on the radio this morning on some religious show from Alberta. She was asked how she deals with all the abuse she gets from people who recognize that she's an IDiot. (That's not exactly the way she puts it.) You can read all of her response on Uncommon Descent, and presumably on three or four other blogs as well [The old order changes, … amid a storm of abuse!].
Canadian Cynic says "I'm just plain running out of punchlines." That's saying a lot.
For those of you who refuse out of principle to view the IDiot's websites, here's part of her insane view of the world.
Look, the fine tuning of the universe for life and discovery has nothing to do with me. Nor am I personally responsible for the fact that the history of life is nothing like what a no-design theory like Darwin’s needs. And a huge freakout of atheist books/blasphemy campaigns won’t change any of that.Now do you see why Canadian Cynic has run out of punchlines? What can you say about someone whose view of the world is 180° out of alignment?
Actually, it looks to me like atheism’s Going Out of Business sale. And imagine, that happened in my lifetime …
It’s no surprise if they’re going out of business. They lost an intellectually respected atheist like Antony Flew and their best asset was Richard Dawkins, of whom even atheists tire - in droves now, apparently.
It is true that I benefit from this situation, insofar as my friends’ lives and my life are much less likely to be blighted by religious persecution. But I did not cause the situation. I didn’t fine tune a single aspect of the universe and have never created anything more worthy of note than books and articles, about whose quality critics vary rather widely.
So when anonymous people write abuse, I assume they are venting their own anxiety about a changing order of things, on which it is my job to report. Media pros call what those people do ”shooting the messenger”. Is that caused by poor coping skills and possibly, unhappy lives?
26 comments :
A friend of mine came up with this advertisement for atheism:
click here to see picture
the artist's xanga is Agnotics_R_Us
sorry about that. Ben moved the picture, so the url to the picture changed, of course. Here it is now for sure:
click here to see picture
Uh yeah. We're all just tiring of Dawkins in droves!
This brain dead cunt has just based her whole life on making shit up, hasn't she?
Sandwalk, the picture I linked you up to is actually a picture of Richard Dawkins face on an "I want you." picture saying, instead, "I want you For Atheism." It's really cool. You're cool.
What is amazing about a self-proclaimed "journalist" is that she is so utterly incapable of learning anything about anybody else's viewpoint. Her latest "nine predictions of ID" are as inane as any that I have seen, consisting primarily in projection and in a total lack of understanding of what science and scientific prediction are about.
Granting that she threw her lot in with the ignorant and the dishonest prior to coming to these matters, adding her own invective and ignorant twaddle to the attacks against what she did not understand, I still think it's remarkable how inured to understanding anything but dishonest apologetics she really is.
Even Davetard tires of making a fool of himself after a time. I have not seen any capacity in her dense ignorance for her to recognize she almost never manages to get two things correct in a row. Her capacity to blame others for her endless failings seems to match her ability to produce nonsense.
Glen Davidson
That's quite a tirade she wrote. If I was to play amateur psychologist here, I could almost wonder if this is in reponse to the backlash she received on the already infamous "9 predictions". I'm not a scientist, but one does need much scientific training to realize that what she wrote here is just plain tripe.
I suspect too that she received quite a lot of comments on her blog. I personally wrote 3-4, and most of them were nice and tried to point out the failings of her predictions. But of course these never get published and she closed down comments because of "time management" issues (yet she finds plenty of time to blog all sorts of stuff on numerous blogs - along with elaborate, sometimes circular links).
But it is quite apparent by now, that she isn't really interested in engaging in rational, civil discussion, particularly with those who know more about science than she does (which apparently, is just about everybody it seems...)
To me it looks like she put as much forethought and care in writing these predictions as I do writing my shopping list. I think her self-deception though is so complete that she thinks she can rattle off any old thing and all her fawning little sycophants will just lap it up. Then when people rightly critisize her ideas, she pulls the old ID martyr card, citing persecution and abuse from the angry atheists.
Maybe at some subconscious level, she realizes she badly overstretched with her ridiculous predictions, and hence this incredibly silly and childish tantrum?
The problem is that she does seem to have an influential role in ID - she certainly seems to have Dembski's ear. That's why we need to continue to be critical of her ideas.
Well, I don't agree with Denyse on everything, but here is my take on the agressive way atheists are behaving lately.
It seems to me that atheists have tried hard to kill Christianity with "science" (their version of science, obviously). Now, when science is discovering unbelievable complexity inside living things, the "God Hypothesis" is getting a foothold inside mainstream scientists, something that atheists would never predict a few generations ago.
Seeing how they are loosing the scientific debate, atheists like Dawkins, spend more time attacking the "evils of religion", rather than explaining how does his evolutionary/materialistic/naturalistic worldview can account for what we see in Biology and Neuroscience.
So this "revival" of atheistic fundamentalism is a normal psychological reaction when someone feels threatened. Or as someone over UD said "is a psychological phenomenon born out of fear".
In soccer we say that the best the defense is the offense. Atheists are doing just that.
Matt
Just because people that don't believe in Dog are described with that one word (atheist) it doesn't mean we are a single homogeneous unit/group led by certain loud people. I can't help but think that this whole manufactured debate of evolution and Dog botherers is just a way to pigeon hole all sorts of diverse people into simple little units.
But to get back to the real errors in what you are saying, the very point of biological and scientific enquiry is that there is no such thing as "unbelievable complexity" because it is infact very believable and (shock horror) can be explained using evolutionary theory.
Regarding this imaginary revival of fundamentalism, it is simply a case of the media publicising what a lot of people have been saying for a long time. Just like international terrorism existed before 9/11, scientific inspired scepticism at mystical arguments has been around since before Richard Dawkins was but a sperm in his fathers testicles.
Also, science is independent of atheism or religious belief. I work in a lab with people who share scientific understanding and beliefs but are at absolutely different ends of the religious spectrum. This doesn't matter at all because we are not theologians.
Mats says,
Now, when science is discovering unbelievable complexity inside living things, the "God Hypothesis" is getting a foothold inside mainstream scientists, something that atheists would never predict a few generations ago.
Where do you get ridiculous information like this? Do you just make it up or are you parroting people who do?
Fifty years ago the average atheist would never have predicted that religion could be abandoned so quickly.
By the end of my life I except that more than 50% of the people in Western industrialized nations will be non-believers—with only one exception.
mats blathered: It seems to me that atheists have tried hard to kill Christianity with "science" (their version of science, obviously). Now, when science is discovering unbelievable complexity inside living things, the "God Hypothesis" is getting a foothold inside mainstream scientists, something that atheists would never predict a few generations ago.
(rolls eyes) I see you're as determined to invent your own reality as Denyse is, mats. Who, exactly, are these "mainstream scientists" who are rushing to embrace the "invisible magic man in the sky" hypothesis? In point of fact, the "unbelievable complexity" to be found in organisms has entirely natural, evolutionary processes that are becoming more and more understood every year. That doesn't make them less astonishing, but that I know of, we haven't seen any peer-reviewed papers taking the position, "Wow, it must be GAWD!"
Seeing how they are loosing the scientific debate...
*snicker*
atheists like Dawkins, spend more time attacking the "evils of religion", rather than explaining how does his evolutionary/materialistic/naturalistic worldview can account for what we see in Biology and Neuroscience.
Oh really? So I take it you've read The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's Tale, River Out of Eden and The Selfish Gene? Do please explain, in detail and citing specific passages, how those works fail to provide sound scientific explanations for wat we see in biology and neuroscience. Also, please provide references to religious texts that do offer falsifiable hypotheses from which reliable scientific theories that have predictive power can be derived. After all, many such texts simply must exist, if, as you so boldly declare, so many "mainstream scientists" are beating a path to theism's door!
We'll all just wait right here while you do that.
So this "revival" of atheistic fundamentalism is a normal psychological reaction when someone feels threatened. Or as someone over UD said "is a psychological phenomenon born out of fear".
Yes, and I think we all know what that kind of rhetoric is called, don't we?
In soccer we say that the best the defense is the offense. Atheists are doing just that.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you or any other theist in history proved your invisible magic sky daddy exists.
Until that happens, atheism needs no defense. It is simply the rational position to take. You guys, on the other hand, have your work cut out for you. Better get to it!
Monkeyman said:
Just because people that don't believe in Dog are described with that one word (atheist) it doesn't mean we are a single homogeneous unit/group led by certain loud people.
Actually, you guys are led by certain loud people (Dennet, Dawkins, Harris, et al).
" But to get back to the real errors in what you are saying, the very point of biological and scientific enquiry is that there is no such thing as "unbelievable complexity" because it is infact very believable and (shock horror) can be explained using evolutionary theory".
You are confusing the issues. One thing is to explain how it works, and quite another is to explain how it come about.
Darwinists (and pretty much any other biologist) can explain how the biological features work, but darwinsts don't have a testable mechanism able to explain how such features came about by means of nothing but natural forces.
"Also, science is independent of atheism or religious belief".
I agree with the first part. Science is totally independent of atheistic myths.
Blogger Larry Moran said...
Mats says,
Now, when science is discovering unbelievable complexity inside living things, the "God Hypothesis" is getting a foothold inside mainstream scientists, something that atheists would never predict a few generations ago.
"Where do you get ridiculous information like this? Do you just make it up or are you parroting people who do?
Fifty years ago the average atheist would never have predicted that religion could be abandoned so quickly."
You are kiding me, right? Atheists have been "predicting" the death of Christianity for decades. Remember Voltaire? His house now belong to the French Bible Society, if I am not mistaken.
Blogger Martin Wagner said...
mats blathered: It seems to me that atheists have tried hard to kill Christianity with "science" (their version of science, obviously). Now, when science is discovering unbelievable complexity inside living things, the "God Hypothesis" is getting a foothold inside mainstream scientists, something that atheists would never predict a few generations ago.
(rolls eyes) I see you're as determined to invent your own reality as Denyse is, mats. Who, exactly, are these "mainstream scientists" who are rushing to embrace the "invisible magic man in the sky" hypothesis?
Tons of scientists from credible universities claim to be Christians. Francis Collins is just one example. Of course, in your worldiew Frank may not be "mainstream".
"In point of fact, the "unbelievable complexity" to be found in organisms has entirely natural, evolutionary processes that are becoming more and more understood every year."
Yes, we understand how they work, but darwinist have no testable theory as to how they came agout by means of natural forces.
Tons of scientists from credible universities claim to be Christians. Francis Collins is just one example. Of course, in your worldiew Frank may not be "mainstream".
You claim "tons," then name one. Got a long way to go, mats.
I do consider Collins a mainstream scientist. I also consider his arguments for God, irrespective of his expertise on biology, to be inane. Any man who undergoes a spasm of religious revelation by gawking at a waterfall is not, whatever his academic training may be, a paragon of rational thought.
...darwinist have no testable theory as to how they came agout by means of natural forces.
"Darwinists" may not, but since they are, by and large, a creationist straw man, who cares what "Darwinists" think? As for actual scientists, Larry himself will be happy to tell you natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution.
Anyway, even if you were right here (natural selection has been tested), what alternative explanation can creationists offer, beyond "Goddidit"? And how is that a "testable theory"?
Try again.
Seeing how they are loosing the scientific debate
What debate? There is no debate in the scientific community on the reality of evolution. None whatsoever. There are only whiny religious twerps like you who want to "manufacture" a political movement. You have absolutely no traction with any of the relevant intellectual authorities, so you try to enlist the support of unqualified irrelevant idiots and the ignorant masses. That's all you can do.
The sheer scale of what you are attempting is mind-bogglingly irrational and insane. It's not only biology and evolution you're after, but astronomy, geology, anthropology, and the re-writing all of human and natural history to conform to your silly mythology. If the bible said 2 + 2 = 5, you'd be going after the mathematicians too.
It should be noted that while there are indeed scientists who call themselves Christians, this does not mean that they are evolution deniers. Even Collins doesn't do this.
[I]Actually, you guys are led by certain loud people (Dennet, Dawkins, Harris, et al).[/I]
Unless I have particapated in a democratic election then I am not led by anyone.
[I]You are confusing the issues. One thing is to explain how it works, and quite another is to explain how it come about.
Darwinists (and pretty much any other biologist) can explain how the biological features work, but darwinsts don't have a testable mechanism able to explain how such features came about by means of nothing but natural forces. [/I]
It is very easy to explain how things "came about". Evolution.
Martin Wagner said...
Tons of scientists from credible universities claim to be Christians. Francis Collins is just one example. Of course, in your worldiew Frank may not be "mainstream".
You claim "tons," then name one. Got a long way to go, mats.
You want me to list "tons" of scientists who believe in God in here?
"I do consider Collins a mainstream scientist."
Phew! That was a close one.
"I also consider his arguments for God, irrespective of his expertise on biology, to be inane. Any man who undergoes a spasm of religious revelation by gawking at a waterfall is not, whatever his academic training may be, a paragon of rational thought."
Irrelevant, but you are entitled for your on atheistic beliefs.
...darwinist have no testable theory as to how they came agout by means of natural forces.
"Darwinists" may not, but since they are, by and large, a creationist straw man, who cares what "Darwinists" think?
No, Darwinist is not a "creationist strawman".
"As for actual scientists,
Darwinian scientist?
"Larry himself will be happy to tell you natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution."
I never said that darwinists believe that natural selection is the only mechanism.
Anyway, even if you were right here (natural selection has been tested)
No creationist scientist says that natural selection doesn't work. The problem for darwinists is that we have never seen natural selection doing anything else but selecting from already existing systems. HOwever, the purpose of the darwinian myth is to explain NOT the "change of species", but "the ORIGIN of species". What is the natural force able to change a 100% land dwelling mammal intoa 100% sea dwelling mammal? This is the kind of thing what we want to know.
"what alternative explanation can creationists offer, beyond "Goddidit"?
The evidence suports the "Goddidit" theory rather than "EvolutionDidIt" myth.
And how is that a "testable theory"?
Simple. We can test the ability of natural forces to do what darwinist say they did. We can test the outcome of intelligence, and see if the structures we see in biology resemble more designed systems, or systems that are the result of unguided forcs of nature.
Anonymous said...
Seeing how they are loosing the scientific debate
What debate? There is no debate in the scientific community on the reality of evolution.
Depends on how you define "scientific community". If you define the scientific community as "those who accept evolution", then your above sentenced can be re-worded like this:
"There is no debate in the evolutionary community on the reality of evolution."
In other words, it's a tautology.
"There are only whiny religious twerps like you who want to "manufacture" a political movement."
Hey, if it worked for evolution, maybe it can work for other theories!
You have absolutely no traction with any of the relevant intellectual authorities, so you try to enlist the support of unqualified irrelevant idiots and the ignorant masses. That's all you can do.
You mean, the same ignorant masses who keep funding your religious myth in public school? If you don't like what us ignorant masses think about your religion, then takeit out of public schools. It's a useless dogma anyway,so why keep on insisting on it?
It's not only biology and evolution you're after, but astronomy, geology, anthropology, and the re-writing all of human and natural history to conform to your silly mythology.
Biology, astronomy, geology, nthropology are fine disciples. The problem arises when atheists add their religious worldview to those fine disciples.
"If the bible said 2 + 2 = 5, you'd be going after the mathematicians too.
Hardly.
Martin Wagner said...
It should be noted that while there are indeed scientists who call themselves Christians, this does not mean that they are evolution deniers. Even Collins doesn't do this.
Frank doesn't believe that the living world owes its existence to nothing more than the natural forces of nature. He knows that at the root of life, there is a Supernatural God.
The Monkeyman said...
[I]Actually, you guys are led by certain loud people (Dennet, Dawkins, Harris, et al).[/I]
Unless I have particapated in a democratic election then I am not led by anyone.
Sure you are. Most of the diatribe atheists vent in darwinian blogs is a re-shuffling of Dawkinite type of reasoning.
[I]You are confusing the issues. One thing is to explain how it works, and quite another is to explain how it come about.
Darwinists (and pretty much any other biologist) can explain how the biological features work, but darwinsts don't have a testable mechanism able to explain how such features came about by means of nothing but natural forces. [/I]
It is very easy to explain how things "came about". Evolution.
The magic hand of evolution!
What debate? There is no debate in the scientific community on the reality of evolution.
Depends on how you define "scientific community".
Hey, you sound like Bill Clinton! (Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is).
I'm talking about the people who actually know something about biology, geology, astronomy, and history (and any other science you don't like). Not the "scientists" who read a holy book and think that insects have four legs and the world is 6000 years old.
You mean, the same ignorant masses who keep funding your religious myth in public school? If you don't like what us ignorant masses think about your religion, then takeit out of public schools.
No we won't take real science (evolution) out of the public schools. That's the only hope that those ignorant masses have of curing their ignorance.
It's a useless dogma anyway,so why keep on insisting on it?
No, we insist on it because it's hard cold fact with overwhelming evidence. Get your nose out of your holy book and start seeing the world the way it really is.
It's not only biology and evolution you're after, but astronomy, geology, anthropology, and the re-writing all of human and natural history to conform to your silly mythology.
Biology, astronomy, geology, anthropology are fine disciples. The problem arises when atheists add their religious worldview to those fine disciples.
Illogical. Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color. The problem of course, is that you don't like astronomy, geology, anthropology, and history because they directly contract the bible in fundamental ways. You start with the bible and assume that everything must be consistent with it (even though it is not even consistent with itself). Real scientists start with the facts and build theories that are consistent with them.
Mats just can't stop shooting his own feet: You want me to list "tons" of scientists who believe in God in here?
Dude, "tons" was your word. What I want you to do is back up your claims, which, like Denyse, you refuse to do because you cannot, resorting instead to indignant remarks. If you claim "tons" of scientists are flocking to theism, then yeah, I expect more than one name. That's hardly unreasonable.
If you can only offer one name, then the honest thing for you to have said would have been, "There is at least one mainstream scientist who claims to be Christian," instead of what you actually said, which is, "Tons of scientists from credible universities claim to be Christians." Like most creationists of my experience, you seem to have a problem with that old "honesty" thing.
Me: I also consider his arguments for God, irrespective of his expertise on biology, to be inane. Any man who undergoes a spasm of religious revelation by gawking at a waterfall is not, whatever his academic training may be, a paragon of rational thought.
mats: Irrelevant, but you are entitled for your on atheistic beliefs.
Hardly irrelevant at all, since you were the one who name-checked Collins as a mainstream scientist who was also Christian, clearly implying that his Christianity was scientifically validated by virtue of his being a scientist. Your link, not mine.
In any case, the fact that Collins' defenses of his Christian beliefs are, in and of themselves, absurdly non-scientific, tends only to demonstrate that people with scientific backgrounds can be as susceptible to religion's delusions as much as any other clod. If Collins were to defend his theism in scientific terms, defining God in a falsifiable way and setting forth hypotheses by which God's existence could be verified, then that would be a different matter. But Collins isn't doing that. So that he is a scientist by profession does nothing to validate his Christianity, so far as his own writings on the subject can attest.
I never said that darwinists believe that natural selection is the only mechanism.
Well again, since "Darwinist" is a creationist straw man (and it's not my fault if you're too stupid to know that, too), how am I supposed to know what you mean by it? The term would seem to imply a scientist whose studies only reference the work of Darwin and nothing else. In point of fact, while Darwin was the starting point for modern biology, the science has moved far beyond him, confirming what Darwin got right and correcting what he got wrong.
Not being educated in the field, you wouldn't know this, of course.
The problem for darwinists is that we have never seen natural selection doing anything else but selecting from already existing systems. HOwever, the purpose of the darwinian myth is to explain NOT the "change of species", but "the ORIGIN of species". What is the natural force able to change a 100% land dwelling mammal intoa 100% sea dwelling mammal? This is the kind of thing what we want to know.
Wow. So much concentrated ignorance in one place!
Again, the science has moved beyond Darwin. Evolution through natural selection does describe the process of changes in populations and species after life already exists. The field of life's ultimate origins is called "abiogenesis," and is quite a different thing (Darwin didn't even go there).
But as for speciation, we understand how that happens, too.
The evidence suports the "Goddidit" theory rather than "EvolutionDidIt" myth.
Please cite the peer reviewed papers in which this evidence is documented.
Simple. We can test the ability of natural forces to do what darwinist say they did.
Uh, we have, they do.
We can test the outcome of intelligence, and see if the structures we see in biology resemble more designed systems, or systems that are the result of unguided forcs of nature.
Okay, here's your falsifiability problem: please describe what you think a non-God-designed world would look like.
And oh...evolution isn't an "unguided force of nature." Natural selection is not random.
See, mats? Nothing wrong with your ignorance a little education couldn't fix.
By the way, we're all still waiting for your detailed and exhaustively referenced explanations of how the five book by Dawkins I listed, in your words, "spend more time attacking the "evils of religion", rather than explaining how does his evolutionary/materialistic/naturalistic worldview can account for what we see in Biology and Neuroscience."
Take your time. I know you'll need it.
mats: Frank doesn't believe that the living world owes its existence to nothing more than the natural forces of nature. He knows that at the root of life, there is a Supernatural God.
No, like you he believes there is a supernatural God. And like you (like most Christians, in fact) he lacks the epistemological tools to distinguish between what we knows and what he simply believes.
In order for Collins to "know" what you think he knows, there would have to be proof of the existence of the supernatural in the first place, a clear definition allowing us to understand exactly what the supernatural is, how it functions, what its physical laws are, and how it interacts with the natural world. Without confirmation of the supernatural as a realm that actually exists, it can only exist in belief. And religion does not provide believers with a epistemology that enables them to tell the difference between what is real and what they simply believe.
Seeing how they are loosing the scientific debate,
He he! Bet Mats believes like Den(y)se, that this debate is taking place in blogs and on school boards.
@ Mats:
Please describe how "the scientific debate" is performed, and what it consists of in regards to evolutionary biology at the moment. (IANAB, but if it, unlikely as it is, comes down to checking real biology I'm sure we can get help here.)
As you proposed a partaker of the debate, you should also be able to mention all major proponents of the different debated hypotheses or models, proposed scientific programs, et cetera.
Anonymous said...
What debate? There is no debate in the scientific community on the reality of evolution.
Depends on how you define "scientific community".
Hey, you sound like Bill Clinton! (Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is).
I'm talking about the people who actually know something about biology, geology, astronomy, and history (and any other science you don't like).
There are non-darwinian people who know biology, geology,astronomy and history.
Secondly, how do you know that I don't like those sciencies?
" Not the "scientists" who read a holy book and think that insects have four legs and the world is 6000 years old."
In other words, no evolutionary scientist disagrees with evolution.
You ended up saying what I stated previously. Repeat after me: "TAUTOLOGY".
You mean, the same ignorant masses who keep funding your religious myth in public school? If you don't like what us ignorant masses think about your religion, then takeit out of public schools.
No we won't take real science (evolution) out of the public schools.
But evolution is not "real science". You are making question-begging statements.
That's the only hope that those ignorant masses have of curing their ignorance.
And it's working so well in the USA, right? *g*
Either Darwinists are bad teachers, or the evidence for real design is overwhelming. I think both, actually.
It's a useless dogma anyway,so why keep on insisting on it?
No, we insist on it because it's hard cold fact with overwhelming evidence.
Bla bla bla, overwhelming evidence, bla bla bla real scientists, bla bla bla, ignorant masses rant rant rant.
Don't you darwinists ever change the song?
Get your nose out of your holy book and start seeing the world the way it really is.
False dilema.
It's not only biology and evolution you're after, but astronomy, geology, anthropology, and the re-writing all of human and natural history to conform to your silly mythology.
Biology, astronomy, geology, anthropology are fine disciples. The problem arises when atheists add their religious worldview to those fine disciples.
Illogical. Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
Bad comparation. Atheism is the positive afirmation of the non-existence of God,your "analogy" is illogical.
The problem of course, is that you don't like astronomy, geology, anthropology, and history because they directly contract the bible in fundamental ways.
Except that they don't.
You start with the bible and assume that everything must be consistent with it (even though it is not even consistent with itself).
You start with naturalism, and assume that everything must be consistent with it (even though it is not even consistent with itself).
Real scientists start with the facts and build theories that are consistent with them.
That's wrong. Scientists have their own apriori assumptions.
Martin Wagner said...
Mats just can't stop shooting his own feet: You want me to list "tons" of scientists who believe in God in here?
Dude, "tons" was your word. What I want you to do is back up your claims, which, like Denyse, you refuse to do because you cannot, resorting instead to indignant remarks.
Here are around 100, to start with. If you need anymore, just let me know.
If you can only offer one name, then the honest thing for you to have said would have been, "There is at least one mainstream scientist who claims to be Christian," instead of what you actually said, which is, "Tons of scientists from credible universities claim to be Christians." Like most creationists of my experience, you seem to have a problem with that old "honesty" thing.
Surprising comment, specialy coming from someone who has no way to determine why is dishonesty wrong.
Me: I also consider his arguments for God, irrespective of his expertise on biology, to be inane. Any man who undergoes a spasm of religious revelation by gawking at a waterfall is not, whatever his academic training may be, a paragon of rational thought.
mats: Irrelevant, but you are entitled for your on atheistic beliefs.
Hardly irrelevant at all, since you were the one who name-checked Collins as a mainstream scientist who was also Christian, clearly implying that his Christianity was scientifically validated by virtue of his being a scientist. Your link, not mine.
I never said that his Christianity was validated by the fact that he is very well scientifically trained. I think that you are the one who has problems with the 9th Commandment.
In any case, the fact that Collins' defenses of his Christian beliefs are, in and of themselves, absurdly non-scientific,
Depends on how you define science, obviously, something that you and your darwinian brothers in the faith seem to overlook.
tends only to demonstrate that people with scientific backgrounds can be as susceptible to religion's delusions as much as any other clod.
Yes, that's right. People like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens come to mind.
I never said that darwinists believe that natural selection is the only mechanism.
Well again, since "Darwinist" is a creationist straw man (and it's not my fault if you're too stupid to know that, too),
Marty Marty Marty. How many times I have to tell you? The term "Darwinist" is something darwinists themselves use. Do you want me to find qutes by darwinists calling themselves darwinists?
how am I supposed to know what you mean by it? The term would seem to imply a scientist whose studies only reference the work of Darwin and nothing else.
You can be a darwinist without being a scientist.
In point of fact, while Darwin was the starting point for modern biology,
*gasp* Excuse me?! Darwin's myth helped nothing to modern biology. Now, if you mention people like creationist Mendel, or Christian Carl Linaeus, then you would be closer to the truth. But darwin's mythology is the most devastating lie ever invented in the name of biology.
the science has moved far beyond him, confirming what Darwin got right and correcting what he got wrong.
Yes,science has been refuting many of the things uncle charlie made up.
Not being educated in the field, you wouldn't know this, of course.
Of course.
The problem for darwinists is that we have never seen natural selection doing anything else but selecting from already existing systems. HOwever, the purpose of the darwinian myth is to explain NOT the "change of species", but "the ORIGIN of species". What is the natural force able to change a 100% land dwelling mammal intoa 100% sea dwelling mammal? This is the kind of thing what we want to know.
Wow. So much concentrated ignorance in one place!
Again, the science has moved beyond Darwin.
Science was never "in Darwin" in the first place.
Evolution through natural selection does describe the process of changes in populations and species after life already exists.
There is no evolution through natural selection. Tha't like "music thorough random poundings on the piano".
The field of life's ultimate origins is called "abiogenesis," and is quite a different thing (Darwin didn't even go there).
You mean, chemical EVOLUTION is not part of EVOLUTION ? Nice try, Marty. Chemical evolution and biological evolution go hand in hand. If the natural forces can't even start the systems, then there is no reason to limit our study of the systems within those same natural forces. And why, you say? Because we know that such forces are unsuficient.
What you and your darwinian religious brothers are trying to do is to separate evolution from chemical evolution due to the overwhelming unsucess darwinists have had in the OOL research.
Not gonna work, Marty.
But as for speciation, we understand how that happens, too.
Yes, and it owes nothing to darwinian myths.
The evidence suports the "Goddidit" theory rather than "EvolutionDidIt" myth.
Please cite the peer reviewed papers in which this evidence is documented.
Can I cite peer reviewed creationist papers? (/s)
Simple. We can test the ability of natural forces to do what darwinist say they did.
Uh, we have, they do.
No, they don't. Natural, impersonal,unguided undirected forces of nature are not able to generate information systems, like the ones present in DNA.
We can test the outcome of intelligence, and see if the structures we see in biology resemble more designed systems, or systems that are the result of unguided forcs of nature.
Okay, here's your falsifiability problem: please describe what you think a non-God-designed world would look like.
Actually, the falsifiability of the above is so easy, that even you can do it:
Find a natural,unguided,impersonal,undirected able to generate information systems. If you do that,you falsify the scientific theory of ID, and you put a huge hole inside Creationism.
And oh...evolution isn't an "unguided force of nature." Natural selection is not random.
I never said it was random.I said it was unguided.
See, mats? Nothing wrong with your ignorance a little education couldn't fix.
Education of indoctrination?
By the way, we're all still waiting for your detailed and exhaustively referenced explanations of how the five book by Dawkins I listed, in your words, "spend more time attacking the "evils of religion", rather than explaining how does his evolutionary/materialistic/naturalistic worldview can account for what we see in Biology and Neuroscience."
huh, I never said that his attacks on Christianity come exclusively from his books. Secondly, I haven't read any of his books. By what people who have have told me, I didn't miss much.
Martin Wagner said...
mats: Frank doesn't believe that the living world owes its existence to nothing more than the natural forces of nature. He knows that at the root of life, there is a Supernatural God.
No, like you he believes there is a supernatural God.
Whatever you may want to call it. The important thing in here is that Frank, unlike you and other darwinists, doesn't believe that natural unguided, impersonal, undirected forces of nature did all the creating. YOu do, so don't put him on your camp, ok Marty?
And like you (like most Christians, in fact) he lacks the epistemological tools to distinguish between what we knows and what he simply believes.
Too bad you don't do the same with your own religious beliefs. Do you KNOW that land mammals became sea dwelling mammals, or do you BELIEVE in that, Marty? Have you ever seen a 100% land dwelling mammal giving birth to anything other than another of the same kind, Marty?
In order for Collins to "know" what you think he knows, there would have to be proof of the existence of the supernatural in the first place,
Proof or evidence, Marty?
a clear definition allowing us to understand exactly what the supernatural is, how it functions, what its physical laws are, and how it interacts with the natural world.
In other words, we would have to take pictures of the supernatural event happening in front of our eyes in order for dear oldMarty toaccept it. Too bad that Martin doesn't hold such a high standard of evidence when it come to his "dino to bird" fairytale. What law turns dinos into birds, Marty? HOw does that function? Has anyone actually seen it happening? Have you?
Without confirmation of the supernatural as a realm that actually exists, it can only exist in belief.
The same goes for evolutionism, which lacks evidence for the mechanism.
And religion does not provide believers with a epistemology that enables them to tell the difference between what is real and what they simply believe.
Depends on which religion you have in mind. Ido agree that certain godless religions out there are a bit blurry when it comes to testability.
There are non-darwinian people who know biology, geology,astronomy and history.
Like who? Ken Ham? Safarti?
But evolution is not "real science".
Oh, but it is! That's why we have evolutionary biology departments at universities with PhDs and everything. They're in no danger of being disbanded (boo hoo for you)
Bla bla bla, overwhelming evidence, bla bla bla real scientists, bla bla bla, ignorant masses rant rant rant.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
The problem of course, is that you don't like astronomy, geology, anthropology, and history because they directly contract the bible in fundamental ways.
Except that they don't.
Then why don't you like them? Of course they contradict the bible (as they should since the bible was written by ignorant men thousands of years ago). Here a few examples:
How can we see a galaxy 2 million light years away if the universe if 6000 years old? (don't give me that falsified speed of light garbage - it wouldn't explain million year old supernovas anyway).
Geology - Despite your best futile efforts, radioactive dating is solid. And your retarded "Flood geology" nonsense doesn't even come close to explaining fossil sorting.
History - Egyptian civilization predates your stupid Flood and continues unbroken right on through it.
You really have to be a complete idiot to actually believe that biblical trash, don't you?
Surprising comment, specialy coming from someone who has no way to determine why is dishonesty wrong.
Don't be even stupider than you already are. (I know, that's like telling a dog not to eat a steak.) Just because Christians have such a hard time thinking for themselves that they need a space-daddy doling out rewards and punishments to understand right vs. wrong doesn't mean everybody else does. The rest of us get along fine with good old reason.
There is no evolution through natural selection.
Right you are, mats. You know what else? There's no such thing as gravity either. What happens is, God's got a bunch of angels keeping us on the ground by holding down on our shoulders.
What law turns dinos into birds, Marty? HOw does that function? Has anyone actually seen it happening? Have you?
Has anyone here actually seen the Civil War happen? Has anyone here actually seen the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Has anyone actually seen Abraham Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg address? Has anyone actually seen the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo?
Gosh, no? Then according to mats's devastating arguments, those things DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Mats, you're really just too hopelessly dimwitted to deal with. Seriously. It's like you were not only dropped on your head in infancy, but deliberately held by the feet and swung against a wall.
Your whole post is essentially one long exercise in folding your arms and sticking out your chin and going "NUH-UH!"
Fine dude. Whatever. Tell you what. Go live your life, and leave scientists alone to continue the real work.
Here are around 100, [creationist scientists] to start with. If you need anymore, just let me know.
Ooo, a hundred. Well, that's better than one. Meanwhile, Project Steve currently has 864 pro-evolution scientists just named Steve. You lose.
Find a natural, unguided, impersonal, undirected able to generate information systems. If you do that,you falsify the scientific theory of ID, and you put a huge hole inside Creationism.
Well, not that there's a "scientific theory of ID" to falsify (maybe you meant "hypothesis"), but here you go: Gene duplication. Point mutations create changes in the genome, natural selection then works to preserve those changes that assist an organism in adapting to the environment, while changes that are maladaptive die out. Just go to PubMed and do a search for "gene duplication," and bask in the peer reviewed papers your side wishes it had.
Nice try, though, mats. Four whole big adjectives ("natural, unguided, impersonal, undirected" — next time I bet you can squeeze in three or four more), and you were so proud of yourself you forgot to add the word they meant to modify!
Tell you what, mats. I will grant you one thing. Indeed you've proved it conclusively. While it's true (sorry, but, hey, reality's a bitch) that the human race did, in fact, undergo an evolutionary process along with all of earth's other life forms, it is equally true that you never did. I think we've found the "missing link," people!
Marty said:
"Surprising comment, specialy coming from someone who has no way to determine why is dishonesty wrong."
Don't be even stupider than you already are. (I know, that's like telling a dog not to eat a steak.) Just because Christians have such a hard time thinking for themselves that they need a space-daddy doling out rewards and punishments to understand right vs. wrong doesn't mean everybody else does. The rest of us get along fine with good old reason.
That doesn't address what I said. You, as an atheist, have no way to determine what is right or wrong apart from your own wishes and whims.
There is no evolution through natural selection.
Right you are, mats. You know what else? There's no such thing as gravity either.
Oh, Marty is comparing what we can see happening in front of us with a theiry that says dinos turned into birds!
Marty, unlike darwinism, gravity can be tested by anyone all over the globe, and we can see it operating. On the other hand, no one has ever seen the magical darwinian mechanism turning dinosaurs into birds, land mammals into whales, or something like that. Don't confuse real science with evolution.
"What law turns dinos into birds, Marty? HOw does that function? Has anyone actually seen it happening? Have you?"
Has anyone here actually seen the Civil War happen? Has anyone here actually seen the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Has anyone actually seen Abraham Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg address? Has anyone actually seen the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo?
Gosh, no? Then according to mats's devastating arguments, those things DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Thanks for agreeing with me that evolution is a story about the PAST, not something that we see happening today.
Secondly, we have historical records for the events you mentioned above. We have reliable written documents by people who were there and saw the events.
Thirdly, what those historical facts decribe does not go against what we see happening today. In fact, because of those historical events, we can explain many things that we see today.
Now, with evolution, it's exacly the opposite. We have no evidence for the mechanism, and, what's worse, that the "theory" postulates goes against what we see happening in front of our very eyes.
So your analogy fails, Marty.
"Here are around 100, [creationist scientists] to start with. If you need anymore, just let me know."
Ooo, a hundred. Well, that's better than one. Meanwhile, Project Steve currently has 864 pro-evolution scientists just named Steve. You lose.
Marty, you must be tire,d or you just want to waste my time. You asked for scientists who were CHristians, and I gave you a link. I never said that Christians are the majority among scientists.
Secondly, Project Strawman...err... I mean, Project Steve is at the level of darwinian logic. ABsolutly useless.
"Find a natural, unguided, impersonal, undirected able to generate information systems. If you do that,you falsify the scientific theory of ID, and you put a huge hole inside Creationism."
Well, not that there's a "scientific theory of ID" to falsify (maybe you meant "hypothesis"), but here you go: Gene duplication.
lol Duplication of ALREADY EXISTING information Marty? Try again, please :-)
Point mutations create changes in the genome, natural selection then works to preserve those changes that assist an organism in adapting to the environment, while changes that are maladaptive die out.
Point mutations are mutations that work in already existing information systems, Marty. You are not giving evidence for your theory. Find me a force of nature that is able to create information systems where there was none previously.
Nice try, though, mats. Four whole big adjectives ("natural, unguided, impersonal, undirected" — next time I bet you can squeeze in three or four more), and you were so proud of yourself you forgot to add the word they meant to modify!
Actually, Marty, the "unguided, undirected" parts come straight from the horse's mouth, or to put it better, from darwinian's mouth. Remember the 38 Nobel laureates who said so? Google it.
You, as an atheist, have no way to determine what is right or wrong apart from your own wishes and whims.
Religionists do the same thing, but they just call their wishes and whims "god."
In any case, what I apply are both reason and the evolved instinct towards species preservation and the desire to get along with my fellow man. Since moral behavior is the natural end result of behaving rationally at all times, religious belief is superfluous to the process.
You actually apply the same process, you just don't know it: you evaluate a situation, weigh the consequences of that situation, then behave accordingly. You just attribute your decisions to following God's rules rather than your own understanding.
In any case, religion just replaces a rational understanding of moral precepts with obedience to authority. It also tends to redefine moral behavior it terms of what benefits the religion over the individual or society. It's not useful in the least to a rationalist, as morality is not about simply obeying commandments. It's about thinking, understanding, and empathy. They didn't teach those things when I went to Sunday school, and it's pretty obvious they aren't teaching them in yours.
On the other hand, no one has ever seen the magical darwinian mechanism turning dinosaurs into birds, land mammals into whales, or something like that. Don't confuse real science with evolution.
We have seen this, and it's in two things: the fossil record, and genetics. Being uneducated in the field, you not only don't know what real science is, but you seem to think that if you aren't a direct eyewitness to a thing, it can never have happened. Guess that blows Jesus out of the water, eh? lol
(Your lack of education also shines through in your thinking natural selection is "magical," whereas an educated person understands that it's...well...natural. It's a hallmark of a limited intellect to label whatever it cannot understand as magical, I suppose.)
Do you KNOW that land mammals became sea dwelling mammals, or do you BELIEVE in that, Marty? Have you ever seen a 100% land dwelling mammal giving birth to anything other than another of the same kind, Marty?
So much stupid, so concentrated in one tiny little spot! It's species that evolve, not individual organisms, and the process takes place over millennia, not over a weekend. If you think that what evolution claims is that you'll see a whale giving birth to a cow, then you're even stupider than you think I think you are. (What we do see are land animals with vestigial fins and the like.) You quite simply don't know anything at all about the field of science that you choose to make a public fool of yourself criticizing. You've just swallowed creationist kool-aid by the tubfull, and, by your own admittance, have never cracked open an actual biology text.
Methinks you need to read Proverbs 12:1.
Thanks for agreeing with me that evolution is a story about the PAST, not something that we see happening today.
Wrong again, stupid.
Thirdly, what those historical facts decribe does not go against what we see happening today. In fact, because of those historical events, we can explain many things that we see today.
Now, with evolution, it's exacly the opposite. We have no evidence for the mechanism, and, what's worse, that the "theory" postulates goes against what we see happening in front of our very eyes.
This statement is 180 degrees in opposition to reality, as understanding of evolution has led to, among other things, antibiotics and antiviral treatments in medicine. Understanding how infections mutate and develop resistance to certain medicines propels research into more effective medicines. In paleontology, Tiktaalik was discovered because evolutionary scientists were able to predict that such a transitional form would be found in the fossil record precisely where it was found. So in fact, everything evolution has taught us can be seen in observations made today. That is why evolution is a scientific theory: it has predictive power.
See, mats, you're just uneducated and dumb. Your Christian indoctrination has brainwashed you to the point where in order to defend it, you simply have to sit there and say things that are the equivalent of "black is white, up is down, the sun rises in the south, and 2 + 2 = 967." There hasn't been a true statement in one of your posts from the time you started commenting here, and it's obvious where that refusal to confront reality comes from. You seem to think in radical extremes: for your belief in God to be valid, evolution must be 100% false in all particulars. This is religious brainwashing at its most destructive. (Indeed, the symptoms are so clear that, scientifically, I can predict your response: You will most likely do the "same to you and more of it" retort popular among schoolchildren and tell me I'm brainwashed by the "religion" or "Darwinism." You aren't even a mediocre intellect, mats.)
You asked for scientists who were CHristians, and I gave you a link. I never said that Christians are the majority among scientists.
Ah, notice how we're changing our little tune! Typical creationist dishonesty from mats, I see. First you say that "darwinists" are "loosing the scientific debate," and that "tons of scientists from credible universities claim to be Christians," and then, when your numbers aren't shown to be as impressive as all that, you try to minimize the fact that your claim was pwned by waving your arms and going, "I never said that Christians are the majority among scientists." Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!
Secondly, Project Strawman...err... I mean, Project Steve is at the level of darwinian logic. ABsolutly useless.
Typical creo reaction to being pwned: denial. You brought the claim up. It's bad form to whine like a child who's been grounded when it backfires on you, mats. Try to have a little dignity, OK.
Project Steve is neither a strawman, nor useless. What it is, is a bullseye parody of creationist attempts to claim scientific legitimacy by publishing lists of "dissenters" from "Darwinism" among scientists. Not only are the numbers not nearly so impressive as they wish their clueless public (ie, you) to believe, but many of the scientists on them aren't specialists in evolutionary biology. So they hardly have professional credentials to claim evolution isn't valid. A huge number of the names on your list were physicists and experts in other fields, few were biologists.
In any case, your list didn't come within a country mile of proving the claim you were trying to make, which was (and I'm quoting you here again) that evolutionary scientists were "loosing [sic] the scientific debate." Since you now admit creationist scientists have never been a majority, it would be the honest and moral thing to do to admit your falsehood and take responsibility for it.
But with egg all over your face, what do you do? Admit your error, you know, like a scientist would? Nope. It's the old Gish Gallop! You spin, lie, retreat, whine "it's useless!" Typical of creationist dishonesty. When in fact, the list of names that's really useless is the one you provided, wasn't it?
Again, check Proverbs 12:1.
lol Duplication of ALREADY EXISTING information Marty? Try again, please :-)..... Point mutations are mutations that work in already existing information systems, Marty.
Uh...dumbshit...evolution as a science only deals with development of biological systems that already exist. If you're looking for the very beginnings of life itself, try abiogenesis. Different field of study. Do believe I've mentioned this before. Not surprising it hasn't sunk in. It's a big word, after all.
Find me a force of nature that is able to create information systems where there was none previously.
Well, you could always go with "god of the gaps," which is what you're doing. Of course, you now have to explain where God came from. Meanwhile, Google "abiogenesis." Here's a starter faq.
Anyway, who says it's a "force of nature" that starts the biological ball rolling? You're think in God terms, of course. But where is the evidence? Abiogenesis is an ongoing field of study, and we don't have all the answers. But that doesn't justify god of the gaps.
Finally, I can't resist a parting shot as this little bit of hilarity:
Can I cite peer reviewed creationist papers?
Oh yes, please do! If you can find some that actually exist, you'll have done a much better job than the poor bastards who have tried to defend teaching creationism in courts of law down through the decades, all the way up to Dover, who couldn't produce any! But then, maybe those papers only exist in your befuddled, fantasy-addled mind, alongside all those sea creatures giving birth to land animals.
Marty says:
You, as an atheist, have no way to determine what is right or wrong apart from your own wishes and whims.
Religionists do the same thing, but they just call their wishes and whims "god."
Depends on which religionists you have in mind. But thanks for agreeing that atheists have absolutly no way to determine what is right or wrong.
In any case, what I apply are both reason and the evolved instinct towards species preservation and the desire to get along with my fellow man.
The Nazis used the same mentality,and see how it worked out. Don't forget that they classified the Jews as "non-human",therefore they didn't have to "get along with their fellow man".
Since moral behavior is the natural end result of behaving rationally at all times, religious belief is superfluous to the process.
But....who defines what is "rational" or not?
You actually apply the same process, you just don't know it: you evaluate a situation, weigh the consequences of that situation, then behave accordingly. You just attribute your decisions to following God's rules rather than your own understanding.
Friend, you couldn't be further from the truth, and this reveal how little you know about human nature.
In any case, religion just replaces a rational understanding of moral precepts with obedience to authority.
No, it doesn't.
It also tends to redefine moral behavior it terms of what benefits the religion over the individual or society.
Goodness, no!
It's not useful in the least to a rationalist, as morality is not about simply obeying commandments.
Of course, this all depends on how *you* define "rationality" and how you define "morality", which is the point at all. What is moral and what is not moral, Marty?
Is slicing babies for no reason at all moral? Is beating woman moral? Is lying to get a scientific degree rational and moral? Or is it rational but immoral?
On the other hand, no one has ever seen the magical darwinian mechanism turning dinosaurs into birds, land mammals into whales, or something like that. Don't confuse real science with evolution.
We have seen this, and it's in two things: the fossil record, and genetics.
Marty, you can only be kiding. "We have seen it" but "it's in the fossil record".
Marty, bones don't come with video recordings, nor with ages. You have to interpretate them in agreement with your own presupositions.
I repeat, no one hasever seen dinos turning into birds, land mammals turning into 100% sea dwelling mammals, and not any of all the other magical things evolution preaches unto all men.
Being uneducated in the field, you not only don't know what real science is, but you seem to think that if you aren't a direct eyewitness to a thing, it can never have happened.
That is not what I said. What I say is that what evolution proposes regarding the evolution of whales is not at the same scientific level of, for example, gravity. While in the latter we can see it happening in front of us, and test it all over the globe,with magical evolution it's all about interpretation of what the past might have been (maybe). Therefore, comparing evolution with gravity reveals a naive way in how science works.
Guess that blows Jesus out of the water, eh? lol
There is more evidence that the Lord walked on water than there is for the dino to bird magical transformation.
(Your lack of education also shines through in your thinking natural selection is "magical,"
Uhh...evolution is the magical process. Natural selection, which,once again,we can see happening in front of us, is not controversial.
Let me give you an analogy. We have bikes, and we have the moon. Using your logic,since we can travel with a bike from Madrid to Lisbon, it means that, given enough time, I can travel to the moon with the same bike. And what isthe evidence?Well, the bike can travel,right? That's is the evidence that it can go to the moon!
If you are able to see the fallacy of that analogy,you'll be able to see the fallacy in darwinian circles, everytime they speak of natural selection as one of the explinations for the origination of the bio-complexity.
"Do you KNOW that land mammals became sea dwelling mammals, or do you BELIEVE in that, Marty? Have you ever seen a 100% land dwelling mammal giving birth to anything other than another of the same kind, Marty?"
So much stupid, so concentrated in one tiny little spot! It's species that evolve, not individual organisms, and the process takes place over millennia, not over a weekend.
Thanks for agreeing once more that evolution is not something we see happening in front of us, but a story about the past.
Secondly, if you increase the number of organisms wherein such amazing mutations happened,confering the species the selectivie advantage fo live inthe sea, you increase the unlikelihood ofit happening. It's already statistically amazing that ONE livign form would go through such magical transformation. It's much more amazing that WHOLE SPECIES would go through them.
I repeat, no one hasever seen it, and what we can see contradicts the evolutionary mistery religion. Sorry Marty,but you get find another religion.
If you think that what evolution claims is that you'll see a whale giving birth to a cow, then you're even stupider than you think I think you are.
Six words for you:
"The Return Of the Hopeful Monster"
Who was the "stupid" who said such thigns, Martin?
(What we do see are land animals with vestigial fins and the like.)
Like which ones? Coelancath? The one thought to have disapeared gazillion years ago, but we found to be alive and wellm contradicting darwinian myths?
"Thanks for agreeing with me that evolution is a story about the PAST, not something that we see happening today."
Wrong again, stupid.
You agreeded above that evolution takes "time" to happen, didn't you?
Thirdly, what those historical facts decribe does not go against what we see happening today. In fact, because of those historical events, we can explain many things that we see today.
Now, with evolution, it's exacly the opposite. We have no evidence for the mechanism, and, what's worse, what the "theory" postulates goes against what we see happening in front of our very eyes."
This statement is 180 degrees in opposition to reality, as understanding of evolution has led to, among other things, antibiotics and antiviral treatments in medicine.
hm, no. Antibiotics received a great boost thanks tothe work of Louis Pasteur,who did not use darwinian principles for his discoveries. In fact, Louis Pasteur is one of the many scientists who have described the limits of natural laws, by destroying the myth of chemical evolution.
Darwinian principles("the magical powers of natural forces") have not helped science in anyway.
Understanding how infections mutate and develop resistance to certain medicines propels research into more effective medicines.
Mutations in already existing life forms owe nothing to darwinian principles,since darwinism is the theory who try to explain the origination of such systems, not the transformation of systems that alreay exist into the same system.
In paleontology, Tiktaalik was discovered because evolutionary scientists were able to predict that such a transitional form would be found in the fossil record precisely where it was found. So in fact, everything evolution has taught us can be seen in observations made today.
huh, no Marty. You clearly forget that is the cardinal belief in the darwinian church? What about the "unguided, undirected, impersonal" creative powers of natural forces?
That is why evolution is a scientific theory: it has predictive power.
Evolution doesn't have "predictive power" (Vestigial organs? Junk DNA?) Evlution has accomodation powers. It accomodates to the evidence.
You seem to think in radical extremes: for your belief in God to be valid, evolution must be 100% false in all particulars.
More like, "since God is Valid, then evolution is nonsense".
This is religious brainwashing at its most destructive. (Indeed, the symptoms are so clear that, scientifically, I can predict your response: You will most likely do the "same to you and more of it" retort popular among schoolchildren and tell me I'm brainwashed by the "religion" or "Darwinism."
Well, I don't want to be rude,but by the symptoms you have displayed in here , it's absurdly clear that you have been brainwashed by the darwinian myth. If, in order to explain the origination of a given life form, you point to changes WITHIN the life form, then I can conclude that you are totally under the darwinian spell.
"You asked for scientists who were CHristians, and I gave you a link. I never said that Christians are the majority among scientists."
Ah, notice how we're changing our little tune! Typical creationist dishonesty from mats, I see. First you say that "darwinists" are "loosing the scientific debate,"
Which is a fact.
and that "tons of scientists from credible universities claim to be Christians,"
Which is a fact too.
and then, when your numbers aren't shown to be as impressive as all that, you try to minimize the fact that your claim was pwned by waving your arms and going, "I never said that Christians are the majority among scientists."
Well, I never did say that Christians are the majority among scientists, therefore I don't have to defend what I did not say. YOu are the one who tossed a strawman.
"Secondly, Project Strawman...err... I mean, Project Steve is at the level of darwinian logic. ABsolutly useless."
Typical creo reaction to being pwned: denial. You brought the claim up.
No, I didn't. Not me,nor any ID scientist, and certainly no YEC scientist says that the majority of scientists are either IDists,or YECers.
So when darwinists come with the Project Strawman, saying that there are more scientists called Steve that believe in evolution than scientists who are skeptical of darwinism, we have to sit back and ask: So what? WHo said the opposite?
It's bad form to whine like a child who's been grounded when it backfires on you, mats. Try to have a little dignity, OK.
Project Steve is neither a strawman, nor useless. What it is, is a bullseye parody of creationist attempts to claim scientific legitimacy by publishing lists of "dissenters" from "Darwinism" among scientists.
Creationist scientists don't claim "scientific legitimacy" by publishinf lists of "dissenters".
The ID dissent list was made bkz darwian PBS preached that virtually no scientist doubted Darwinism. Since this is obviously wrong in all acounts,the Discovery Institute published the list in order to refute PBS' lies.
Not only are the numbers not nearly so impressive as they wish their clueless public (ie, you) to believe, but many of the scientists on them aren't specialists in evolutionary biology.
Yes, because you have to be an expert in order to understand evolution. But then again, if you don't believe in it,you are stupid, ignorant, and possibliy wicked! How about that for a darwinian twist? loll
So they hardly have professional credentials to claim evolution isn't valid. A huge number of the names on your list were physicists and experts in other fields, few were biologists.
Yes, and what do physicists know about the limits of natural laws,right? Evolutionary Biologists, on the other hand, know alll about the powers of physical laws, don't they?
In any case, your list didn't come within a country mile of proving the claim you were trying to make, which was (and I'm quoting you here again) that evolutionary scientists were "loosing [sic] the scientific debate."
But the link I gave was not to show that evolutionists are losing the scientific debate, but, instead,to show that one can be a good scientist and a Christian without compromising either.
Since you now admit creationist scientists have never been a majority, it would be the honest and moral thing to do to admit your falsehood and take responsibility for it.
Well, if I do admit that creationist scientists have NEVER been a majority,I would in deed be lying. There were moments in the history of science where the majority of scientists knew that the Biblical acount of creation was the factual one.
However, in my post,the purpose was not to show that "creationists are a majority", but to show that there are many many many Christians, with degrees from respectable scientific institutions who see no conflict between their science and their faith in the Genesis account of creation. So your strawman has been exposed.
"lol Duplication of ALREADY EXISTING information Marty? Try again, please :-)..... Point mutations are mutations that work in already existing information systems, Marty."
Uh...dumbshit...evolution as a science only deals with development of biological systems that already exist.
Not really. Evolutionary magic tries to explain how an existing dinosaurs gave rise to a non-existing (then - suposedly) bird.
If you're looking for the very beginnings of life itself, try abiogenesis.
Chemical evolution and biological evolution go hand in hand. If one fails, so does the other.
"find me a force of nature that is able to create information systems where there was none previously."
Well, you could always go with "god of the gaps," which is what you're doing. Of course, you now have to explain where God came from. Meanwhile, Google "abiogenesis." Here's a starter faq.
Nice try.
My answer?
Anyway, who says it's a "force of nature" that starts the biological ball rolling? You're think in God terms, of course. But where is the evidence? Abiogenesis is an ongoing field of study, and we don't have all the answers. But that doesn't justify god of the gaps.
No answer again. I assume you realize that there isn't a forceof nature able to generate codes where there was none.
Finally, I can't resist a parting shot as this little bit of hilarity:
"Can I cite peer reviewed creationist papers?"
Oh yes, please do! If you can find some that actually exist, you'll have done a much better job than the poor bastards who have tried to defend teaching creationism in courts of law down through the decades, all the way up to Dover, who couldn't produce any!
Let me get this right: you want me to name you creationist scientific papers,even iftheycome from creationist science journals? I think that either you didn't understand me, or I didn't explain myself properly. Can I cite peer reviewed creationist papers, who apear in creationist technical peer reviewed journals?
But then, maybe those papers only exist in your befuddled, fantasy-addled mind, alongside all those sea creatures giving birth to land animals.
I am glad you agree that such notions of sea creatures giving birth to anything but the same kind is nonsense. What does that make of evlutionary phylosopy?
Post a Comment