November 10, 2008

Contrasting Religions

Evolution is the "descent from a common ancestor" model so when you ask people "Do you believe your ancestors were fish, as evolution teaches?" Or, "Are you a mutated rodent-like creature?" Fewer people would be more inclined to answer, "Yes!" Despite several generations now of aggressive evolution-only teaching in the Public School classroom, most people just know that they didn't come from a fish or a rodent or a starfish. They can choose to believe they have an animal ancestry, but few do. It just isn't believable. The other explanation for origins is not only more believable, it's more appealing.

Dr Michael Ruse, an eloquent spokesman for evolution today, has admitted:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more then mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion. A full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, (no such thing) but I must admit that in this one complaint...the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."(1)

Christianity has its God and its revealed truth. It tells us our origins, who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and where we're going after we die.
It tells us how to live and how to make life decisions along the way. Created in the image of God, we have great worth in His eyes, and great standing before Him as we appropriate His gift of redemption, a great destiny to perform on earth, and life with our loving and righteous Creator/Savior after death.

Evolution answers these same questions differently. We are and come from the universe's chemicals that have self-organized into unlikely forms over eons of time. Single-celled life transformed itself into higher forms until finally the human animal came along. As higher animals, we have incorporated animal behavior into societal norms and even "religious" beliefs. The only true meaning to life is survival and reproduction, and life's highest goal is to pass on one's genes more efficiently than others. After life, we simply cease to exist.

As constitutional attorney Wendell Bird has pointed out: "Evolution is at least as religious as creation, and creation is at least as scientific as evolution." Creation is also more believable. (John D Morris, PhD)

----
1. Ruse, Michael. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post, May 13, 2000,B-3

88 comments:

  1. Could you at least do a little research before you do these posts?

    The Dr Michael Ruse quote is one of the biggest misquotes out there. Let me show you:


    This is from the two e-mails that Dr. Ruse gave me when I e-mailed him the above article. His email has probably changed since then.

    well, I did say that evolution is a religion but I was taken out of context -- I think that too often evolutionists take their theory in a religious fashion when they should treat it as science -- let me see if I can dig something out for you -- but really you should read my book "can a darwinian be a christian?" published by cambridge university press

    michael ruse


    Do you know how many years I've had this on my computer's hard drive?

    Anyway, on to the article the quote came from so we can see the actual context:

    National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000

    What is the moral to be drawn from all of this? You might think that the time has come to save evolution from the evolutionists. Darwinism is a terrific theory that stimulates research in every area of the life sciences.

    In the human realm, for instance, discoveries in Africa trace our immediate past in ever greater detail, while at the same time the findings from the Human Genome Project open up incredibly interesting evolutionary questions as we learn of the molecular similarities between ourselves and organisms as apparently different as fruit flies and earthworms. Surely this is enough.

    There is no need to make a religion of this. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed.

    But, let us be tolerant. If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business. Who would deny the value of Wilson's plea for biodiversity? Who would argue against Gould's hatred of racial and sexual prejudice? The important point is that we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their theory as an all-embracing world picture. All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even. For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution and heed what they have to say. [b]The
    Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are right in at least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to preach that gospel to the world.


    What he's saying is that evolution is a scientific theory backed up by evidence which explains how we got here, but that is all it is: it does not give us any moral guidelines like religion does, etc. If anyone feels that it does, they should keep any of their own philosophical opinions of it out of the classroom.

    The theory of evolution was developed not to be a religion but just to explain the observations that Darwin et al saw. It was only ever supposed to be a scientific theory. Not a religion, despite how you people portray it.

    Meanwhile, the actual science of evolution has stood the test of time, and let's teach that in science classes.


    That's all he's saying. I've bolded the part the creationists leave out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan,
    You are becoming a parody of yourself.

    You really should spend some time educating yourself on what real scientists do rather than spending all your time reading the creationis websites.

    It is well shown that lies are abundant and pervasive in creation land.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan,
    did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know what I find really interesting? That Creationists keep trying to label the word "Evolution" with perjorative terms like "religion".

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS. The "above article" that I mentioned in my first post that, I had emailed to Micheal Ruse was obviously not your article, but was another creationist article that used the same misquote you did.


    Just thought I'd make that clear.




    Now, on to "Junk DNA":
    here and here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They can choose to believe they have an animal ancestry, but few do. It just isn't believable. The other explanation for origins is not only more believable, it's more appealing.

    Appeals to [authority, popularity, emotion, etc.] are invalid. They do not necessarily make the claim and/or conclusions drawn invalid, but in and of themselves, they are invalid argumentative tactics -- logical fallacies.

    So let's see if you have something better...

    [Some damning quote by Michael Ruse]

    Although Reynold contends that this quote was taken out of context, I don't know if he was referring to the quote you posted or some other quote -- certainly, the email Reynold posted seems to match up with the quote in question, but the quote itself doesn't appear in his comment. Also, I was unable to find your quote in its original context, so that I could determine for myself the verdict (and post the results for you here).

    So the jury is still out on that aspect, but whatever Ruse's statements concerning evolution may or may not be, the fact that his degrees (B.A., M.A., Ph.D.) are all in Philosophy. This doesn't mean he isn't qualified to speak out regarding evolution, and indeed, due to his area of expertise -- "Philosophy of Science" -- it should be expected that he has some experience with relative sciences.

    Christianity has its God and its revealed truth. It tells us our origins, who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and where we're going after we die.

    Christianity has a god (or gods, depending on your depiction of the "Trinity"), and it claims to have revealed truth (which doesn't mesh with various scientific discoveries). It presumes to tell us our origins, although it says nothing of who we are -- that is clearly something we are free to choose for ourselves, if the bible is accepted. Its information regarding the "meaning of life" is ambiguous at best -- it aims to answer this question, but only dances around some of the tougher implications such an answer would require, at least from a reasonably rational, skeptical mind. It doesn't so much tell us where we're going when we die as it says something eternally terrible will occur under most situations, while something eternally wonderful may occur in special cases. There is [obviously] much debate as to precisely what conditions must be met to ensure the latter scenario plays out...

    It tells us how to live and how to make life decisions along the way. Created in the image of God, we have great worth in His eyes, and great standing before Him as we appropriate His gift of redemption, a great destiny to perform on earth, and life with our loving and righteous Creator/Savior after death.

    It tells us how to live, with a great many highly objectionable practices being directly endorsed, required, or suggested. That is, it requires of its adherents the most insipid crimes we today recognize. Its efforts at assisting in "life decisions" is dubious at best, and seem to mark a distinct change in god's behavior or mood. It simultaneously suggests we have great worth to an almighty being with limitless knowledge, and that we are nonetheless far more likely to be tortured for eternity than realize that worth.

    [Curiously, and quite ironically, Dan has chosen to say that we will "appropriate" god's quite inappropriate "gift".]

    It reveres the creator as some loving and righteous deity, while noting with revealing indifference that its precepts require that this loving and righteous creature condemn its creation to eternal torment to the tune of 9:1.

    Evolution answers these same questions differently. We are and come from the universe's chemicals that have self-organized into unlikely forms over eons of time. Single-celled life transformed itself into higher forms until finally the human animal came along. As higher animals, we have incorporated animal behavior into societal norms and even "religious" beliefs. The only true meaning to life is survival and reproduction, and life's highest goal is to pass on one's genes more efficiently than others. After life, we simply cease to exist.

    Evolution does not answer many of these questions -- nor does it claim to do so -- and indeed it really only aims to answer one question (albeit a fairly broad question): How do species and their interactions originate and change with time?

    That we are and have come from the universe's chemicals is undisputed. That these have self-organized is likely true, but this does not concern Evolution -- rather, abiogenesis. Single-celled life did not "transform" into higher forms, it evolved. Remind me to bust out an analogy which should explain Evolution to even the simplest of minds...

    As "higher animals", we are equally evolved as any other species -- our evolutionary path merely diverges, producing self-awareness and intelligence (I'm sure there are better examples of our "higher" standing even than these). We are partial to our own species, sure, but we are no better, biologically, than other species. Certainly, we exhibit certain instinctual behavior, and there is compelling evidence that with this comes our propensity for developing religion, but this is not Evolution per se, but rather human development as a result of Evolution. No one denies that humans tend to develop religious views, nor does anyone deny that these views are generally fantastic, overtly ignorant of reality, and incorrect.

    Evolution makes no claims about the philosophical notions of the "meaning to life" -- it merely notes that species are genetically determined to survive if at all possible. This is not personally relevant to a self-aware being, but it is genetically relevant. Regarding what happens after life, Evolution makes no claims whatsoever.

    What remains, then?

    Christianity is not remarkably different than various other religions, and it has precisely the same amount of positive evidence in its favor: zero.

    Evolution makes vanishingly few of the claims you mention, but for those it does support, it does so in a repeatable, testable fashion. Until it fails, it should be accepted -- just like Newton's failed Theory of Gravitation.

    Have a care, Dan -- while you're so ardently defending Christianity and six-literal-day Creationism, try to explain -- coherently -- why it is that every science agrees regarding the ages of objects in, on, or near our tiny planet. Obviously, objects which are distant from our planet appear extremely old, so if you wish, you may attempt to explain that aspect as well...

    Evolution fits. It makes sense, though not necessarily intuitively, but that doesn't matter -- plenty of mathematics is unintuitive, but nonetheless true. (See Euler's Identity if you want to puzzle yourself -- an irrational number, raised to an exponent which is itself the product of another irrational number and the imaginary unity, is equal to a negative integer.)

    Note also that Dan appeals to hand-waving when it comes to his denial of the multitude of evidence which illustrates an extremely old (in terms of human lifespans) solar system and/or universe. He begs question after question, claiming that his bible is correct even though its authors knew nothing with respect to natural phenomena.

    Sure, some people -- even those who otherwise support Evolution -- may claim that Evolution is a religion, and sure, some people will treat it as one, but Evolution does not explicitly compel people to act in any specific way, whereas religions do.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan- in addition to the two good links Reynold provided about "junk DNA", you might want to check out this, if you're still clinging to the notion that every bit of our DNA was designed for a purpose: onions have about five times the amount of DNA that we do. What do they need it for, if it all has a purpose? Are onions more complex than humans, or perhaps more intelligent? I'd drop the "junk DNA" argument if I were you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Religion:
    - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
    - an institution to express belief in a divine power;

    Evolution:
    evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These changes are relatively minor from one generation to the next, but accumulate with each subsequent generation and can eventually cause substantial changes in the organisms. ...


    So Dan,
    are you trying to say that evolution is "supernatural", or that it is an "institution" that believes in divinity?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Heh. I was pretty tired when I wrote that, judging from the uncharacteristically high number of spelling/grammar errors...

    You should accept my apology.

    Anyway, I forgot to mention my simple Evolution analogy (thanks for reminding me)...

    Suppose there exists a certain tree which produces seeds that fall to the ground. Suppose also that certain extremely minor variations are allowed to take place within the DNA residing in each seed, such that genetic mutation and variation can occur.

    Now let's only look at the seed packet itself.

    Given such a tree, it is obvious that over time, seeds which fall and take root nearest to the parent will have lesser opportunity to grow, as the resources consumed by a tree tend to be excessive. Clearly, then, those seed packets which find themselves spread further from the parent tree have a greater chance at developing into mature trees.

    So what sorts of genetic mutations might facilitate a greater spread of the seed packets?

    1. Lighter seed packets, which may be caught by the wind more easily.

    2. Tastier seed packets, which may be consumed by animals, who presumably move reasonably far from the parent before passing the seed packets.


    Suppose that each variation occurs (in separate specimens), and that each is successful. In successive generations, that particular mutation is a virtual certainty, and therefore that mutation itself is likely to be further mutated.

    What sorts of "grandchild" mutations might be successful for the lighter seed packets?

    1. Still lighter seed packets, with brittle shoots connecting them to the tree branch, so that the slightest gust of wind will blow them high and far.

    2. Heavier seed packets, with more ability (due to shape) to glide or otherwise use the wind to stay aloft longer (despite their heft).

    3. Seed packets which are light, but nonetheless have some taste that animals may enjoy (yes, it is possible to attain the same results through different means).

    Regarding the fruity tree, what sorts of "grandchild" mutations might it expect to see?

    1. More flavorful fruit, which a larger variety of animals might find appealing.

    2. More colorful fruit, which might also appeal to a larger variety of animals.

    3. A more round fruit, which, if not eaten, may also roll to a more desirable location.


    As you can clearly see, after many such mutations, whole new species can emerge, and astonishing varieties of trees can be discovered. Just imagine what would happen if not only the trees, but also the animals and other plant life, were all evolving in a similar fashion!

    Of course, vast eons of time are necessary to realize these sorts of cumulative changes, and whether or not Dan is aware, this requirement prevented Darwin from publishing his theory, since he believed in a young earth.

    It wasn't until Alfred Russel Wallace developed his own theory of natural selection that Darwin finally published, and even then he was quite concerned with the time requirements.

    Among many others, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) suggested that Darwin's theory must be false, since the sun (which was thought to be combusting a substance such as coal) couldn't have lasted that long. When nuclear fusion (nucleosynthesis) was finally discovered, and the mechanism to produce Helium from Hydrogen was finally understood (1920-1940), that the sun's age was seen to work with the timescales Darwin's theory required.

    Indeed, if you look at the history of ideas concerning the earth's age, when you get into the mid-19th century, all sorts of ideas are being tossed about, but all of them are far older than 10,000 years. Most are on the order of 10 million years or more.

    This was before radioactivity and fusion had been discovered, much less understood.

    So, Dan, try to facilitate a small useful mutation -- either tastier fruit, or more likely to remain airborne -- and recognize that the resources required to grow your type of tree are stretched far too thin. You're fond of claiming that a good tree will bear good fruit, so do it! Produce some good fruit, rather than all the nuts we see piling up around your roots...

    Whether Christians admit it or not, their tree has evolved in a symbiotic manner, such that only a specific animal is willing to sample it, and even then, fewer and fewer of those animals remain, for they are evolving as well, and that particular type of tree is becoming more and more difficult to grow. It is an endangered species, and it is destined for extinction.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stan:

    Although Reynold contends that this quote was taken out of context, I don't know if he was referring to the quote you posted or some other quote -- certainly, the email Reynold posted seems to match up with the quote in question, but the quote itself doesn't appear in his comment.
    I was just too lazy to put the quote in, but yeah. It is that same quote that Dan had in his post that I was refuting.

    Also, I was unable to find your quote in its original context, so that I could determine for myself the verdict (and post the results for you here).
    Yeah, I have no idea which source Dan used, but I know that AIG had used that same quote earlier. That's when I first got into contact with Ruse and also got the newspaper article where Ruse made the original comment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I should say that the quote that AIG and Dan used is from that newspaper article that I had quoted myself, but I didn't include the actual quote that Dan/AIG had. I just had the part where the actual context was laid out.

    Then there's the email I posted, from Ruse himself...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks Reynold that was interesting.

    "Could you at least do a little research before you do these posts?"

    Now don't you think that was slightly unfair? Is this man known to be a habitual liar? Does this man flip flop on many articles? I will concede and I guess I could of researched his articles more to see if he lies. From what I read about him on the net, he appeared to be a stand up guy but not in light of the information you gave us.

    What perplexed me though is after he said that in some article, you then feverishly(?) wrote to him to ask if someone would dare to say such a thing? You took offense to it, huh?

    So you claimed he said "If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business." and this is exactly opposite of his position in the ICR article: "the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion."

    Something is going on here then. Either he is a wimpy guy, with no spine, trying to play and accommodate both sides or he is a liar, a manipulating salesman of sorts. Or the other option, I suppose, is that you Reynold misquoted him. Someone is making a mistake here and it poses interesting and further investigation. Someone is trying to cover up his words and right now I cannot tell if its him or you. Thanks though it makes it more interesting when someone's character can be assassinated. Wimp or a liar?

    Stan,

    "Appeals to [authority, popularity, emotion, etc.] are invalid."

    Valid point but If thousand of scientists are screaming the sky is falling then we tend to look up right? So since this unbelievable claim is questioned now, if we are being more critical as a whole then you cry fallacy? One can easily turn it around and say that it is all the children in the public schools and science community that appeals to authority. We are calling it a fallacy since there is no observable proof of your claim of evolution. Show me I came from a fish. Besides, is an appeal to conscience a fallacy?

    "Also, I was unable to find your quote in its original context, so that I could determine for myself the verdict (and post the results for you here)."

    Me neither. I want to know who is lying to me though. If ICR is misquoting wouldn't you think they would be afraid of a lawsuit by Ruse? Why isn't he suing them?

    Ruse is playing both sides I am assuming. This just makes him void of any credibility to the subject since he is merely a lukewarm fence sitter.

    I found this that might render him void:

    "Ruse takes the position that it is possible to reconcile the Christian religion with Evolutionary Theory, unlike, for example, Richard Dawkins, Phillip E. Johnson or Edward O. Wilson."

    Whatever Ruse, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. IMHO

    "Have a care, Dan -- while you're so ardently defending Christianity and six-literal-day Creationism, try to explain -- coherently -- why it is that every science agrees regarding the ages of objects in, on, or near our tiny planet. Obviously, objects which are distant from our planet appear extremely old, so if you wish, you may attempt to explain that aspect as well..."

    Now you have the nerve to turn around and appeal to authority? Because scientist say so? Could science, or has science be or been wrong ever? But I certainly can have this discussion if you wish.

    Have a care, Stan -- while you're so ardently defending Evolution and six billion literal-day Creation, try to explain -- coherently --

    "Christianity is not remarkably different than various other religions, and it has precisely the same amount of positive evidence in its favor: "

    Not true, We have been through this before I believe. I say the 300 prophecies that came true are the differences between God and man made religions and you always say...?

    " [Evolution] does so in a repeatable, testable fashion." or my favorite "Single-celled life did not "transform" into higher forms, it evolved. "

    OK prove and show me this then, do a repeatable, testable example to prove I descended from specifically an ape or "descent from a common ancestor."

    Speaking of abiogenesis, Can you then now prove the Primordial Soup Theory? If not what is the current model?

    BTW what is the "standard model" of the origin of life? Is there one?

    Can you synthesize a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life? Please do, so this entire earth can stop having this discussion.

    " It presumes to tell us our origins, although it says nothing of who we are"

    You are now talking about evolution, right?

    "Its information regarding the "meaning of life" is ambiguous at best -- it aims to answer this question, but only dances around some of the tougher implications such an answer would require, at least from a reasonably rational, skeptical mind."

    Really? OK then show me scientifically the meaning of life. Through science show me why we are here as a human race. Can science answer the whys of life?

    "and there is compelling evidence that with this comes our propensity for developing religion, but this is not Evolution per se, but rather human development as a result of Evolution."

    So why reject religion if it is indeed part of our evolution. By denying religion or recognizing a higher power, you are then denying you, the right to evolve. You are denying natural progression? You deny evolution of mankind? If evolution begets a Creator who are you to deny or stop that? Why makes you adamantly against the nature of mankind?

    "Evolution makes no claims about the philosophical notions of the 'meaning to life'"

    OK what does for you as an atheist, then? If not science or evolution then where, how, and why do you get your worldview?

    BTW, Euler's identity is a beautiful expression. It lead me to discover something about Stigler’s law of eponymy. So, where does the "Darwinian theory of evolution" or "Darwinism" come into play in relationship to Stigler’s law of eponymy (Rule of the Lesser Attribution.)?

    "but Evolution does not explicitly compel people to act in any specific way"

    Are you absolutely sure about this claim? Do you need examples? Do you want to rephrase it?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan,

    You remain a never ending source of amusement!

    Here you are arguing all of these higher philosophical arguments and you have not yet even aswered the foundational questions that you were asked. That's ok though, I don't care anymore, especially when I read your last comment and find it riddled with disengenuous remarks like this:

    Statement made by commentor:

    "but Evolution does not explicitly compel people to act in any specific way"

    And you respond:

    "Are you absolutely sure about this claim? Do you need examples? Do you want to rephrase it?"

    You cannot be serious. Whoever culturally conditioned you to the type of fractured logic you employ did a very good job.

    You think you are smart because you can slip away from direct questions and statements with your smarmy and vague responses.

    Respectfully Submitted,
    The Skeptical Frog

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan,

    Just for the record, everytime I read your blog I have this feeling that I am communicating with a contemorary student of Rousas Rushdooney.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Froggie,

    That's Rushdoony, you student. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. A typical flippant response.

    You are busted.

    keep on proving my point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Froggie,

    I thought you enjoyed it

    "You remain a never ending source of amusement!"

    Then you call me flippant?

    Your transparent inconsistencies are disturbing at this point.

    "keep on proving my point."

    nany nany boo boo

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan +†+ said...

    Thanks Reynold that was interesting.

    "Could you at least do a little research before you do these posts?"

    Now don't you think that was slightly unfair?
    Given the creationists propensity to misquote people, and given the fact that you posted the exact same misquote that AIG had used, no. I don't think I'm being unfair at all.

    Is this man known to be a habitual liar?
    No, but you creationists who misquote people like him are.

    Does this man flip flop on many articles? I will concede and I guess I could of researched his articles more to see if he lies.

    No, it's not that he lies, Dan. It's the people who quote him out of context who do. Like AIG does, and YOU just did.

    Pathetic, that you dishonestly misquote him, then accuse him of lying? The "holy spirit" does indeed work in strange ways, doesn't it?

    Did you not read the email that I had posted here, from him, where he says that he was taken out of context??

    As I said, do some research before posting these things, so you get the right context.

    Are you deliberately being obtuse here?


    From what I read about him on the net, he appeared to be a stand up guy but not in light of the information you gave us.
    Good grief, Dan. How dishonest are you? As I said, did you not read the email that I had posted from him where he talks about how he was misquoted? Ruse was the one who also gave me the full article that the quote was taken from.

    Still want to play games Dan?

    What perplexed me though is after he said that in some article, you then feverishly(?) wrote to him to ask if someone would dare to say such a thing?
    "Feverisly"? You are kidding, right? It was a few weeks after I read that quote and I couldn't get an inter-library loan to get the original article.

    Stop guessing as to your opponents emotions and motives, Dan. You suck at it.

    You took offense to it, huh?
    To what seemed to be a lie perpetuated by AIG, yeah. Should I repeat my sentence above?


    So you claimed he said "If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business." and this is exactly opposite of his position in the ICR article: "the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion."
    It was a misquote, Dan.

    Something is going on here then. Either he is a wimpy guy, with no spine, trying to play and accommodate both sides or he is a liar, a manipulating salesman of sorts.
    No, it's the people like you who selectively misquote his words to make him mean something that he did not actually mean who are doing the lying. I've explained the actual context, and posted from the article that he was misquoted from.

    Do I have to try to explain it to you again, Dan?

    Maybe I do...I have to get past the "holy spirit" or something. Ruse was saying that evolution is science, but that some people take it too far, and treat it as a religion, as the creationists accuse them of.

    Of course, the creationists like you go on to say that evolution itself is a religion, which is not what Ruse said. Remember what Ruse said earlier. Let me quote him for you:

    There is no need to make a religion of this. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed.


    Dan:
    Or the other option, I suppose, is that you Reynold misquoted him.
    Outright lie, Dan. I provided the context for the quote, and the email from Ruse himself where he says that the creationists had misquoted him.

    Someone is making a mistake here and it poses interesting and further investigation. Someone is trying to cover up his words and right now I cannot tell if its him or you.
    You BS artist...the only people who are "spinning" things are you and AIG who keep misquoting him. You've ignored the context again, and are hypocritically accusing me of misquoting him?

    Do you people have no honour at all?

    Thanks though it makes it more interesting when someone's character can be assassinated. Wimp or a liar?
    I'd say that you're just a plain liar, just like AIG. The context is there, the original article is referenced, and it's posted.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Reynold asked Do you people have no honour at all?

    It's simple, really: if the information confirms their belief system in any way, it's adopted as truth. When found to be faulty (often after needing to be shown it repeatedly), they simply stop paying it any attention.

    There's no need or motivation for the dogmatic to be introspective, or to even consider if they've been mistaken about their claims.

    You might it even say doing so could be potentially harmful to their sense of well being. It requires a lot of effort to maintain belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan:

         I have a question for you. Do you actually read the writings of non-christians? And I mean as-is. I recognize that you read quotes filtered through christian sites. But have you done any direct research? I understand that a lot of christians are afraid that they will lose their faith if they read anything that has not been pre-approved. But, if you are going to say that someone said something, it would be a good idea to check the original source. And, no, AIG and places like it are not the original source.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pvblivs,

    "Do you actually read the writings of non-christians? "

    I try too in my limited pressed time. Let me say it like this at this point in my life I recognize that I read quotes filtered through Christian sites. But I have done direct research to confirm it when questioned. this article is a great example of this with Reynolds objections warrants further investigation. Admittedly, I might not have objected "right away" to this example. But that is what we are all here for right?

    "I understand that a lot of christians are afraid that they will lose their faith if they read anything that has not been pre-approved."

    You might want to cover that up, your presuppositions are showing.

    This is not true at all. At the moment I am reading the tirelessly long book "Why I became an Atheist" 400+ pages of the smallest font and print known to man. (Oops, my presuppositions are showing). In the past I have read similar books and I have read most of the Apocrypha and Gnostic writings. BTW, I absolutely agree with the Council, they didn't flow like the Bible does and there were obvious contradictions to the Gospels. I love science and astrophysics and enjoy many conversations with non-Christians which are very apparent at this blog so your observation is unfounded, at least in my case.

    " And, no, AIG and places like it are not the original source."

    Sure, now you understand how I feel about TO. At least now we are finally communicating.

    Take care, buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Reynold,

    Your rant left out the point I was trying to make and You didn't answer my question then. IF it was sooooo obvious then:

    "I want to know who is lying to me though. If ICR is misquoting wouldn't you think they would be afraid of a lawsuit by Ruse? Why isn't he suing them?"

    So why isn't he suing them (AIG,ICR)?

    Would you sue? Someone is misrepresenting here and I want to know who it actually is. Not just because you say so. I am using common sense and logic here. Valid?

    My position is that the quotes are quotes until proven otherwise and obviously this quote needs further investigation thanks to your input. Call me a liar all day I am a big boy and can handle any fallacy you throw at me but I do seek truth. Which of these two quotes is truth? If ICR misquoted then shame on them, if you are misquoting Ruse then shame on you. Lets find out who is misrepresenting here so we are all informed.

    Is it possible that Ruse is playing both sides? After all he is trying to reconcile the Christian religion with Evolutionary Theory.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    Your rant left out the point I was trying to make and You didn't answer my question then. IF it was sooooo obvious then:

    "I want to know who is lying to me though. If ICR is misquoting wouldn't you think they would be afraid of a lawsuit by Ruse? Why isn't he suing them?"

    The same reason that for all the times that AIG and ICR and whatnot has been misquoting people (check out the talkorigins Quote Mine Project..oh, that's right. You don't allow links to them!) they've never been sued.

    The Dover Trial has shown that even when ID/Creationists get totally shot down and transcripts are made public, it doesn't stop them from spinning and lying about it anyway.

    From what little I know of civil law, just a simple misquote isn't big enough for the courts to go after, since although the person's words are twisted against them, the people misquoted aren't really harmed by it. That, and the time it would take for each court case for every misquote would be prohibitive.


    What does suing have to do with it anyway? All one needs is a careful examination, which you seem to be dodging.

    So why isn't he suing them (AIG,ICR)?
    See the answer above.

    Would you sue?
    If it hurt me professionally, yes. If it's just some idiots on the web or in some fringe bs "journal" then likely not. Depends on the damage they do.

    Someone is misrepresenting here and I want to know who it actually is. Not just because you say so. I am using common sense and logic here. Valid?
    You're full of it, Dan. I've provided the context, the article itself, the source, and Ruse's email where he says that he was taken out of context, and you pretend to want to investigate? Bull.

    I'm the only one who's done any investigating here. You couldn't even be bothered to list the source for the quote in the first place. And now you pretend to want to check it out?

    If you were an honest, compotent scholar, you'd have done all the necessary investigation before you posted the quote in the first place!


    As for the misquote, it is not just my say-so. That's why I posted from that original article itself, which is more than you did, you never even said what your source was... I posted Ruse's email testifying that it was a misquote.

    My word has nothing to do with this. The evidence does.



    My position is that the quotes are quotes until proven otherwise and obviously this quote needs further investigation thanks to your input.
    I've given you all the evidence that's needed. If you still don't believe it, then why don't you tell us what would convince you that this was a misquote? You can't even be bothered to mention the source for the quote itself!

    You've got a lot of work to do to pass yourself off as one who cares about "investigating" facts.

    Call me a liar all day I am a big boy and can handle any fallacy you throw at me but I do seek truth.
    Bull. You've been shown up many times on this very blog that you are sloppy as hell at best when it comes to facts.

    Which of these two quotes is truth? If ICR misquoted then shame on them, if you are misquoting Ruse then shame on you.
    Once again, look at the email he sent me. He said that he was misquoted by the creationists!


    Lets find out who is misrepresenting here so we are all informed.
    It'd be easier if you took the fingers out of your ears.

    I've already shown you who is misrepresenting whom. You keep ignoring what I say though. Again, check the email that I got from Ruse. Read the article itself. What more could one need? You've got confirmation from the person himself, and the original article being talked about.

    You're just dodging having to admit that your source, whoever the hell it was, was caught with their pants down.

    Is it possible that Ruse is playing both sides? After all he is trying to reconcile the Christian religion with Evolutionary Theory.
    No, in this article he's just saying that some people are taking evolutionary theory to philosophical extremes. That was the point of his article.

    You went on to accuse him of "playing both sides" here. He actually believes that xianity can be reconciled with evolution, but so what? Some people do believe that, but what does that have to do with the creationist assertion that evolution is a religon?

    ReplyDelete
  24.      "You might want to cover that up, your presuppositions are showing."
         No, my experiences are showing. I have come across many christians who will not read anything that has not been filtered.
         "Sure, now you understand how I feel about TO."
         I was unaware that anyone used them for "this is what christians say." If they do that, then my criticism applies to them as well. They need to find the original sources for what christians say. I do not want to tell you not to use an argument you find on AIG (if you think it is a good one.) I only state that to find out what non-christians say, you need to use the non-christian sources.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan quoting Pvblvs:

    " And, no, AIG and places like it are not the original source."

    Sure, now you understand how I feel about TO. At least now we are finally communicating.
    Actually Dan, TalkOrigins has extensive bibliographies, more detailed than AIG or ICR does. Through them, one can get to the original sources.

    Unlike, say...you. You never said what your source was for the Rush quote. Not the orignal source, which I listed, or even any creationist source.

    So, what's your complaint against TO again? And if the same thing applies to ICR or AIG, as you imply, then why do you not ban their usage as well?

    Besides, when you look at any actual scientific paper, guess what? They also have references. Even the ones that document experiments the researchers did. Would you dismiss them becuase they are not "the original source"?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan said,
    "Call me a liar all day I am a big boy and can handle any fallacy you throw at me but I do seek truth."

    You only seek truth that supports your presupposition that the bible is the lieral word of God.
    Beyond that you do the same as AIG, et al and use some spurious vers to try to prove the scientific data to be wrong.

    You are more disengenuous that Ray Comfort.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Froggie wrote You only seek truth that supports your presupposition that the bible is the literal word of God.

    Although I've seen Dan be honest both with himself and his readers in the past (even if doing so was inconvenient for him), I feel that the above quoted sentence is generally true.

    Seeking truth also involves seeking those things which challenge your opinions/beliefs; Dan does not do this.

    And thus, Truth is not what he's after

    ReplyDelete
  28. Whateverman,

    Did you just contradict yourself?

    So you think I seek lies?

    I think your presupposition is that God is a lie so in fact according to that position then, yes I seek the Lie.

    God is truth and anything contrary to God I don't necessarily "seek." I am trying to be fair about it, though. I am willing to listen to a radical skeptical viewpoint but just with rational skepticism. If that is not seeking the truth then, guilty as charged.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Reynold,

    "You never said what your source was for the Rush quote."

    The source of the quote was:

    Ruse, Michael. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post, May 13, 2000,B-3

    I have updated the article to reflect it. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Whateverman,

    Did you just contradict yourself?


    I don't think you're asking a serious question, so I wont respond. If I'm wrong, please suggest how you think I've contradicted myself


    So you think I seek lies?

    Work on the reading comprehension, please. I said (I think) you don't care whether you're seeking the truth or not.

    There's a difference.


    I think your presupposition is that God is a lie

    Once again, for the reading or memory impaired: I am a deist. FFS how many times do I need to repeat that until it sticks?



    I am trying to be fair about it, though. I am willing to listen to a radical skeptical viewpoint but just with rational skepticism. If that is not seeking the truth then, guilty as charged.

    That's just it - you're not trying to be fair. If you were, you wouldn't constantly misrepresent the opinions of those who criticze what you write. You wouldn't misrepresent the science you're attempting to debunk. You wouldn't claim to understand things that you've merely read someone else's understanding of.

    If claiming that the Bible was written by fallible human beings, rather than inerrant divinely posessed Men Of Christ is "radical skepticism", then I too am guilty.

    It seems to restate the same fallacies over and over. You don't consider the opinions offer here and reject them with logical arguments; you don't even attempt to learn.

    This is because, deep down, you're not interested in anything which contradicts your belief system. Even worse than this, you claim otherwise. I can't tell whether this is you lying to your audience, or you having convinced yourself of it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Whateverman,

    "I said (I think) you don't care whether you're seeking the truth or not. There's a difference."

    So what is actually on the other/opposite side of truth then? False or lie? So you are inferring I am seeking something that is false?

    "how many times do I need to repeat that until it sticks?"

    Hopefully that one will be it, my apology. Bad, Bad Dan!

    "This is because, deep down, you're not interested in anything which contradicts your belief system."

    That may be a truthful statement but seems to be entirely too harsh. Not interested in?

    A more accurate statement would be "deep down, I am not convinced by something which contradicts my belief system."

    I do seek knowledge of how people think and I attempt to convince them of there plight.

    If, for example, I agreed with every position you hold then I to would be a deist. True? So don't take my stubbornness or salesmanship as not wanting truth. If you claim that deep down my goal is to get everyone "saved" in the long run, then guilty as charged.

    Speaking of being a deist, I have a question for you. Deep down, are you interested in anything which contradicts your belief system? How are you seeking to find out about God or how do you seek God?

    This is hard to get my point across, how do you find out more about the God/gods you believe? As a deist you believe that there might be a God and I get that part, but how do you seek such a god? For Christians, we seek to know God by his Word, the Bible, but as a deist how do you go about finding out about God or more accurately your god?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Zilch,

    "if you're still clinging to the notion that every bit of our DNA was designed for a purpose: onions have about five times the amount of DNA that we do."

    Yea, I remember schooling everyone on that subject.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "deep down, I am not convinced by something which contradicts my belief system."

    So you've decided to stop learning? Is that why you are always convinced you are right, no matter how bizarrely wrong your statements are?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Chris,

    Let me explain it this way:

    I am not convinced
    I am not convinced
    I am not convinced

    That is not to say that "decided to stop learning"

    Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Whateverman wrote: "I said (I think) you don't care whether you're seeking the truth or not. There's a difference."

    Dan wrote: So what is actually on the other/opposite side of truth then? False or lie? So you are inferring I am seeking something that is false?

    Dan, you have no idea of how irreducibly dense you're appearing to me right now. Let's just say I had written something which broke every posting guideline you've set (I still have is stored here, if you're interested :)

    I will try to piece it together more respectfully:

    I accused you of searching for whatever supports your opinion (re. your faith in the Bible being the infallible word of God). Let's stop and use a bit of logic for a moment:

    Assuming my accusation is true (something which I'm sure you either disagree with or possibly dismiss outright), it would be possible for you to find Truth in such a search; it would also be possible for you to find falsehood.

    The problem is this: you would accept them both, regardless of their truth or falsehood. They would be accepted solely on the basis of whether they suported your faith or not.

    The converse would be true as well. You would reject either falsehood or truth irrespective of which category they fell in; if they did not support your faith, they would be rejected.

    FFS man, please, READ what I'm writing before responding to it. I know you have a lot to respond to, but honestly it's much less offensive AND MUCH MORE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST if you simply don't respond to the stuff you don't have time for.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You have a belief system and you can't be convinced of anything that contradicts it. The very definition of inability to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Chris,

    Can't be convinced? So you relate the fact that I have yet to be convinced to the same as "can't be"?

    I am fully able to, it's just no one had done so. Get it?

    To follow your logic then you can't be convinced about God.

    ReplyDelete
  38. To follow your logic then you can't be convinced about God.

    No, if a god, God (YHWH), or the gods were proven to be real then I'd be convinced.

    ReplyDelete
  39. because I can change my belief system to fit new evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Chris,

    Then we have something in common.

    Einstein died thinking the universe was steady and static (Steady State Model) so if even he can be fallible then we need to leave room for all of us to be wrong. The problem with the subject of God though is that, you are literally gabling with your soul that He doesn't exist. Faith is not proof but there is a plethora of evidence that God exists and is real.

    ReplyDelete
  41. because I can change my belief system to fit new evidence.

    This is signature-worthy...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan wrote The problem with the subject of God though is that, you are literally gabling with your soul that He doesn't exist.

    As are you, in that he sould be the God of the Quran, or the Book of Mormon, or Thor, or of the Holy Trinity, or Shiva, or Buddha, or {insert favorite God here}

    Sound familiar?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Whateverman,

    "This is signature-worthy..."

    You have to understand there is a huge difference here, between evidence and experience.

    A mother tells a child not to touch that hot Iron and the kid listens and believes his Mom. As soon as the Mom leaves the room the child touches the Hot Iron and gets burned. He just went from a belief the Iron 'was' hot to an experience that the Iron 'is' hot with 100% assurance. No one can come and tell him otherwise because his experience tells him different. He is 100% certain the Iron is hot and he has the burn to prove it.

    Well I have felt the Hot Iron of God's hand on me and cannot be persuaded otherwise because I have an experience that removed ALL doubt, I am 100% certain there is a God.

    On the flip an atheist cannot say they have 100% certainty based on a non experience, it is based on a belief still. They have a belief based on lack of said experience, but they remain uncertain (lack of assurance).

    ReplyDelete
  44. Whateverman,

    "Sound familiar?"

    Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  45. About being convinced otherwise: "I am fully able to..."
    VS
    "Well I have felt the Hot Iron of God's hand on me and cannot be persuaded otherwise because I have an experience that removed ALL doubt, I am 100% certain there is a God."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Chris,

    Fine, valid point

    So I misspoke when I said "Then we have something in common."

    I have felt the Hot Iron! Our senses' prima facie veridicality- that is, their very apparent truthfulness, remains. Senses are innocent until proven guilty, as long as we have no overriding reason to doubt them.

    I will hold that I am an open minded person with the exception of one thing that I have experienced. Which is evidence in itself according to Alvin Plantinga.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have felt the Hot Iron! Our senses' prima facie veridicality- that is, their very apparent truthfulness, remains. Senses are innocent until proven guilty, as long as we have no overriding reason to doubt them.

    I can't sense any gods. But that not the best reason to not believe in gods. Our senses lie. We are mistaken. Our perception can distort.

    I will hold that I am an open minded person with the exception of one thing that I have experienced. Which is evidence in itself according to Alvin Plantinga.

    Plantinga and I disagree on many things....

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan, you say:

    Yea, I remember schooling everyone on that subject.

    I guess for you, "schooling" means "saying stuff I know to be true, despite what scientists say". What you say there about onions is this:

    If Evolution is true then we are related to onions, , it's just not logical.

    Now that's a real argument: "it's just not logical". Sorry, Dan, that is not enough to convince me. Can you explain to me why onions have five times the DNA of humans? That doesn't make sense if, as you claim, there is no such thing as non-coding DNA.

    And in general: your habit of merely posting a link to another comment of yours, which either does not pertain, or itself gets debunked, is not really a satisfactory way of answering questions.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Zilch,

    "Can you explain to me why onions have five times the DNA of humans?"

    Probably the same reason you are only using 10% of your brain. Are we to call it "junk brain matter?"

    Mankind has no clue. Science hasn't given us much. We have such a long way to go and very few years. We need to search in the light instead of the dark, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "using 10% of your brain."

    "Science hasn't given us much" says the guy at his computer...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Touché John,

    So that is promising first they tell us 10%, now they know better.

    First they say "junk DNA," now they know better.

    First they say salt is bad for you, now they know better.

    First they say they cannot find a cure, hopefully they will know better.

    First they say evolution did it, hopefully they will know better.

    First they say there is no God, hopefully they will know better.

    Progression and discovery can only be a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dan:
    First they say "junk DNA," now they know better.

    I believe I posted some links about junk DNA. You should go back and read them.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Reynold,

    Yes, I was well aware of your blasphemous article and the fact that you perpetuated a lie twice now makes you suspect.

    It was Ohno who coined the term "Junk DNA" and it has only been recently that they revisited it to find that there actually is more information then originally thought.

    Just go to junkdna.org for more about it.

    Slam debunked, now be respectful and stop linking to blasphemous material please. I ignored it the first time but repetition of breaking the third Commandment needs a rebuke.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Evolution does work on the principal of natural selection. But that doesn't mean human morality and goals must only work on the principals of natural selection. There is no fundamental reason why we can't make our own goals in life. I am an atheist and a firm believer in evolution, but that doesn't mean my morality is based on natural selection, and that doesn't mean the meaning to my life is to pass on my genes.

    We (humanity) are far more advanced than that, and the fact that we can sit down and have conversations about truth and morality and philosophy, that we can love someone else, that we can be creative for creativity's sake, means we have made goals of our own.

    Please... stop repeating the baseless claim that atheists and evolutionists lack a meaning to our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Uh, Dan, you didn't really answer my question. Did you read the link about the onion? Here's another good one, with no blasphemy, unless truth is blasphemous.

    So Dan: what's your explanation? Why did God give the lowly onion five times the DNA He gave us? Why did He litter our genome with the wrecks of viruses? Why are there sequences of bases that reproduce within the genome, but code for nothing? If God did all this, then He is not only a lousy programmer, but He built a lot of malware, viruses, and useless redundancy into the operating system- even worse than Microsoft.

    As you might expect, evolutionary theory has explanations for all this stuff. Not complete or certain yet, but the basic principles are understood. If you're interested, I'll dig up some links for you.

    Speaking of Microsoft- this is a bit off-topic, but it's very funny.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Zilch,

    I read the article and I liked this part "One of the clear results of the Human Genome Project is that our genomes are incredibly junky:" Junk DNA again?

    "but only about 5 percent of that information plays a significant role in constructing the human form." Really, and this information is based on?Ignorance?

    "This probably was not the result of an abrupt process. It may simply be that the repetitive elements are deleted at a slightly higher rate than that at which they can add themselves to the genome, leading to a gradual paring away of the junk."

    Notice the explanations "probably" or "may" is the predominate consensus here.

    "There's a lot of thought these days going into trying to figure out some adaptive reason for such a sorry state of affairs. None of it is particularly convincing."

    Ah, a glimmer of truth comes out!

    "It is a classic example of a selfish gene: It has no purpose but to do only that, without benefit to us...for unwanted junk that tends to reproduce itself and grow." Really, and this information is based on?

    Evolutionist assumptions are vast. The size of the genome, in base pairs, is interesting. We have more (2.9bil) then a type one virus (19 thousand) or a bat (1.9bil) but not more then a frog (6.9bil)? I remember talking about the 'Amoeba dubia' in the past having the largest genome.(670bil)

    At the same time we have a larger number of genes (30,000) then a fruit fly (13,601) or a worm (19,000) which would be expected but barely more then a flower, the Arabidopsis (25,000), E-coli, which comes from fecal matter right, has (4,800). Which is close to Baker's yeast (6,275).

    "As you might expect, evolutionary theory has explanations for all this stuff"

    Completely false! If that is true, then tell me the relationship between genome size and evolutionary status?

    Something basic would suffice, or get complicated, whatever you want.

    "Not complete or certain yet" Soooo, then you don't have explanations for all this stuff.

    "The fish you consume are as wonderful and complex as you are, and may even have surpassed you, when it comes to their genome, in their degree of elegance."

    Yes DNA is elegant, wonderful, and complex indeed. Almost the appearce of, lets say, a desigher. IT just shows that the evolution theory is clueless and stabbing in the dark when it comes to DNA.

    The Matrix was real quality fun(ny).

    "armatures?" "I don't know how those got there!"

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    Yes, I was well aware of your blasphemous article and the fact that you perpetuated a lie twice now makes you suspect.

    You'd better damn well back up your accusation, jack.

    It was Ohno who coined the term "Junk DNA" and it has only been recently that they revisited it to find that there actually is more information then originally thought.

    Just go to junkdna.org for more about it.

    Slam debunked, now be respectful and stop linking to blasphemous material please.

    Bullshit. It seems to me that you've ignored every point made in those "blasphemous" articles. You didn't even really deal with zilch's question either.

    I will do more digging into this, though I likely won't be able to post anymore, meh.

    About those blasphemous articles, if you're so sensitive, tough. If you can't handle other people's opinions, tough.


    We put up with a lot from you people, especially false accusations of lying, which you have yet to back up.

    Or stupid name-calling, like "Jesus haters" when we don't even believe in his existence?

    It seems to me like you're just looking for excuses to not have to look at sites that dare disagree with you, just like you did with talkorigins.


    (in regards my linking to "blasphemous articles")
    I ignored it the first time but repetition of breaking the third Commandment needs a rebuke.
    If you really want to talk about rebuking: I caught YOU misquoting Micheal Ruse, and when I confronted you with your lie, you go on to accuse either ME or HIM of being the liar.

    You get caught in a lie, try to foist the blame off on someone else, despite all the evidence, and you complain about "blasphemous" articles? Rebuke yourself, hypocrite.


    Here, if you really read his article like you claim you did, and not just some crap from AIG or ICR, why don't you show us what the second paragraph was in his article (not just the part I quoted). Just so we can know that you've actually read the article itself.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Reynold,

    I am perfectly fine with counter articles. Just not ones that are so disrespecting to God. When you link to an article that uses God's name as a filthy swear word, you are breaking the third Commandment and I just don't want you to anger God. I am a big boy and I can take it but God said not to, so don't, for your sake. Saying "Oh my %$#" is blasphemy.

    "Rebuke yourself, hypocrite."

    I do and have....um ...have you? Or are you now a hypocrite also?

    I appologize for my smugness though.

    Calling people "Jesus haters" is an apparent frustration comment from me. Its difficult to allow and watch children play in a burning building. I want to tackle you, grab you by the collar, and get into your face to try to wake you up of your impending doom. I am doing it out of love and frustration, not to personally attack you.

    "If sinners be dammed, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for."C.H. Spurgeon

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    I am perfectly fine with counter articles. Just not ones that are so disrespecting to God.

    As I said before, tough. Don't expect non-believers to abide by the rules of your religion when it's so inconsequential as swearing.

    When you link to an article that uses God's name as a filthy swear word, you are breaking the third Commandment and I just don't want you to anger God.
    So what? According to your mythology, whether I take his name in vain or just link to a site that does it, if I even think it, he's just as angry with me. It makes no difference. Your "loving" god is remarkably easy to torque off. Just ask anyone from the OT. Or NT for that matter.

    I am a big boy and I can take it but God said not to, so don't, for your sake. Saying "Oh my %$#" is blasphemy.
    Sure...

    "Rebuke yourself, hypocrite."
    I do and have....um ...have you? Or are you now a hypocrite also?
    No, you haven't. Unless I've missed something? You are the one who has lied about Micheal Ruse, not me and not him. False witness is also breaking one of the commandments, just as is "blasphemy".

    That lying that's constantly done by your side is one of the main reasons that your "witness" is so ineffective.

    If you people are caught lying about stuff that we can see and test, then how can we just take your word when it comes to stuff we can't see or test?

    I appologize for my smugness though.
    No offense, but that's not the first time you've had to "apologize", is it? For one example, stunt you pulled at Amazon with John Loftus' book. You wound up having to apologize for that, too.

    Calling people "Jesus haters" is an apparent frustration comment from me. Its difficult to allow and watch children play in a burning building. I want to tackle you, grab you by the collar, and get into your face to try to wake you up of your impending doom. I am doing it out of love and frustration, not to personally attack you.
    Let your god send an angel then. That would be convincing. To us, you're just another evangelist from one of many (ie. all) false religion.

    Word of a human mean nothing if the supernatural beings the human represents do not offer up evidence of their own existence.

    "If sinners be dammed, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for."C.H. Spurgeon
    All you people would have to do is show us evidence of this "hell". All your "god" would have to do is the same. That Spurgeon character, and you xians today can't seem to realize that. If your god existed and cared about us as much as you claim he did, it'd be child's play for him to show real evidence of himself, like he allegedly did in the OT. Instead, we have to rely strictly on human "witnesses" who invariably are found wanting.

    Praying (ie. talking to yourselves) is irrelevent. Let this deity of yours show us Angels, messages in the sky, or something.

    It's just evidence that your faith, like all the others, are man-made.


    In regards to what you said to zilch:
    Science hasn't given us much.
    You have got to be kidding. While not perfect, science has done a hell of a lot more for humanity than has any religion. It's not by "faith healing" or prayer that one is able to be vaccinated for instance.



    One last thing:
    I asked if you'd be willing to put down what the second paragraph from Ruse's article was, if you had actually read the original article instead of just parroting a misquote from AIG or ICR. You've yet to do that. You didn't mention the article name until after I did.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Reynold,

    "For one example, stunt you pulled at Amazon with John Loftus' book. You wound up having to apologize for that, too."

    I did? Where did I apologize for that?

    ReplyDelete
  61. John thought that the apology was right here. His post is right afterwards. If you're saying that you're not apologizing, then it seems that he and I gave you too much credit.

    You're not helping the case of your character any.

    So, in regards to one other matter: Care to quote the second paragraph from that Micheal Ruse article that you said you read? I'm still not certain that you just didnt' read some creationist misquote of it, and just took it without attribution.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Look what I said after John, HERE

    Mjarsulic: "but I feel that threatening people with eternal torture is immature."

    ME: And here I view it as caring and loving someone. How would you feel if someone just let a person drown in a pool? Would you feel that also to be an example of being immature?

    Mjarsulic:"I'm hoping you give John's book a fair review."

    Me: I wouldn't have it any other way.

    What I apologized for is the way I explained it, after the fact. I said it was "only" my avatar as in harmless and no big deal, but they took it as that is all I put up (with no caption) And for that I apologized.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dan said :"...there is a plethora of evidence that God exists and is real."

    Produce some then.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Chris,

    There is plenty but how can anyone show you with the presuppositions that there is no God?

    Besides didn't you mean to say:

    Produce 'even more, that I am willing to accept' then.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dan wrote There is plenty but how can anyone show you with the presuppositions that there is no God?

    I don't have any such presupposition. Care to show me (without appealing to faith) some of this abundant evidence?

    Or, perhaps, you're doing the same thing every fundamentalist does: when asked for evidence which would validate their faith, they hold up their faith.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Produce 'even more ?

    Where?

    There is plenty but how can anyone show you with the presuppositions that there is no God?

    There can be evidence that could change my mind. But none that can change your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sure Dan, but you're the one who's claimed there's a plethora of evidence for God's existence.

    Are you trying to back away from that statement now?

    Either you've got evidence (which by definition precludes faith) or you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Whateverman,

    You do understand the world, the Bible (even in a courtroom), and Faith itself is indeed evidence.

    So no there is no need to back away from the evidence. It fact, it is the "evidence" that you should run to for Salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The world, the bible (referenced in court or not) and indeed your faith are examples of holding up your beliefs as evidence for the validity of your beliefs.

    Dan, I know you're misguided. My evidence? That I know you're misguided.

    ---

    You can claim there's a difference between your belief and mine, but you'd be wrong.

    ---

    You should really, really, really try to imagine what human society would be like if everyone was able to hold up their beliefs as fact, and to have them accepted as such.

    Really.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Whateverman,

    "You should really, really, really try to imagine what human society would be like if everyone was able to hold up their beliefs as fact, and to have them accepted as such."

    It's called America

    ReplyDelete
  71. That didn't make any sense, Dan.

    Seriously, what would school be like (for example) if teachers were allowed to teach what they believed.

    How about political elections.

    Court trials.

    Medicine.

    Astrophysics.

    ---

    Seriously, just imagine what life would be like. Give me an example of how you think we'd be different...

    ReplyDelete
  72. Seriously, what would school be like (for example) if teachers were allowed to teach what they believed.

    They do. Some get fired.

    How about political elections.

    They do.

    Court trials.

    They do. A jury will.

    Medicine.

    They do. Some good Doctors will not perform abortions and pharmacists will not issue morning after.

    Astrophysics.

    They do. Looking for God is on many minds in astrophysics. This is true for at least mine.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but we all make decisions based on our presuppositions and worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You've phoned in your last 2 responses, in this thread and in the Belief System thread. If you're not interested in discussing these things, please just let me know and I wont bother trying...

    ReplyDelete
  74. and Faith itself is indeed evidence.

    You think it's true because you believe it's true. And you're incapable of changing your mind.

    hold up their beliefs as fact, and to have them accepted as such."

    It's called America


    People in America have their beliefs accepted as facts! Really?

    ReplyDelete
  75. They do. Some good Doctors will not perform abortions and pharmacists will not issue morning after.
    And those people get fired for not doing their jobs.


    Court trials.

    They do. A jury will.
    What's their belief based on, Dan? Evidence. Not personal opinion or unproven pet beliefs.

    The man's point went right over your head, Dan. Teachers, for intance, have to teach what the facts are, and how they're arrived at; they can't just make up their own theories and stories and teach those instead.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I notice Dan, that you've never provided the second paragraph from that article Ruse wrote which you claim to have read.

    Why not? If you've read it like you say you have, and didn't just crib it from Answers in Genesis or something you should have been able to do that long ago.

    You didn't even mention the source of the quote until after I did.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Reynold,

    The article that I did read was from John D Morris, PhD over at ICR. It was His article that quoted it.

    "You didn't even mention the source of the quote until after I did."

    So?

    ReplyDelete
  78. What a dishonest piece of work you are Dan.

    First you say: "The source of the quote was:

    Ruse, Michael. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post, May 13, 2000,B-3

    I have updated the article to reflect it. Sorry.
    "

    But now, that wasn't true was it?
    You didn't quote Michael Ruse. You admitted to quoting John Morris of ICR quoting Ruse.

    John Morris dishonestly ripped his quote completely out of context in order to misrepresent Ruse.

    You inability to research the true origin and context of the quote makes you a participant in John Morris' lie. Especially since you actually wrote that you thought "it poses interesting and further investigation." But digging deeper to find the truth obviously didn't happen.

    Dan, trying to worm your way out of responsibility for this travesty only makes you look even more weasly.


    Reynold wrote: "You didn't even mention the source of the quote until after I did."

    Dan answered: "So?"

    Your mention of the source (Ruse, from National Post) is a blatant lie. Reynold proved that without a doubt.
    Had you written "1. Ruse, Michael. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians; as quoted by John Morris, ICR" then you would have told the truth.


    Several of the posters above have raised the issue that Christian Apologists like John Morris have a talent for distorting the truth by misrepresenting honest people's work.
    Whenever I've met Christians I've met either preaching people who have no qualms lying to get the message though (even youth pastors in Pentecostal church), or sheep followers who don't question the validity of what they hear because they feel happily content with what they hear. But they wouldn't dare try to find out if what they were told was the truth. Or The Truth. (As in objectively verifiable Truth. Reality. You know, what you yourself Dan has said to strive to know)

    So which type are you? The pastor who doesn't mind bending the truth, or the sheep that just accepts what you are told by "pastors" like Morris to be truth?

    You got seriously pwned by Reynold. Be man enough to admit that.
    When are you going to start living by the standards you yourself are preaching? Because right now, you're no different from any other Christian Apologist I've encountered. The intellectual dishonesty you continue to show in face of damning evidence makes me wonder if you will ever be able to truly be able to debunk Atheists. To do that, you'll need to show internal consistency within your own arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Dr. Mabuse,

    Excuse me sir!

    If you noticed that I quoted John D Morris, PhD from the beginning. That was where the article came from and that is where the quote came from.

    Reynold, on the other hand, for quite some time insisted that I tell him where the quote of Ruse came from so to be "accommodating" and kind, I appeased him and reflected that in my parroting of the article from John D Morris.

    So I have no idea what you are trying to do here, other then to piss me off, but you are not getting anywhere calling foul when the record speaks for itself. I wasn't "caught" in any deception if you look at what was said. It was merely an accommodation of information. If Reynold or anyone else wanted to know where the quote came from all they had to do is click on the name of John D Morris, PhD to find the location of the original quote.

    BTW since I don't know or ever heard from you and your name is a fictional character, I believe you to be Reynold since you suspiciously write exactly like him and since also you boastfully claim that he pawned me, give me a break!

    If you have anything else to offer besides finger pointing I will take anticipatory measures to hear you out, if you are not a fictional character that is.

    Enjoy the holidays, Reynold.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hello Dan

    Several posters on this blog has told you about how Christian Apologists have a know record of not being honest. Answers In Genesis, and Institute for Creational Research are among them. The Discovery Institute too (they may claim to be secular but if you follow the money, you'll find that they are a front for Christian Dominionists).

    You were alerted of this by readers, but did you even pause to consider there might be something to it? Reynold researched the original text from which the quote was taken and found that Morris misrepresented Ruse.
    You've had the opportunity to find the truth of the matter, by doing the same research as Reynold did. Instead you're insulting both him by questioning his motives, and Ruse buy insinuating he's playing both sides.

    Dan wrote: "Call me a liar all day I am a big boy and can handle any fallacy you throw at me but I do seek truth. Which of these two quotes is truth? If ICR misquoted then shame on them, if you are misquoting Ruse then shame on you. Lets find out who is misrepresenting here so we are all informed."

    (Calling you a liar isn't a logical fallacy. It's an insult, unless it's true in which case it is simply stating the truth. But I digress...)

    Yes, let's find out. Oh, Reynold already did. He asked you to quote the second paragraph of Ruse's original writing. Allegedly, that second paragraph will set the first quote in its original context. What we want of you is to acknowledge and prove to us that you have found the truth and recognise it as such.

    But you haven't done that. What are you afraid of? That it will show that ICR is an unreliable source of information if you want the truth?

    Dan: "Reynold, on the other hand, for quite some time insisted that I tell him where the quote of Ruse came from so to be "accommodating" and kind, I appeased him and reflected that in my parroting of the article from John D Morris. "

    Reynold asked you to put the quote in its proper context. Something you didn't originally do by parroting your filtered source. Now, you yourself are attributing to Ruse the position to which he does not subscribe. That makes you just as dishonest as John Morris.

    Which brings me full circle and then some: You claimed to be a seeker of Truth. Why don't you show us that you truly mean what you say?

    "So I have no idea what you are trying to do here, other then to piss me off, but you are not getting anywhere calling foul when the record speaks for itself. I wasn't "caught" in any deception if you look at what was said. It was merely an accommodation of information."

    I'm trying to keep you intellectually honest. You claim you weren't "caught" in any deception. Well, you probably wasn't trying to deceive anyone in the beginning. John Morris lied, so you yourself was deceived. That is excusable if you're naive enough to believe that you'll get only truth from him.
    But once you were informed of the possible deception you had to choose side. Either stand by "your guy" no matter what, or go to the bottom of it to find out the truth for yourself.
    By deciding to stand by Morris, you've claimed ownership/partnership of the falsehood that he is spreading.

    Dan: "BTW since I don't know or ever heard from you and your name is a fictional character, I believe you to be Reynold since you suspiciously write exactly like him and since also you boastfully claim that he pawned me, give me a break!"

    Reynold has been posting in your blog for quite some time now. Do you hold him in such low regard that you'd think he'd stoop so low as to use a sock-puppet to tell you inconvenient truths? He would have no reason for doing so.
    Being such a suspicious mind won't make you many (if any) friends.

    While I've taken my user-name from the fictional character Dr. Mabuse, I am a real person not Reynold. I have the privilege to serve as Admin for Skepticality Podcast Forum and moderating at Skeptic Friends Network.
    Also, pwned is leet-lingo for "owned" not "pawned".

    Finally:
    "Lying for Christ" as a Modus Operandi that Atheists have come to recognise from many Christian Apologists. For understandable reasons, such MO makes Atheists weary of debating or even have discussions with apologists. I mean, what's the point of having discussions when the opposite isn't honest?
    Dan, your effort at debunking Atheists will only appeal to people of the same mind as yours if you don't want to play by the same rules assigned to the Atheists you're trying to debunk.
    Atheists nor Agnostics like me will not be swayed by you. Neither will moderate theists either.
    And you won't win Atheist's game by cheating.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Dr. Mabuse,

    "By deciding to stand by Morris, you've claimed ownership/partnership of the falsehood that he is spreading."

    I have not decided to stand by Morris although I enjoyed the article. What I have done is give you all the sources to his article. That is not the same as bedding with the man.

    "I have the privilege to serve as Admin for Skepticality Podcast Forum and moderating at Skeptic Friends Network."

    Funny, that is the exact place that Reynold links to as his website yet I don't see his name anywhere on the page, even at minimum as a contributing writer. Yet he(you) consider it your blog. But there you are as Forum Moderator. It also doesn't take CSI episodes to figure out you have the same writing styles. Hmmm I will remain suspicious for the time being and I will remain a "skeptic" until proven otherwise.

    "Being such a suspicious mind won't make you many (if any) friends."

    If you thought that was a goal you were mistaken. (2 Corinthians 6:14)

    ReplyDelete
  82. Jeez, you really are paranoid, Dan. What would I have to do to convince you that Reynold and I are not the same person?

    Can't you see our posting IP-addresses? We're posting from two different continents.

    You managed to get as far as the Staff Page at Skeptic Friends Network, but you didn't even bother to check out my profile in the members section. There, you can clearly read that my name is Mikael and not Reynold.

    "Funny, that is the exact place that Reynold links to as his website yet I don't see his name anywhere on the page, even at minimum as a contributing writer."

    Several of the members of SFN consider the website their "home", especially if they don't have their own personal page.
    Reynold obviously uses another user-name at SFN, but disclosing it here should be his decision, not mine.

    "It also doesn't take CSI episodes to figure out you have the same writing styles."

    You flatter me by implying that I write as well as Reynold. English is a foreign language, taught to me in school. I'm from Sweden, and my native language is Swedish. I strive to be as good as possible in my practice though. My vocabulary have strong American influences, but my accent is English.


    But all of this is merely distraction.
    Michael Ruse's quote was completely out of context and misrepresents his stance on the subject. You have yet to admit this fact.

    Also, don't you have any comments as the subject matter of my posts other than your suspicion regarding my identity?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Since you've seen our staff page, Dan, you're aware that I'm an admin with the SFN, also.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yes Dave,

    I was indeed aware of that. I have read and linked to your website on this blog.

    Click on the picture of the post Radical Skepticism and poof there your website comes up.

    ReplyDelete
  85. BTW Dave to answer that poll/question:

    "Who would win in a free-for-all, anything-goes cage match?"

    Winner: Dan 'the Martian' Marvin

    ReplyDelete
  86. Awwww, I missed it.

    Of course, we at the SFN are far more pragmatic skeptics than the philosophical skepticism you discuss in that post, so your link to our site there was rather a non-sequitor, but it was nice of you to acknowledge the source of the artwork.

    And also of course, the doctor's fine-tuning argument is garbage. But that's rather off-topic for this thread.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>