December 15, 2008

Evolution(ists) gets OWNED!!!


Evolution is refuted by Evolutionists.



Also, here is a case built against Evolution:

682 comments:

  1. There will be gnashing of teeth, again.

    That first one's a classic Dan.

    Funny we creationists are the ones who have been mocked for so long, the tables are turning.
    They are on the ropes and the end is near for evilution.

    1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

    One day soon, the world will look back and wonder how we could have been so foolish.

    I noted the other day, anything like atheism seems to be missing in the eschatology of the Bible.

    Ezekiel says so many times.
    As it is written-

    Eze 39:7 So I will make My holy name known in the midst of My people Israel, and I will not let them profane My holy name anymore. Then the nations shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I only watched the first video so far.

    It's not really all that convincing. It might create cheers from the already converted, but I doubt it's going to be a strong conversion tool as you probably hope.

    For one, the majority of the video shows that one creationist, using salesman like rhetoric to get cheap shots at people. That's not really putting evolution on it's head. That's just showing creationist rhetoric.

    Second, the statements by the two actual evolutionists don't really put evolution on its head and don't really call for a chicken dance. Fossils aren't necessary. Their statements were taken out of context. If you were able to see their full talks, you would be able to see how they explain that fossils were the first clue hinting at evolution, but as we studied it more, we found even better proof of evolution that was so concrete that we no longer needed the fossil. The statements in the video made by the scientists just aren't that convincing.

    I mean, the video might succeed in keeping some questioning teenagers on the Christianity boat. But it's really not an intellectual piece and probably is not going to sway any well read atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. K, I'm only responding to the first 10 minutes of the second video. I don't have the attention span to sit through the rest.

    The dude starts off by priming the audience by saying "random" a lot and emphasizing no afterlife. C'mon!

    Out of the first 10 minutes, 5 main arguments appear.

    1. How come we can't make life out of non-life? Well, we couldn't clone things a few hundred years ago. I'm confident that if scientists are a lot to play with DNA somemore we'll totally be able to create stem cell out of nothing. Which will be awesome. It's just a matter of time, not a doubt on science.

    2. Why didn't the flys turn into a new species? Radiation alone won't create a new species. They need to given real environment cause to become a new species. There needs to be an environmental stimuli to create a breeding selection. They flys may not have evolved, but in England some bats did in the lab - into two different streams of bats that couldn't interbreed.

    3. There's doubts on the Big Bang. You can belive in Evolution without believing in the big bang. This argument is irrelevant.

    4. I'm pretty sure the law of thermodynamics is irrelvant here and take drastically out of context. (And it's been a while since I looked at a physics book, but I think there's another law that actually explains how things can become MORE ordered over time).

    5. No fossil record and "transitional species" for seals. Hrmm, well there's a huge fossil record for whales turning into sea creates and lots of transition species have been found in that regard. In fact, your first video even said so!

    ReplyDelete
  4. By the way, I'm not even an Atheist. I just like refutting your posts, because they dig and attack other people's viewpoints yet they aren't built on logic themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I couldn't get through the first video. When Kent Hovind showed up at 2:40, I turned it off. Hovind is the most ignorant, stupid and dishonest creationist I know of. He beats Ray Comfort hands down. The rest of it looked like a combination of quote mining and language being used differently by different people.

    The second I can respond to better, on account of being able to stomach it. Just.

    0:40: Charles Darwin only wrote on the subject of the origin of biodiversity, not the origin of life. He didn't know how life could have come about originally.
    1:15: He makes it sound as if the theory of abiogenesis posits some sort of magical 'poof', followed by complex living organisms.

    I admit, the language is brilliantly tailored to completely misrepresent the theory of evolution while not lying directly. "Through random chance", which is repeated several times, is the prefect way to make it sound like something unlikely when in reality the probabilities of mutations occuring and natural selection operating on them are 99.99recurring%.

    1:50-2:15: Appeals to the emotional side of things. No relevance to the actual truth of the matter: 25 seconds of scare tactic.

    2:20-2:44: Misrepresents what a "theory" and a "fact" actually is, by conflating its definition within science with its definition in common usage. Then uses a quote by Stephen Hawking which, due to the previous misrepresentation, comes out different to what Hawking intended.

    A scientific theory, like "Germ theory" or "atomic theory" or "evolutionary theory", is an explanitory construct supported by many independent lines of evidence. A scientific fact is little more than an observation.

    2:50-3:50: One massive argument from incredulity: "I can't imagine how x could have occured, therefore it didn't". If the narrator would do some research instead of asking rhetorical questions, perhaps he'd realise that there exists plausible answers to everything he was asking.

    In addition, he conveniently forgets that the universe has a lot of time and a lot of space to run it's unguided experiments. Humans are fairly new to this whole "trying to make life" thing, but even so, they're getting remarkably close.

    3:50-4:40: OK, this is blatent dishonesty. As anyone actually involved in the fruit fly research would tell you, the flys did change, and rather significantly. In addition, the experimenters never expected to cause speciation, and were not trying to. Speciation is caused by tiny mutations aggregating over time, like in the wild, not massive mutations being shoved onto individuals at once, like in the experiment.

    4:40-6:07: The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, and evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Neither affects the validity of the other.

    In addition, evidence for an old concept about the pre-bang universe has come up, which neatly solves the 'something-from-nothing' dilemma. Take a look for yourself.

    6:08-7:20: Quote mining. Even if these were in context, they have nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

    7:20-8:04: 2nd law of thermodynamics. Interestingly, according to the 2nd law, order can and will increase if the system is not closed, but is getting an external source of energy. Now what external source of energy could the earth possibly be recieving, hmmm?

    8:05-End Lies. Trasitional fossil's have been found, including Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Lucy, etc...

    Punctuated Equilibrium is a logical reason that the fossil record isn't "packed" with transitional forms.

    And the Cambrian explosion took more than 10 million years. Hardly "instant".

    Whew: that made me angrier than I've been in a while. Deep breaths...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Quasar, Modern,
    Are you saying that science, after millions of dollars and man hours, computers and controlled environments in labs, etc will be able to create life.....
    by pure chance?

    Lol!

    ReplyDelete
  7. MG,

    By the way, I'm not even an Atheist. I just like [refuting] your posts, because they dig and attack other people's viewpoints yet they aren't built on logic themselves.

    I mean, the video might succeed in keeping some questioning teenagers on the Christianity boat. But it's really not an intellectual piece and probably is not going to sway any well read atheist.

    Notice something?

    Anyway, worshiper of creation instead of Creator; speaking on behalf of atheists, do you feel your viewpoints superior to everyone or just Christians or is it a personal thing? The only "thing" that will keep people on the Christianity boat is our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing you or I have any say in it. Does your presuppositions help you to believe that your intellect is superior then Christians? Psst, that logic you hold, that men wrote the Bible and Paul was a false prophet, is completely illogical and irrational, in itself. If you still think that your logic is superior then that of God's, can you explain your god? And how does one get to know your god? Just curious.

    Now, if you excuse me I need to address Quasars Ad Homs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First of all, thank you, Dan, for getting back to normal. The epic pile of steaming rhetoric which has dominated this blog for the past month was old after its first couple days, but at this point it's smelling up the whole place.

    Frankly, I'm saddened by the speed at which you and Dani'el latched on to Sye and his nonsense. Seriously, his tactic is as hollow and pointless as a basketball (I made a funny). Like everybody else, he presupposes the validity of his ability to reason, and upon this forgivable presupposition, he claims the existence of god. It's not especially different than anybody else -- we all have, like Dan has noted many times (strange how it used to be a bad thing, and now it's praised), presuppositions, but recognizing when one stems from another is pretty important, with respect to honesty. Sye exacerbates this nonsense by constantly nagging his stupid question regarding absolutes (I'm sure he'll do so again here), and this droll tends to hijack otherwise interesting threads.

    Anyway, I'm glad we have something new, and I hope he either actually participates (read: no circular arguments, please), or that he leaves us the hell alone. I haven't watched these videos yet, but I'm going to, and I'll comment on them directly after I do. I can tell you right now that if they were truly substantial I'd expect I might already have heard about it, but perhaps there is something new to come from anti-evolution creationist-land.

    Speaking of evolution, it gets me as to how much of an issue so many of you Christians make evolution out to be... It's not especially threatening, really, and while details are certainly argued, the "Old Earth" model is as firmly established as the sun's position at the center of the solar system. The earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are all old. Far older than 10k years. Deal with it. I just don't understand why anti-evolutionists seem so determined to box up their deity by saying, "No, he couldn't have done it that way, because [insert bronze age nomad here] said otherwise!"

    Anyway, I'll watch the videos and comment as appropriate. Sorry this turned into a rant.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  9. I forgot to say that I am glad MG that you do like refuting my posts because you dig and attack other people's (my) viewpoints yet they aren't built on logic themselves.

    Was that modern or liberated, which is more accurate? And yes there is a reason for that question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ad homs? I sincerely hope no- oh, wait, the digs at Kent Hovind?

    Yep, those were ad homs. Or more accurately, insults.

    I am pretty happy to respond to most creationist arguments: I'm even civil with Ray Comfort most of the time. But Kent doesn't even try: his tactics consist primarily of blatent lies. Even Answers In Genesis disowned the majority of the arguments he used to use (and I applaud AiG for this), and he kept on using them.

    As far as my opinion of Creationist organisations go, Reasons to Believe is probably the most respectable, then down to AiG, then further down to the Discovery Institute, then further down and down to televagelists like Ray comfort, then down to gooey things that live under rocks, then finally down to Kent Hovind.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dani' El wrote:
    "Are you saying that science, after millions of dollars and man hours, computers and controlled environments in labs, etc will be able to create life.....
    by pure chance?
    "

    There is no theory right now which states that life arose "by pure chance" or that evolution occurs "by pure chance."

    Why would you ask scientists to try to create life in a way that nobody thinks it was created?

    In other words, you think life was created by a magical poof!, and scientists think life was created by natural stochastic processes. Of course the idea that life came about "by pure chance" is ridiculous, but you've decided that's the standard you're going to demand of the scientists?

    Okay. I'm sure that you don't think that you could put your own arm down your own throat up to the shoulder. Shall I laugh at you when you fail to do this ridiculous, impossible feat? Per the Golden Rule, that would only be fair.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Okay. I'm sure that you don't think that you could put your own arm down your own throat up to the shoulder. Shall I laugh at you when you fail to do this ridiculous, impossible feat? Per the Golden Rule, that would only be fair.

    The mental image made me laugh. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Quasar, Modern,
    Are you saying that science, after millions of dollars and man hours, computers and controlled environments in labs, etc will be able to create life.....
    by natural stochastic processes?

    Lol!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan wrote:
    "Evolution is refuted by Evolutionists."

    That's a flat-out lie. Most of that video is Kent Hovind lying about evolutionary theory and the evidence. The few bits where it juxtaposes pro-evolution people saying seemingly contradictory things wouldn't seem that way to someone who actually has a good handle on the theory, instead of Hovind's cartoon version.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dani' El wrote:
    "Quasar, Modern,
    Are you saying that science, after millions of dollars and man hours, computers and controlled environments in labs, etc will be able to create life.....
    by natural stochastic processes?
    "

    I've figured it out: Dani' El has no self-esteem whatsoever. He treats other people like crap because that's how he wants people to treat him (according to Jesus' mandate).

    Because of his gloating fantasies about 2009 proving him correct, everyone needs to make sure to really rub his nose in it when nothing out of the ordinary happens. Otherwise, he'll think that we don't love him, and he'll sink even lower into his own hell on Earth. Poor guy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Are you saying that science, after millions of dollars and man hours, computers and controlled environments in labs, etc will be able to create life.....
    by natural stochastic processes?


    Not really. You need to understand how modern abiogenesis theories work.

    You see, the first life would not have been "life", as such. All would would have been is a replicating base: a molecular construct which, in its environment, absorbs other molecules and eventually splits into two constructs. This style of thing has actually been created in labs many times in the past, just not in environments which resemble early earth (that's the 'holy grail' of abiogenesis experiments).

    From there, darwinian theory takes over: many different types of molecular 'life-forms' are created in the initial population boom, as they spread throughout the entire ocean. Once they've taken over the ocean, natural selection takes over, weeding out the unstable or slow to reproduce molecules and promoting those with more complex designs.

    Of course, all this is hypothetical: we've really got no way of knowing whether it actually happened that way. But the evidence indicates that it's possible at the least, and remember that it only has to happen once, during one year among billions, on one planet among trillions, in one universe. And each planet can have billions of little molecular playgrounds throwing bits an pieces together.

    Not so improbable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quasar, by the way, has the second video dead on. The only thing I would have said different was the bit on the second law of thermodynamics.

    The second law, or SLOT, is entirely mathematical. In its formal construction, it says nothing about order and disorder, it only speaks to changes in entropy (unusable energy) within thermodynamically stable systems (which life is not).

    So, the narrator lies about what SLOT says, and presents no mathematics whatsoever to support his contentions. It's a joke.

    It's even more of a joke when you realize that in the narrator's view of SLOT, a weed growing from a seed also violates SLOT, but he doesn't deny that that can happen. How could he? It's absurd.

    He should be saying that because things go from order to disorder according to SLOT, a fertilized human egg should just disintegrate, not become the much more complex item that is a human baby. But he doesn't because it's a lie, he knows it's a lie, but he keeps on saying it anyway.

    Dan, have you written a post yet on the morality of lying for Jesus? Did you determine that the ends justify the means, as you would have to have done in order to post these lying videos as anything other than lies?

    I'm being serious, here. Didn't Jesus say something about how to treat the unbelievers? Was it that they should be treated with utter contempt for their intelligence? I'm sure you already know Aquinas' take on that, but you seem to have rejected it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Quas' El wrote:
    "Not so improbable."

    That's what I meant by "stochastic." I don't think Dani' El really understands what the word means, he just parroted it to try to make himself look a little smarter than he really is. Poor guy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You see, the first life would not have been "life", as such.

    And you say I'm being foolish?

    This style of thing has actually been created in labs many times in the past,......

    Examples please?
    Of this life that is not life?

    And my point was, all of the effort, money, brainpower, would mean yes............design.
    You cancel out the naturalism from the first step.
    Besides, you must start with building blocks, atoms, molecules.
    And unless you can summon them with naturalist means you are still at square one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dani' El wrote:
    "And my point was, all of the effort, money, brainpower, would mean yes............design.
    You cancel out the naturalism from the first step.
    Besides, you must start with building blocks, atoms, molecules.
    And unless you can summon them with naturalist means you are still at square one.
    "

    Ah, yes, the old "smuggled in intelligence" argument. The logical end-result of which is the conclusion that nothing - not one thing - that science studies is "natural." Every single experiment performed by men can only lead to the conclusion that an "intelligence" is required because men performed the experiment.

    Thus, "the designer" can only be man. No experiment which points to "a designer" can point to any designer which isn't human because only humans have performed the experiments. God, therefore, must be a mere mortal, and human beings created themselves.

    It's the only logical conclusion based upon the premises which are offered. Thank you, Dani' El, for proving that God is no more special than some guy in Jersey playing with a test tube. Why didn't I see that before?!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Please forgive me Dave.
    I did not realize you were 12 years old.

    Ah! To be young again! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dani' El wrote:
    "Please forgive me Dave.
    I did not realize you were 12 years old.

    Ah! To be young again! ;-)
    "

    Huh. You're the one who is granting the validity of science and scientific logic when you think it ends in the conclusion you prefer, but then denying that same logic and empiricism when firmly coupled with your premises so that it results in an utterly absurd conclusion?

    And you're calling me immature?

    Oh, that's right: you didn't actually argue against any proposition I offered or any conclusion that I reached, you just called me 12. Dan should be ashamed of you. Worse yet, because you failed to bring up presuppositionalism, Sye would be ashamed of you. Poor guy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stan,

    First of all, thank you, Dan, for getting back to normal.

    Don't mention it, I thought I would throw a softball since I couldn't stand to watch the pounding that everyone was getting, including you. Even I have feelings for atheists here. I just couldn't get back into it with both barrels just yet. I have to let your wounds heal in an attempt to allow you to gather your strength for future posts. Get some sleep, heal yourselves, your going to need all the help you can get.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan, you do know that Kent Hovind is currently serving time in federal prison for lying about his income, don't you? Did you also know that he recommends reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a guide to how the Jews dominate the world, even though this book has been known to be a fake for almost a hundred years? Not a very reliable source, if you ask me.

    Of course, that doesn't prove that what he says about evolution is wrong. Quasar covers that very well. I'll just add that even AiG is distancing itself from the claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution, perhaps because anyone with half a brain can demonstrate for themselves that this claim is nonsense.

    Another note about "transitional" fossils. I think I've said this before, but I'll repeat it: strictly speaking, all fossils are "transitional": indeed, all living organisms are "transitional", since evolution is occurring all the time.

    The only people likely to be convinced by such infantile videos are those who weren't paying attention in high school science classes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zilch,

    Thanks for the interesting info about Hovind. That sure eats away his creditbility.

    Dan,

    I seriously only attack your beliefs because you run an entire blog and appear to live and breath to attack atheism.

    I'm really not one to join in on the circular arguments and name calling. If you want to say that my belief is illogical according to a post by you on how the Bible has existed for so long, then so be it. But maybe you should realize that hundreds of texts older than the New Testament still exist, and even the Hindu Vedas are older then the old testament. So are the Hindu Vedas protected by God as well?

    If you say yes, then can we agree that perhaps God manifests himself in different ways to different people at different times. But each society interprets his manifestation in different ways depending upon the cultural values of the time color and taint the interpretation of God? Because if you could say that, I'd respect you.

    If you no, that the Hindu texts were not protected by God, then are you saying that books CAN survive that long without spiritual protection? Then therefore that's just what happened to the Bible. If you call massive rewrittings and reedits and horrible misinterpretations a survival.

    I have absolutely no problem with your desire to believe in God, or Jesus, or Christianity. I think everyone needs to follow a unique spiritual path and that each to his own. I think everyone should respect diversity of opinion and diversity of believe systems. I attack you because I don't feel that you feel that same way towards atheists.

    Just trying to spread some positive karma.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Speaking of positive karma: happy birthday, Ludwig van Beethoven! I'm listening to the Moonlight Sonata right now. And I'll agree with you, Modern Girl: I have no problem whatsoever with whatever someone wants to believe, as long as they behave nicely. I was just talking about this with my friend at the kebab stand, who is Kurdish, and a Muslim: he agreed with me that it doesn't matter what people believe: we're all people.

    cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dani,

    Lol!

    ...

    Lol!

    ...

    lol!


    Well at least someone's enjoying this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan,

    So you decided to not do any research on evolution at all and just posted some typical creationist rhetoric? Kind of disappointing really.

    I mean, after your previous attempts in the 'Ignotheists' thread where you dropped clangers like 'frogs turning into humans', 'families evolving into other families', conflating evolution and abiogenesis and other misrepresentations of the theory, I thought you'd have at least done some cursory reading on the topic.

    But then you did also admit that lying for Jesus can be acceptable sometimes, so I'm just not sure what to think anymore.

    Oh, and for the record, I fully accept that you don't think of God as being an 'abusive husband'; it just looked like that's what you were saying because of how the conversation flowed.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan,
    The example is often given that motor vehicles have a creator and that they did not evolve over time, however this really isn’t so. Lets suppose I’m an engineer for an auto maker and I have a problem with a car in that, the seat belt doesn’t stay latched. If I go with the assumption that the car was created as is with no previous variation, then I’m going to take the static approach to solving whatever the problem is; in which case I may take out my tool kit, begin poking around and perhaps cause bigger problems. Or, as the car was created out of thin air, I may not assume that there is a design history with parts lists, schematics and troubleshooting guides. I may never come to the understanding that perhaps variation in assembly processes led to the defect.

    Bottom line:
    It may vary well be the case that I discover what the problem is, but if I consider that the car was formed in a static nature, I may come to a conclusion as to what led to the problem in the first place yet never get the problem fixed on other vehicles; this will be due to the fact that (as my thinking is static) it wont occur to me to even look, and even if I did, I’ll find myself fixing the issue without implementing a long term solution to the problem. In other words, I wont vary the process accordingly and/or implement the necessary design change.

    However if I take a more dynamic approach and consider variation and change over time, I may tend to think that, perhaps this is an issue that exists in this particular model year. Perhaps there was a revision change or two, or perhaps a modified process which led to an inherent defect; in this way I research the issue a bit differently and discover that a recent change to the process (a mutation) led to a flaw in the latching assembly. In effect what I’m doing is researching the evolution (or process change) of the vehicle to not just find the defect itself, but find what led to the defect and in turn implement the necessary process changes (mutations) to fix the problem.

    The point is this, where as we can say a car was created, it is also a mutation (a variation / improvement) on earlier design ideas. First there was the horse, then there was the wheel, then the horse pulled one on the wheel, then we put peddles on the wheels, then a steam engine, then a gas engine. Would you mean to tell me that this isn’t a form of evolution? If you go to a garbage dump where old cars reside, you can see evolution in the same way you can see it in old fossils. Point is, thinking dynamically (in terms of evolution) is useful in solving problems. This alone doesn’t make it right or wrong, as a matter of fact, it doesn’t even matter if it’s right or wrong; what’s important is it’s usefulness as a tool of inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  30. So...

    Video #1, Kent Hovind; ~3:00:

    Hovind is saying that fossils are inconclusive as evidence, that "it is absolutely impossible to use any fossils at all as evidence for evolution."

    First, out of curiosity, I wonder by what absolute standard Hovind measures the possible from the impossible...

    Ahem, sorry about that...

    Seriously -- for what, then, does Hovind think the fossils are evidence? Of a creator who deceives his creation by planting unnumbered amounts of fossils, of unnumbered species no longer visible, all of which had a space on Noah's ark?

    I think not.

    Video #1, Kent Hovind; ~6:00:

    "I am winning this argument because I'm right."

    Sounds familiar... Is this something Christians always do, regardless of the actual argument, or the reasons one opponent or the other appears to be "winning"? Have a favorable audience? Don't want to actually address the points brought by one's opponent? Simply declare yourself correct, and enjoy the laughter granted by the congregation -- excuse me, audience.

    Video #1, Kent Hovind; ~8:10:

    Really? No point is made here, as Hovind merely asks an audience member (note the audiences are always highly favorable toward Hovind, which gives the false impression, especially in these cherry-picked excerpts, that Hovind is somehow on firm footing in his rhetoric)... As I was saying, no point is made, as Hovind simply asks an audience member for evidence of evolution -- for evidence of some sort of advancement -- and then denies the man's answer while asserting his own hypothesis as the ultimate authority in the matter. No evidence? Hell, Hovind doesn't even bother with an argument.

    Video #1, Ken Miller; ~8:45:

    This segment is a gross misrepresentation of Miller's explanation. He's not arguing that because we have two fewer chromosomes than the great apes that we're related, but he's instead showing that in addition to the similar number of chromosomes, the way in which they (the chromosome patterns) are related is indicative of a further relationship between these species, which we can deduce based on further genetic analysis.

    In fact, if you actually watch Ken Miller's presentation, you'll see that, at roughly the two-minute mark, he explains that if this missing pair of chromosomes fails to be explained, it proves fatal to evolution, after which he shows how it has been explained, and how the explanation is extremely compelling.

    Indeed, at the 3:40 mark of that video, Miller shows that "the centromere that is inactivated corresponds to chimp chromosome #13..."

    He continues: "It's there, it's testable, it confirms the prediction of evolution." (emphasis mine)

    Note that evolution makes predictions which are testable. What was it the creation hypothesis does in that regard? I forget.

    Back to Hovind, he's taken the specific bit about the number of chromosomes and blatantly misrepresented it to suggest that any animal or plant species with identical numbers of chromosomes are evolutionarily adjacent and/or identical. Is he merely being facetious or coy? Probably, but he's clearly allowing the audience (or was it congregation?) confirm their belief system, which feels that evolution is a big silly joke, based on this clear misrepresentation.

    Guess what? We came from animals. It's no big deal, though -- they still taste quite good.

    What's really funny in this segment is that at ~9:35 Hovind says, "the similarities, I think, are evidence of a common designer..." The similarities between what, Hovind? He was just making fun of evolution by suggesting that the number of chromosomes is the sole indicator of commonality, including the claim that dogs and chickens were "identical twins" because of their identical number of chromosomes, and then he immediately says that this number of chromosomes constitutes enough of a similarity to posit a common designer?

    Didn't he just make fun of evolution for this very reason? Wasn't he just laughing at the number of chromosomes in a fern?

    [sarcasm]Well, Kent, since ferns have so many chromosomes, clearly they were designed by someone else, or by a consortium...[/sarcasm]

    Video #1, Jim Strayer; ~9:50:

    The video ends with evolutionists displaying their honesty and sense of fair play, something they share with many atheists, and things by which they are opposed with regard to creationists and presuppositionalists. Evolutionists are quick to remind the class that evolution is Theory, and as such not proven as fact, and because of their crass willingness to misrepresent and obfuscate, creationists jump all over statements such as these (as evidenced by this very video) as somehow supporting their view. It's not support for creationism, it's merely honest reflection, and openness to critique. Science does that, you see, it admits that its findings are not absolutely true, rather than asserting that they are, and it is open to new evidence which challenges even cherished theory, rather than denying any such evidence and proclaiming conspiracy to stifle tradition.

    Note the last portion of this video, at ~9:57, when Strayer says, "You don't have to trust authority..."

    Does that include the bible?

    It's honesty, pure and simple. Not argument from authority, which tactic some other group employs, if memory serves, but argument from data, and from testable, predictive theory. The person who cut and edited this video clearly removed Strayer's qualifier, that rather than trusting him, we can trust the science, if we bother to learn something about it, and why its claims are justified.

    Ugh.

    Now to Video #2...

    --
    Stan

    You should try it sometime. It's called science.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Video #2, narrator; ~2:00:

    To this point, as others have noted, the narrator is speaking in thinly veiled truth -- he is conditioning the audience to equate "evolution" or its process with "random chance", which is misleading. Note also that the process of intentional conditioning is a necessary precursor to brainwashing.

    It is at this point, though, that he starts making claims which evolution does not say, such as the suggestion that evolution denies the possibility of a "soul" or afterlife, which it does not do. It merely describes the processes by which one species evolves into others, and shows that this process, given ample time, explains the vast array of biodiversity we enjoy today, and that we see in the fossil record.

    Nothing about abiogenesis, nothing about Big Bang theory, and nothing about religion or spirituality. The material bodies which we are, and other species are, evolved by the process of mutation guided by natural selection, nothing more.

    The narrator continues his misrepresentation by conflating evolution with chemistry, and seems to be preparing the audience for some amazing epiphany by noting that corpses rot, ignoring the fact that this has to do with death, not evolution...

    Video #2; ~2:40

    (I can tell this one is going to be time-consuming...)

    The Stephen Hawking quote -- which is missing the bounding notation of "quote . . . endquote" -- doesn't mean anything. It is a given that a single, repeatable (read: repeated), observed test which disproves a theory, however cherished, requires that theory to either be scrapped entirely or to be modified to agree with, and explain, the test in question. That's why we know that Newton was wrong about gravity, and that even Einstein was wrong when it comes to extremely small-scale physics.

    Video #2; ~2:45:

    Narrator: "A lot of evidence and observations tell us that evolution is a false theory..."

    He then asks why scientists cannot at present create life in a laboratory, since, "after all, according to the Theory of Evolution, creating life is really only a matter of putting the right atoms together."

    Really? What a douchey thing to say. How easy does this guy think it is, moving atoms around to intentionally build structure and function? Chemically, it's a simple process, but it evidently still took about a billion years from when the Earth was formed to begin. I'm pretty sure scientists haven't been working at it for that long...

    Of course, I realize that my own statement above is likely to be quote-mined to somehow support the notion of ID and/or goddidit creationism, but at present we lack the ability to easily manipulate atoms and molecules to quickly form any sort of living organism. More to the point, we're not really trying to build an organism, but trying to get the complex molecules required for life to form with minimal input, which is the prevailing hypothesis concerning abiogenesis. Perhaps some are trying to build a living organism, and perhaps we should. If we can put together the necessary atoms to form, say, an average human, it should come directly to life, right?

    Heh. That's effectively what this narrator is suggesting, conveniently leaving out the fact that the average human body contains at least 10 trillion (10^12)cells, each of which contains roughly 10^15 atoms (a quadrillion, if you will)...

    It's no wonder it took the process of evolution so damned long, and that it began with single-celled organisms...

    Video #2; ~3:30:

    Wow. I'm about done with this one...

    "How is it possible that dead matter can begin to think?"

    How utterly banal. What is "dead matter"? Is it water? Is it an amino acid? Is it Vitamin C? Is it a protein?

    Oh crap, I forgot -- that's us, and we think. Just as I was once the unthinking glimmer in my Daddy's eye, I am now able to think. Some small percentage of my molecular structure was once part of Oliver Cromwell, yet here I am, thinking. I ingested no small amount of the volcanic ash produced by the dead matter which we call, "Mt. St. Helens," yet here I think.

    Pshaw.


    ~3:50:

    Okay, I'm done. This thing is devoid of actual thought or integrity. I'll watch it, but it's not deserving of the detailed response I've given thus far, much less the remaining six minutes or so.

    This guy constantly quotes people, but never identifies where the quote begins, and where it ends. He likewise cites sources such as "One Writer," who probably said, "some words," and may even have written, A Book, which might be available from places that sell books.

    Thanks for the softball Dan, but I was hoping for something substantial and actually worthy of my attention. No, not a thousand-comment behemoth, wherein one commenter hijacks your blog, and in the span of which outposts everyone else by a factor of at least two (in the history of this blog, I'd wager), without ever actually saying anything (no one was "defeated" by Sye, only bored to death with watching him spin in circles)...

    No, I'm happy for the change (the return to normalcy), but it wasn't exactly challenging... unless you want to challenge our critiques.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  32. MG,

    and appear to live and breath to attack atheism.

    Well then you haven't been here long then. Maybe you will find out the truth instead of judging me as to what I am doing. I don't owe you or anyone an explanation here but Let me ask you a question to make a point. Would you go out of you way to try and save a child playing unknowingly in a house that is on fire and burning up rapidly? MG I love you very much please understand at least that much. I have always said that perfect love is a constant confronter. It takes far more love to confront the to ignore the situation.

    The Bible survived in spite of the mass effort (by the devil) to eliminate it. The Qur'an had a very different fate, as an example. Yes ancient secular writings did survive and it was all to Gods glory.

    The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, one of the oldest things written on Earth. Except maybe, Job in the Bible. It comes to us from Ancient Sumeria. They wrote about a flood a great deal, even an entire table dedicated to it:

    Table 1: “He saw the Secret, discovered the Hidden, the brought information of (the time) before the Flood. He went on a distant journey” and this “raging flood-wave who destroys even walls of stone!” and also “Utanapishtim, the Faraway, who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!

    Table XI (11) The Story of the Flood: “The gods were frightened by the Flood,”

    So even secular writings acknowledged a massive worldwide flood. Again survived to show again that all the glory goes to God. We all will be glorifying God very soon, even you MG.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Zilch,

    "Dan, you do know that Kent Hovind is currently serving time in federal prison for lying about his income, don't you?"

    I sure do. I hope, on the other hand, you are not saying that because of that fact renders the information that he is talking about false?

    Have you ever lied even once in your life? Should we indeed distrust a kind soul such as yourself?

    Did you also know that he recommends reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a guide to how the Jews dominate the world, even though this book has been known to be a fake for almost a hundred years?

    Nope, never heard of that.

    Not a very reliable source, if you ask me.

    So because he is in jail and he recommended a questionable book renders the information incorrect? Classic Ad Hom. Does fallacies render the person untrustworthy also?

    Of course, that doesn't prove that what he says about evolution is wrong.

    So what was the point/purpose of saying everything above this disclaimer then? I said this to Stan earlier but it fits now to you.

    You know full well that to insinuate you still are suggesting something no matter the attempt of imperceptibly. You cannot pose questions just to avoid ownership of something said by ending it with a statement like "Of course, that doesn't prove that...". I can say something like "Are you sure your wife is not sleeping around on you?" You say 'yes" and I again ask "are you absolutely sure?" To insinuate is still a watered down claim. I can play this game. I sure thought you were more of a stand up man then that. You see, I didn't call you spineless, I just insinuated it.

    I will forgo the Ace Ventura clip this time :p Or was that an insinuation again?

    he agreed with me that it doesn't matter what people believe: we're all people.

    Why do you all insist that not helping a child out of burning buildings is being a good person? Its criminal and not good at all, that would be considered (absolutely I might add) despicable behavior in any society. Be ashamed of that complacency.

    indeed, all living organisms are "transitional"

    Yes I fully understand your faith in that story. Is that testable and repeatable and observable...of course not. So its not science but pseudo science.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yes I fully understand your faith in that story. Is that testable and repeatable and observable...of course not. So its not science but pseudo science.

    Tell me, Dan: is String Theory scientific? You should look it up, but come to your own conclusions as to whether it's Yes or No.

    I'll expect at least a minimal effort at understanding the question before you answer; however, this isn't a physics quiz. At the very least, I'll expect you to admit whether you do or don't understand or just don't want to bother.

    The question is important for this discussion...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Why do you all insist that not helping a child out of burning buildings is being a good person? Its criminal and not good at all, that would be considered (absolutely I might add) despicable behavior in any society. Be ashamed of that complacency.

    Unless, that is, the children are Amalekites, and god told you to burn them... In that case it's criminal to assist, right?

    Or unless the child was the first to walk out of your door after a particular promise was made?

    Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to conditionally save these children from the burning, as in, if they are virgin girls, right? Forget the boys and non-virgin women -- let them burn -- but take the virgin girls for yourselves. That's acceptable, right?


    Tell you what. Let's talk about evolution and how Kent Hovind doesn't affect it, and how the second video you linked is completely full of crap.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan,
    In light of the fact that Kent Hovind is a convicted felon, for tax evasion, it is surprising that you think he has any credibility.

    Or you may be a bit deluded if you are so sure that convicted felons are telling YOU the truth.

    There is nothing new here.

    Dani'El,

    You said,
    "Funny we creationists are the ones who have been mocked for so long, the tables are turning.
    They are on the ropes and the end is near for evilution."

    Keep telling yourself that, but in the last 40 years I have seen creationists get hammered pretty bad, and most recently at the Dover trial where federal judge Jones stated unequivocally that the evidence brought forth in the trial showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that ID/ Creationism was not science and ruled it unlawful to teach as science.

    Evolution is not only not "on the ropes," it is gaining steam every day in the public arena. Of course it is considered fact in the scientific community and has been for quite a while.
    The only part that remains Scientific Theory" are the mechanisms that drive parts of it.

    Kids that are home schooled as fundamentalists can never hope to get a degree in, or work in science.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Andrew,

    Point is, thinking dynamically (in terms of evolution) is useful in solving problems.

    Well said and I agree, evolution does indeed play a role in science and understanding life. (feel the but coming?) But you know the point that we are pressing, to the point of smashing it, is that we do not buy into the fact that cars evolved into hello kitty dolls. There is not repeatable testable experiments to falsify it. So some aspects of evolution (we describe as macro) are all based on faith still. Please provide the evidence for your claim. Its what you are indeed requiring Christians to do in relation to God, so isn't that only fair?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm sure Dan will be along any minute now to explain how the evolutionists got 'owned' in these videos.

    Any minute now....


    [tumbleweed]

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hey Dan, didn't see you there!

    So essentially you are asking for scientists to provide you with adequate evidence that the mechanisms put forward by the theory of evolution are sufficient enough to bring about the change in morphology that is colloquially know as 'macro-evolution'.

    Is that about it?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Wem,

    Tell me, Dan: is String Theory scientific?

    Science is a process of falsification of hypotheses so technically no String is just one of many hypotheses/theories. Possibly yes as an attempt to explain things but if it cannot be falsified it isn't science. If that were the case then the God theory is indeed science also.Correct?

    I do indeed know about String and find it exhilarating to my brain. If you haven't I suggest you watch The Elegant Universe It blew my mind in a thought experiment and is fascinating stuff!

    Do I believe that the MWI (many-worlds interpretation) or relative state formulation is science. No since falsification would be impossible. Who knows though we may stumble upon something that would show otherwise. Until then it will remain science fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan,
    "No since falsification would be impossible."

    well said.

    Now, how would you falsify the claim that God exists?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan,
    In case you think I didn't notice, I see that you are ignoring me :>

    And I know why......

    ReplyDelete
  43. Der Frog wrote-Keep telling yourself that, but in the last 40 years I have seen creationists get hammered pretty bad, and most recently at the Dover trial where federal judge Jones stated unequivocally that the evidence brought forth in the trial showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that ID/ Creationism was not science and ruled it unlawful to teach as science.

    Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Blake, Phil Spector..........?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Here is just another example:

    No place for creationism in science class, state says

    By Ana Ribeiro
    Staff Writer


    Published: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 3:54 p.m.

    "Keep creationism out of science class, the state school system says."
    This school is in the bible belt (NC) and offered a Bible as Lit. class but it was cancelled because no body signed up to take it.

    You fundies are the dying breed and even among moderate Christians you are considered fringe elements.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I would love to see one single advocate of creationism/intelligent design submit one single piece of research that they have which debunks evolution to peer review.

    Until that point, why anyone should take it seriously is beyond me.

    Prove something scientifically, or get out of the scientific arena.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Well, I'd love to stick around and discuss evolution all night but I've got a plane to catch.

    Have a great Christmas everyone, and if I can't get to a computer before then, have a superb New Year.


    Take care,


    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dani'El,

    Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Blake, Phil Spector..........?

    Lol nice, you are sure good at this debunking game.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan wrote:
    "The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, one of the oldest things written on Earth. Except maybe, Job in the Bible."

    Gilgamesh predates Job by at least 500 years or so.

    But it's funny as hell that you're using a work of fiction (Gilgamesh) to try to substantiate another work of fiction (the Bible).

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dani'El,
    And writing the names of four idiots proves what?

    Dan,
    You have a very perveted view of what debunking means.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dan,
    myself personally, I don't view evolution as being true in any absolute sense (as I don't believe in absolute truth of course); I generally accept things based on they're usefulness as a mode of thinking. In this sense, evolution is a useful tool, nothing more.

    The same goes for creationism.
    My question of creationism would not be, is it true or is it false, but in what way is it useful as a mode of thought?

    In other words, Dan, aside from supporting your interpretation of the Bible, what does adhering to creationism (relative to interpreting life as we experience it and/or life relative to scientific inquiry) do for you and/or humanity?

    ReplyDelete
  52. CC,

    "Prove something scientifically, or get out of the scientific arena."

    Fair enough but "It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of origins--that is, of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos. These are, in simplest terms, evolution or creation. Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot--one or the other. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic symptoms of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far as origins are concerned.

    This necessarily means that if we can "falsify" (that is, demonstrate to be false) either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option. By definition, evolution should still be occurring now, since it is to be explained by present processes." (ICR)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dan, "creationism" implies a creator. Even if evolution could be thoroughly debunked and creationism wins by default, there still resides the problem of "falsifying" the countless creation accounts in favour of your specific choice of creator. Slating evolution merely takes one option away from thousands of other accounts.

    The only proof you have that Yahweh is creator is entirely faith-based, a faith that can be equalled by any religious participant in the world over with beliefs differing from yours.

    How do you propose to falsify every religion that has ever existed in the world save yours? Without resorting to untestable, "personal" revelation.

    Christian creationists have a lot more than evolution to falsify.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Andrew,

    "In other words, Dan, aside from supporting your interpretation of the Bible, what does adhering to creationism (relative to interpreting life as we experience it and/or life relative to scientific inquiry) do for you and/or humanity?"

    That is irrelevant. There is something that is being missed here. If the Bible is true, without putting Jesus on like you would a parachute you will indeed perish. The Bible is clear and draws a line in the sand about evil. You, being wicked, love evil and are even a slave to it. If you do not show acknowledgment of this fact and to desire to turn away from sin and deny thyself, then you shall perish in that evil that you hold dear to your heart. Jesus isn't here to make the ride better, Jesus shed His blood to take your punishment for that Day of Judgment. There is nothing you can do to attain perfection, everything has already been done already for you. God gave you the gift already, all you have to do is unwrap it. Repent, trust and get into His Word. Then you will have everlasting life with Him forever and ever and ever and ever and ....

    ReplyDelete
  55. CC,

    Slating evolution merely takes one option away from thousands of other accounts.

    Not to be flip, but I would like to hear some of those "other" accounts.

    I am to understand there are basically two models evolution and Creation. Please share as to other models out there that are currently being taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  56. CwC- How do you propose to falsify every religion that has ever existed in the world save yours? Without resorting to untestable, "personal" revelation.

    Why should we have to cast off our "personal revelations"
    if you won't cast off yours?
    What of your untestable naturalism?
    Naturalism has zero foundation in reality yet you cling to it "like a crutch".

    Evolution is a fairy tale that requires far more faith than christianity.
    An evolutionist must deny reality itself.

    Reality, all of creation testifies to the Living God.
    Every sub atomic particle is in complete obedience to His laws.
    Those laws are not "just there".
    Just there, is bad science.
    Faith. In nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dan, you blinkered individual.

    Do you seriously the think the Christian creation model is considered seriously in:

    Mauritania
    Somalia
    Western Sahara
    Maldives
    Afghanistan
    Algeria
    Turkey
    Yemen
    Morocco
    Iran
    Tunisia
    Comoros
    Libya
    Iraq
    Pakistan
    Jordan
    Senegal
    Djibouti
    Azerbaijan
    Oman
    Laos
    Bhutan
    Japan
    Cambodia
    Thailand
    Mongolia
    Republic of China
    Hong Kong
    Myanmar
    Vietnam
    Macau
    Sri Lanka
    North Korea
    Singapore
    South Korea
    Malaysia
    Brunei
    Nepal
    French Polynesia

    This is a small selection, obviously.

    In the words of Morrissey:

    "America is not the world."

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dave,

    'But it's funny as hell that you're using a work of fiction (Gilgamesh) to try to substantiate another work of fiction (the Bible)."

    So poetry renders something false? Wasn't there an air of truth to the poetry that we were doing that Zilch suggested? They were artistic but had a ring of truth to them (at lease perceived by the writer) Do you write poetry on only things that are untrue or life experiences? Have you ever heard the term art imitating life? There is a great deal of poetic writings in the Bible also you do understand? Very popular style of writing back then. It would be entirely logical to believe the writing were about life experiences as too in the Bible. Are you suggesting the wonderful wisdom of Proverbs, or even psalms, are all based on fictional things? You are plainly illogical, Dave.

    If your keeping record Froggie, that was another debunking :=)

    (the = is my big jew nose instead of the - get it?)

    ReplyDelete
  59. CC,

    blinkered? Meh, possibly.

    Thanks for not answering my question though. Here I will restate it to help you: I am to understand there are basically two models evolution and Creation. Please share as to other models out there that are currently being taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Also, have I ever stated that I believe evolution to be infallible?

    There are enough obvious observations within the world we live in to deny the Young Earth model.

    For instance, fossils extend three miles into the Earth's crust. All known civillisations in recorded history are pretty much on the surface or a matter of metres beneath. None are locked underneath dinosaur fossils. Yet apparently the flood caused the fossils. Yeah ok. And salt water covered the earth for a year but the plants survived.

    If you have time, immerse a plant in salt water for a year (just not seaqweed, 'kay?). See whether it lives to tell the tale.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, sweetheart.

    Evolution = one option currently under consideration.

    Creation = one option currently under consideration.

    Creation = creator.

    A creator. The only reason that you consider this creator to be Yahweh is because of your Christian faith.

    Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't practically every religion in the world have a creation story, each proffering their own particular deity as the Creator?

    What I was trying to ask you is how you propose to debunk each and every other creation story in favour of your own.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Cwc-Do you seriously the think the Christian creation model is considered seriously in:

    Mauritania
    Somalia
    Western Sahara
    Maldives
    Afghanistan
    Algeria
    Turkey
    Yemen
    Morocco
    Iran
    Tunisia
    Comoros
    Libya
    Iraq
    Pakistan
    Jordan
    Senegal
    Djibouti
    Azerbaijan
    Oman
    Laos
    Bhutan
    Japan
    Cambodia
    Thailand
    Mongolia
    Republic of China
    Hong Kong
    Myanmar
    Vietnam
    Macau
    Sri Lanka
    North Korea
    Singapore
    South Korea
    Malaysia
    Brunei
    Nepal
    French Polynesia


    Yup!
    There are christians in everyone of those countries.
    You blind heathen you.

    And to plants surviving the flood.
    RAFTS.

    To this day, animals migrate to remote islands on natural rafts.
    And you guessed it. God did it.
    Lol!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Three things.

    1. Dan, first you say the Bible survived for so many years because it's sacred. When I brought up that other non-sacred books, and sacred but non-Christian books have survived for just as long, you responded by stating that those books survived because God protected them as well. So, if God protects sacred and non-sacred books, how can we tell which books are really sacred?

    2. I claimed that you live and breath to attack atheism. You say you don't. By the title of your blog "Debunking Atheists" and it sole mission to prove atheism wrong, and the amount of time that you clearly spend working on this blog all show that you spend a great deal of energy trying to disprove someone else's beliefs. Why can't you just see that everyone is meant to follow their own spiritual path, and to each his own?

    3. If there was another way to format the comments so they were easier to follow, that would be awesome. I've seen a few blogs lately which have changed their comment formatting so that you can respond to individual posts and the replies are threaded. Not every blog needs that feature, but I definitely this you might want to look into that.

    ReplyDelete
  64. CC,

    If you have time, immerse a plant in salt water for a year (just not seaqweed, 'kay?). See whether it lives to tell the tale.

    If you get some time immerse seeds into icy seawater to see if they grow and then (when they didn't) immerse them into soil and give them a proper Ph bath of nutrients and light and temperature to see if they grow again. Hmm You too are quite the blinkered individual.

    Froggie that would be three.

    ReplyDelete
  65. CwC A creator. The only reason that you consider this creator to be Yahweh is because of your Christian faith.

    Princess, we have a supernatural book and witnesses to the resurrection etc.
    They don't.

    Want proof?
    Steeeaady.......wait.. for... it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. CC,

    What I was trying to ask you is how you propose to debunk each and every other creation story in favour of your own.

    Logic, reason, and evidence, what else?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dani'El, babe, yes there are Christians in that country, but as they are a minority, their particular candidate for Creator is not the national candidate for creator.

    As for rafts... can you imagine a California redwood on a raft?

    Some raft hon :)

    ReplyDelete
  68. Sarah,
    A pine cone raft? Yes.

    And they pull up redwoods that sank decades ago and cut them up for lumber all the time.
    It's become a fledgling business in these parts.
    Apparently they don't rot due to the oil or something.

    I think a giant redwood would make a fine raft, but for the splinters, ouch!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dan.

    Are you telling me that all plants were destroyed (as would happen in salt water), but the seeds lived on. Once the soil was ready the seeds grew again.

    Quite the ecosystem Noah alighted to. Dead plants everywhere, and a rather large period of time with no living land plants at all.

    You know, while everyone waited for every seed to grow.

    One would wonder what herbivorous animals ate during the apparently voracious reproducing that they were doing at the time.

    You know, while everyone waited for the plants to grow.

    I would hold fire on your arrogant assumptions that you have arguments tied up. You're no Sye.

    You're more like his John the Baptist.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Sorry... a supernatural book?

    Mystical!

    Wow I'm converted. Just like that. Because if you say your book is a magical supernatural book, I should really believe you. Pull the other one.

    Not exactly a belter of an argument now is it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Cwc- Dani'El, babe, yes there are Christians in that country, but as they are a minority, their particular candidate for Creator is not the national candidate for creator.

    He is not too popular here either.

    I firmly believe that there are more genuine saints in China than America today.

    The great falling away or apostasy of the last days is most evident in America's liberal and lukewarm laodicean mega-churches.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Lol @ Dani

    You're wasted on this crowd.

    x.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dan, if you are trying to suggest that the Christian voice is not the most influental religious voice in America, I suggest you take off those rapture tinted spectacles at once sir, and re-read your newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dan wrote:
    "You are plainly illogical, Dave."

    You lie about what I said, and that makes me illogical?!

    Good grief, Dan. You have lost all shame.

    I didn't say anything about poetry making something fiction. I said that Gilgamesh is fiction, as is clearly the consensus among scholars. Gilgamesh is the earliest example of literary fiction that's known.

    You using a work of fiction to bolster the Bible is like using a Star Trek episode to support String theory.

    And of course people often put real stuff into works of fiction, but that doesn't mean that everything in a work of fiction was real or even inspired by real events. Just because Clancy wrote The Hunt for Red October doesn't mean that the Russians actually had a functioning silent caterpillar drive for a submarine.

    Of course, it's not surprising that you think that fiction is real. You probably had lots of problems differentiating between real life and Bugs Bunny as a kid, right?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Cwc- Wow I'm converted. Just like that. Because if you say your book is a magical supernatural book, I should really believe you. Pull the other one.

    Not exactly a belter of an argument now is it.


    God will be revealing Himself, more than He already has, in powerful undeniable ways soon enough.

    No one is saved by an argument they don't have the ears to hear.
    Sister.

    It will take a supernatural act of God to crack that hard nut of a heart you've got there, right?
    ;-)

    I'm confident God will answer my prayers for you and yours one day.

    ReplyDelete
  76. MG,

    1) So, if God protects sacred and non-sacred books, how can we tell which books are really sacred?

    I am uncomfortable speaking in general on this topic, I need specifics to do its proper justice but let me try,

    We need to test the validity of books that claim a deity if thy do not hold up to scrutiny and bears bad fruit then we can decertify that it is indeed false. Again specifics to evaluate better.

    2) I claimed that you live and breath to attack atheism. You say you don't. By the title of your blog "Debunking Atheists" and it sole mission to prove atheism wrong

    Wouldn't it be called Debunking Atheism then? I target the individual instead of a belief system. It's more personal to me. I target the atheist because atheism is only part of there worldview and I am interested in the whole package. Besides I like these people, I enjoy the conversation of the individual instead of preaching from a milk crate in this arena. When I am Open air preaching I am indeed debunking Atheism then. Make sense? Yes good then explain it to me :=)

    3) I am very interested in what you are saying but how do I go about that in Google's blogger? They are always updating so they may add the feature. You are a thread type of gal, huh? I like the idea of that. Suggestions, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  77. CC,

    You might catch me in my Biblical knowledge but didn't Noah bring food and seeds also?

    ReplyDelete
  78. CC,

    Dan, if you are trying to suggest that the Christian voice is not the most [influential] religious voice in America...

    Oh I don't but that does beg the question as to why is that? Supernatural maybe? Of course not!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Dan,

    Do you think Noah travelled around the world planting seeds with his blue ox Babe?

    Try to see the magnitude of having to plant (and cross-pollinate, bearing in mind that something like a bee takes nectar in order to live, cross-pollinating in the act) every single plant all over again.

    Think of animals on the ark who lived in rainforest ecosystems. If we could replant entire rainforests, just like that, do you really think people would be bleating on about them quite so much?

    You still haven't explained why there are no human civillisations fossilized along with the dinosaurs either.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Oh I don't but that does beg the question as to why is that? Supernatural maybe? Of course not!"

    No it isn't supernatural. It's simple population demographics, and tied into the political process.

    Now I'd be shocked if Pakistan's loudest religious voice was Christian. But it isn't, it's Muslim.

    Supernatural maybe? Eh? Eh?

    Please refine your arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  81. CC,

    Do you think Noah [traveled] around the world planting seeds with his blue ox Babe?

    No but they did probably survive in the dead corpses of animals floating like rafts.

    You still haven't explained why there are no human [civilizations] fossilized along with the dinosaurs either.

    Sure, when people die they float when dinosaurs die they sink. One can logically see that the people were decomposing on the surface (along with being eaten by critters and surviving animals) while Dinosaurs were being buried under the massive sediments stirred up by the floods.

    Now I'd be shocked if Pakistan's loudest religious voice was Christian.

    I agree with Dani'El there are Christians in every corner of the earth. And you must keep in mind the elect are just that. Narrow is the path to Salvation and wide is the gate to destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  82. When people die they float, but dinosaurs don't?

    What?

    Even the dinosaurs the same size as humans or smaller? Really? Even dinosaurs the size of chickens?

    And even if the dead corpses housed said seeds, you still have the years it would take for the seeds to germinate and grow. In heavily salinated soil.

    Good luck with all that, but seriously, don't throw your proof in my face. Your imaginary ark floats better than your proposed ecological regeneration.

    You propose a world that is, for at least a year, devoid of any growing plant life.

    There are Muslims in every corner of the earth. Your point being? So far I am underwhelmed. Entirely.

    ReplyDelete

  83. You might catch me in my Biblical knowledge but didn't Noah bring food and seeds also?


    Too funny.

    If the whole planet was covered with water for a year, and all the living plants died out as a result, leaving only those seeds which could survive such a deluge, then at most a few months' worth of plants could've grown before the door opened and everybody filed out of the ark. Get it?

    Ever seen a year-old forest? How about a six-month old orchard?

    Of course, since all of the plants and seeds must've scattered during the flooding and later subsiding, the sorts of plants which are edible and easy to find would've been randomly strewn about with weeds and plants which are toxic to humans... So those first few months off the ark must've been pretty difficult...

    Of course, they landed on a mountain as I recall, so the lowlands and valleys would've been still covered in water, and they couldn't have easily started planting anything on the side of a mountain, much less build a residence and/or tools. That must've been rough.

    I wonder, though, just how far away the animals had to get before they reverted to their natural predator-prey relationships. Did the gazelles get a 20-Mississippi head start? What about the slower animals, or those which found safety in the branches of a tree (none of which are beyond the sapling stage)?

    At what point do you guys have to stop and say that the story is fictional? At what point do the silly explanations put forth get too, well, silly?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dan,

    I was looking into some comment formatting options. Most the blogs that have elaborate commenting are at wordpress, not Google. However, I did find some with Google.

    There's a program called intensedebate (www.intensedebate.com) which creates indented commenting, and put replies directly under the comment they're replying to. You can see it in action on this blog:

    http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspot.com/

    *shrugs* It's not as fancy as other ones I have in mind, but might be worth looking into.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Tag me in, tag me in!

    Dan, you naughty naughty boy:

    This necessarily means that if we can "falsify" (that is, demonstrate to be false) either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option.

    We've covered this ground before, haven't we? Say I have a glass with a colorless liquid. I think it's water. But when I stick it in the freezer, it doesn't turn to ice. Now I think it's ethanol. It could be, but I can't automatically be sure simply because it didn't freeze at 0 C.

    It could have been a raft of things above and below zero: acids, bases, water, alcohols, esters, etc. I proved it wasn't water, but I didn't prove what it was.

    I shouldn't need to explain how this analogy fits your deficient reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Stan,
    You said,
    "At what point do you guys have to stop and say that the story is fictional? At what point do the silly explanations put forth get too, well, silly?"

    It's not about logic or reason, Stan. These peeps have a huge emotional stake in this. You will be a skeleton with cob webs all over you and they will still be clinging to their irrational beliefs.

    For these guys to admit the flood is a metaphor would upend their whole magical world, and as it is easy to see, some people just haven't developed the coping skills to operate in the real world.

    You cannot reason with an emotionally driven person. They "feel" everything, they do not have the capacity to think.

    Put another way,
    Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

    That is why fundamentalist crave being martyrs and are convinced that they are always being treated unfairly.

    It is all emotions. No rational thought required.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Dan,

    Another thing:

    Sure, when people die they float when dinosaurs die they sink.

    Flotation is determined by density, a factor of which is bone density. Dinosaurs (however much you might not like it) are related to birds, who necessarily have a very low bone density in order to be able to fly. A low bone density would mean that the dead creature is more likely to float than sink.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Dan said,
    "Sure, when people die they float when dinosaurs die they sink. One can logically see that the people were decomposing on the surface (along with being eaten by critters and surviving animals) while Dinosaurs were being buried under the massive sediments stirred up by the floods. "

    And it says that in the bible where?

    There is nothing in the geologic column that supports that tripe in any manner.

    This is absurd.

    Please explain why in the geologic column the very simple life at the bottom progressing through more complicated near the top.

    You can't do it and you know full well you can't.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Dani'El,

    Naturalism has zero foundation in reality yet you cling to it "like a crutch".

    Evolution is a fairy tale that requires far more faith than christianity.
    An evolutionist must deny reality itself.


    You say things like that yet don't explain them. Telling yourself something over and over again doesn't make it true.

    Evolution requires more faith than Christianity? How?
    An evolutionist must deny reality itself? Is this the same 'reality' that you have been asked time and time again to prove, and for which you can only ever say "just you wait"?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Just think of the post-Flood mess. Water too fresh for salt-water creatures, but too saline for fresh-water fish, intensely muddy and filled with the decaying, rotting corpses of millions of animals and plants of varying toxicity. The air would likely have been a horrid, putrid miasma.

    Seeds which like it wet would have germinated almost immediately after the clouds cleared, but wouldn't have been able to keep their leaves uncovered in the roiling slop, and so would have drowned. Seeds which require a period of drying out before they sprout would have taken a long time to even start growing, assuming they could find soil.

    But really, all the talk of floating rafts or Noah taking seeds is decidedly unbiblical. Especially the seeds bit, as they weren't animals. The rest is all just wild guessing in the hopes that a fable makes some sort of sense aside from its allegorical meaning.

    Come on, guys. The meaning Aesop intended (for example) is clear despite the lack of anthropomorphic animals or boys literally crying "wolf!" Why should the Bible be read differently?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Dan,
    I stated:
    "In other words, Dan, aside from supporting your interpretation of the Bible, what does adhering to creationism (relative to interpreting life as we experience it and/or life relative to scientific inquiry) do for you and/or humanity?"

    And you responded:
    "That is irrelevant."

    Am I to infer from this answer, and what you state after it, that believing in creationism is useful only in so far as it will save you from hell?

    Beyond that, what good is it to the world of scientific inquiry? If we all believed the world and universe at large to be static and absolute (created and not constantly changing), there would be no reason to re-interpret old laws of science; we'd all still be living in mud huts. There would be no automobiles, no penicillin, no telephone, no lights, no computers – If we all adopted the Dan/Sye world view, then there’s no need to go searching around for answers.

    So again,
    Aside from what I’ve inferred (and correct me if I’m wrong) what good is believing the in the absolute truth of creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  92. All of you are ignoring the supernatural.

    I mean, we're talking about a God who spoke the universe into existence and you think seeds, survival of plants etc are impossible in the flood?

    Childsplay.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Yeah, but Dani, the Bible doesn't tell us that. Also the ICR and the Discovery Institute keep shoving pseudo-scientific explanations at us; and trying to push creation science on kids.

    It isn't science. If you're talking supernatural occurences based on nothing but faith and personal revelation, keep it out of science curricula.

    Discuss it in a philosophy or religious studies lesson.

    See where I'm coming from?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Mat 3:9 and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Sarah,
    Yes.
    But I disagree.

    If creationism is the truth, including the supernatural, then it is good science.
    You presuppose that science means no supernatural so you will deny any evidence of the supernatural.

    I understand some mathematicians get all bent out of shape when their colleagues start to talk about elegance in equations etc.
    That's just bad science to deny any evidence due to a rigid naturalist axiom.

    The way I see it, Philosophy is a science that overlaps with all the other sciences. Including theology.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Science as I understand it, is just testable observations of the world around us.

    Dani, not everyone encounters the supernatural... spirits, visions etc. There's no way of testing them.

    You cannot incorporate every story of fairies, angels, devils, shamen, zombies, ghosts etc into a system based on testing and observation. You cannot call them fact, when some people never experience them.

    Dani, I'm sure you've never met a Tolkein-esque Ent. If somebody said he had, would you be happy for your kids to be taught that Ents roamed the forests, shepherding trees?

    Can you see how the floodgates would be opened by allowing peoples personal beliefs - of which they have no proof but their own faith - into the educational mainstream?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Sarah,
    Maybe you need to start being rude to me.
    I hear the tractors are getting suspicious that you are a poe.
    -----------------------
    I should have gone further with my comment.
    I agree that it would be very difficult to teach specifically Christian Creationism in the schools.
    Esp the public lower schools.
    But the same should be true for evolution. Esp Evolution as fact as it often gets taught today.

    I do have a big problem with kids from christian schools being denied entrance to colleges due to their creationist studies.

    But in higher levels, universities etc.
    Things that like the extreme complexity of DNA and cell structures, the balance of the universe, basically intel design devoid of the biblical doctrines should be seriously studied and taught.
    But it is severely restricted, even viciously attacked.
    Shameful.

    That's not good science.
    And I define science as knowledge.
    Not knowledge devoid of the supernatural, or knowledge that denies evidence.
    Just knowledge.

    1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    ReplyDelete
  98. Dani I have no reason to be rude to you. Absolutely none. They don't think I'm a Poe, they were just discussing some parody comments that I posted on Ray's blog (The Berkley Brainwashing post).

    A couple of atheists fell for what I was saying, believing it to be true and started having a go. It just proves that there are idiots on both sides.

    I know some pig-ignorant, rude atheists. I think pig ignorance transcends faith or lack of.

    To be entirely honest, I was never particularly educated about evolution; so I don't know how much is established and how much is still in the hypothesis stage. However I believe that no untested hypothesis should be taught as fact.

    I intend to read a little more into the subject, but to be honest it's not that interesting to me.

    If you notice though, I don't offer too many opinions on the suject; I don't consider myself nearly qualified enough to talk about it.

    ReplyDelete
  99. All of you are ignoring the supernatural.

    I mean, we're talking about a God who spoke the universe into existence and you think seeds, survival of plants etc are impossible in the flood?

    Childsplay.


    That is damned funny, Dani. Really, really funny.

    Child's play, eh? This from a god who waited, what, four thousand years, at least, to fix the problem caused by sin? The same god who must've known that every single day which passed countless souls are condemned to eternity in hell? The same god who chose the flood mechanism in the first place?

    You guys crack me up. You try to make up "scientific" explanations for these fables when it suits you, and throw your hands up and say, "goddidit," when pressed.

    Every single stupid story we find in the bible is some asinine attempt at anthropomorphizing the idea of deity. Rather than continue the charade, why not admit that the bible is factually empty, and instead focus on the few good things which can be found within: the being nice to people stuff, for which the bible is unnecessary in the first place?

    Silly. Sure, Dani, god used his supernatural power to begin certain discrete natural processes which caused a flood which lasted a fortnight. This flood's effects lasted a further year, after which he magically made plants grow, spread out species into their natural climes, and cleaned up the rotting mess that was too much even for the aquatic life to take care of.

    Yep, I'll bet he decided to do some things the hard way, other things the easy way, and all just to test our silly notion of faith and reason. Such a card, that god...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  100. CC,

    Dani, I'm sure you've never met a Tolkein-esque Ent. If somebody said he had, would you be happy for your kids to be taught that Ents roamed the forests, shepherding trees?

    Are you coming on to me?

    PS - just read your POE post on Berkeley Brainwashing. Nice job! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  101. Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said: "Chemically, it's a simple process, but it evidently still took about a billion years from when the Earth was formed to begin."

    The age of the Earth is considered about 4.5 Billion years old. The oldest bacterial fossil traces around 3.8 Billion years old. However, when the system formed it was literally littered by asteroids and comets contantly bombarding the planet. All those impacts kept the surface of the Earth hot with molten rock. It took a few hundred million years for the bombardment to subside, and a few more hundred million years for the Earth to cool off enough for water to form oceans that didn't instantly boil off.

    So the time period we're looking at is a few hundred million up to a half-billion years for life to emerge.

    ReplyDelete
  102. FrodoSaves

    Yes, my Tolkein referencing is a clever ploy to make you notice me. In a sexy manner.

    Honestly, I only wrote that Poe out of sheer frustration. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

    Shocked that people fell for it, given that my profile and blog are awfully public.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Dani'El,
    "I do have a big problem with kids from christian schools being denied entrance to colleges due to their creationist studies."

    There is that fractured logic again.

    They don't get into the college because they have been ill-educated. They have never been taught real science.

    Many parents are not qualified to teach and the kids don't learn anything.

    Fundy home schoolers can only make it in bible schools and places like liberty university.

    Fundy parents are by default depriving their kids a chance to go to college for science.
    It's not the colleges fault.

    ReplyDelete
  104. CC,

    Yes, my Tolkein referencing is a clever ploy to make you notice me. In a sexy manner.

    I love it when my assumptions confirm my preexisting misconceptions. It's the easiest kind of science, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Sarah,
    I've never seen you over at Frodo's hole.

    You should come over.
    It's pretty hilarious stuff.

    And amen on the evolution.
    I don't know much about it other than it bores me to tears.

    Once I heard from God, why even bother?

    I hear all the arguments and they go from one ad hoc to another.
    When the truth is simple, God did it.

    Take that Stan! lol!

    Really, I started to wonder in the late 80's
    I was working for an audio visual co that produced speaker support materials. Overheads and slideshows etc before the screen presentations took over.
    Isn't that your father's gig?

    Well anyway, we used to do a lot of stuff for the bio-med companies in the bay area, and I saw the complexity of the cells, the complexity of DNA and although most of it was way over my head, I could see the idea that it was all an accident was nonsense.

    I would work with these research scientists to illustrate their lectures and I came to the conclusion that something was not right. These guys were so smart but so blind.

    I also saw enough photos of diseased eyes to give me nightmares for eternity!
    Don't miss the biz one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Froggie's right, I knew an intelligent lad (religious as they come) who had been home schooled. As a result he had to spend four extra years earning his high school qualifications in maths and science.

    They robbed him of four years earning potential, the swines!

    ReplyDelete
  107. FrodoSaves

    You know presupps drive me wild...

    Your combination of archaic tales of wizardly glory, along with relentlessly stubborn reasoning (and possible misogyny?) is more than I could ever resist.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I wasn't talking about homeschoolers specifically.
    If they can't pass entrance exams then that's it.

    And you should see the dopes they are turning out of the public schools in California.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Sarah,
    Do you like furry feet?

    Jews have furry toes too, y'know.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Jealous, Dani?

    Ahhh I didn't think FrodoSaves was an actual hobbit (how illogical!).

    He is the scribe of Frodology of course. A human with a very important job to do... oh yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  111. CC & Dani,

    Some might even call me a 'prophet'. I believe you are familiar with that word? ;)

    And plus, Dani, Jews may have furry toes, but they hide them by wearing shoes. It completely defeats the purpose, like when a hot woman wears clothes.

    Was that misogynistic enough for ya, CC? I do try.

    ReplyDelete
  112. lmao

    Sorry to be crude, but I have to print a "Prophets Get Me Wet" t-shirt.

    FrodoSaves... how old are you anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  113. After I baptise you, I'll get you a towel.

    That cleaned up nicely didn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  114. HA!!!!!!

    You're a perv!

    How funny is that?

    ReplyDelete
  115. I am not so old that, despite Dani's best efforts, I don't still find that hilarious. I definitely think that t-shirt would sell.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Guys, I'm gonna call it a night. I shall return :)

    ReplyDelete
  117. [Yup!
    There are christians in everyone of those countries.]
    @Dani'El
    Just because they are Christians doesn't mean they believe exactly the same stuff you do. The 2 largest denominations (Eastern Orthodox and Catholic) have said they don't really have anything against evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Amen MFT,
    But I was not referring to them.

    Haven't you heard of the things the Holy Spirit has been doing in the third world lately.
    Esp in the Middle east?

    Or in south america, central america, the Catholics are panicking as protestant churches are starting to pop up all over the place.
    Unfortunately some are the garbage exported from the US, y'know seeker friendly, mega HWP stuff.
    I don't know if you follow the Voice of the Martyrs or Persecution.com, but the church is growing in some amazing places lately.

    Amazing!
    Praise God!

    ReplyDelete
  119. Dani' El wrote:
    "All of you are ignoring the supernatural.

    I mean, we're talking about a God who spoke the universe into existence and you think seeds, survival of plants etc are impossible in the flood?
    "

    And you're ignoring the fact that if you're going to say "God miracled it," then there's no need whatsoever to try to make up "natural," unbiblical, ad hoc explanations like seeds on the Ark, hydrological sorting, a vapor canopy, a "moon pool" or plants growing on floating rafts in what would have been a worldwide sea of sewage.

    Such fabrications only serve to try to convince unbelievers that there is science behind the Flood. But that sort of science is demonstrably wrong, so you have to fall back on "God did it" at some point.

    But as soon as you say that, you destroy the foundations of science, which - as you know - include repeatability and falsifiability. "God did it" is neither, and as soon as you assert that God can change reality on a whim, you call into question every scientific result that has ever been gathered.

    God doesn't add to science, God can only reduce the scientific enterprise to "it works like this so long as God wills it to work like this," and then what's the point? God might change His mind tomorrow, and Earth will orbit Jupiter instead of the Sun. That sort of thing wouldn't shake anyone's faith, but it would certainly ruin science - all of science - forever.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Wrong Dave,
    God does what pleases Him.

    The flood itself was a supernatural act of God.

    Gen 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
    Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

    Yet Noah still was commanded to build an Ark and store food etc.
    God could have taken them up in a cloud, or many other supernatural ways, but the Ark was figurative of other things.
    Like Moses in his ark, or the church in these times.
    Redemption in general.

    So it was both what appeared to be natural, wood and nails, pitch, an ark etc.
    And supernatural, -
    Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    So there's nothing wrong with concluding that God did both in preserving and replanting, restoring the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Stan- nice fisking of the videos. I thought about doing it, but I didn't have the intestinal fortitude for the job. Props.

    You ask:

    At what point do you guys have to stop and say that the story is fictional? At what point do the silly explanations put forth get too, well, silly?

    For some people, there is apparently no such point. As Poe's Law rightly states, there is no satire of fundamentalism so silly that someone will not take it seriously. And conversely, there are seriously held beliefs that are nearly impossible to not see as satire. See the links below, for instance.

    Dan: you are right- just because Kent Hovind is a convicted felon, who fleeced millions of dollars from the gullible and lied about it, doesn't mean that he's not right about evolution. I admitted as much. And I admit that I have lied too. Yes, it was an ad hom. Mea culpa. But given the choice, wouldn't you rather take someone's word on something who doesn't have a financial stake in selling it and has been shown to be willing to lie for a large profit? Of course, it would be even better if you didn't take anyone's word on it, but did some research on your own.

    You say:

    The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, one of the oldest things written on Earth. Except maybe, Job in the Bible.

    The Epic of Gilgamesh is not the oldest thing written on Earth- there's lots of Egyptian stuff that's older. But it's the oldest written long story, as far as I know: bits of it survive on clay tablets from around 2000 B.C. The Book of Job, on the other hand, wasn't written down until much later: the Hebrews didn't even have a written language until around 900 B.C.

    By the way: did you know that Hebrew, and almost all the alphabets in the world, all derive from an alphabet developed in Egypt around 2000 B.C.? Arabic, Greek, Hindi, Thai, Roman, and Cyrillic letters, and so forth, all go back to that simplification of Egyptian hieroglyphs. The only major exception is the Korean alphabet, which was invented from scratch in the 1400's.

    Anyway, Dave W. replies to this:

    But it's funny as hell that you're using a work of fiction (Gilgamesh) to try to substantiate another work of fiction (the Bible).

    Speaking of which... Is this an instantiation of Poe's Law, or what?

    ExPatMatt- Merry Christmas to you too, and Happy New Year! As good pagans, we will be getting our tree today. A Super Saturnalia to you all!

    About Noah's Ark- here's as good an explanation as any for how all the animals got to the right places after the Flood. And in case there's any doubt about whether or not dinosaurs coexisted with people, this should take care of any lingering doubts.

    Seriously- why do you guys even bother contesting evolution at all? All you need to do is listen to Dani'el:

    All of you are ignoring the supernatural.

    I mean, we're talking about a God who spoke the universe into existence and you think seeds, survival of plants etc are impossible in the flood?

    Childsplay.


    It's like the classic bit of advice I learned as a kid:

    When in trouble, or in doubt,
    Run in circles, scream and shout.


    But more Biblical:

    When Bible and the facts don't fit,
    Just plug your ears, say "Goddidit".

    ReplyDelete
  122. When Darwin and the facts do not fit
    Ad hocs ad nauseum will charm the twit


    Your shot....

    ReplyDelete
  123. Pretty good, Dani'el. But mine scans better. And don't you ever get to bed?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Zilch,
    I do.
    But since I do not have a job apart from bringing this message, my hours have gone way off.

    I'm also in contact with folks in Israel and other places in the world so it has thrown my sleep cycle off.

    I find I can catch up on things late at night without as much distraction.

    Lately I've been getting to bed about 4am and getting up at 11 or 12. TMI?

    BTW. It's freezing in the bay area.
    We had hail in the City yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  125. As Poe's Law rightly states, there is no satire of fundamentalism so silly that someone will not take it seriously. And conversely, there are seriously held beliefs that are nearly impossible to not see as satire.

    An apt example of this, in my own experience, was during 6th grade at my Christian School, when our teacher brought in copies of a news article for all of us to ponder. The article was printed in a reputable (for Christians, anyway) publication, and described in gruesome detail what an abortion was, how 2 out of 3 American women over the age of 18 had one, and how the process by which abortion was legalized involved vast amounts of willful deceit on the part of unscrupulous organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

    (This was c. 1985)

    The article was by a reporter named "Eton Eritas".

    I don't fully recall all of the details of the article, but the above sums it up pretty nicely. In the years since this episode, I have been quite unable to find any documentation of this online, but I assure you, it did indeed occur.

    Perhaps Zilch's little toy will help to unravel the mystery:

    sɐʇıɹǝ uoʇǝ

    Yes? No?

    The reporter's name, backwards, is "Note Satire". Needless to say, it was lost on all who expected it to be true, and who wanted it to be true. It wasn't for another month or so that the true nature of the article was made known to us, and rather than admit the egg on their faces, the school chose instead to claim that they had known all along that the article was satire, but that its statements were nonetheless factual, or based on fact, and therefore worth our study.

    It's not egg on our faces, it's a new moisturizer, and we're using it intentionally...

    --
    Stan

    (Word verification: chille)

    ReplyDelete
  126. Dan, or anyone for that matter (this thread seems to have lost sense of itself);
    What is the fundamental argument here? Considering the post history, and by that I mean Dan’s main posts, it seems the argument style fits the same scheme as the False Dilemma. Consider that creationism is “C” and Evolution is “E”:

    1.) Either claim C is true of claim E is true
    2.) Claim E is false
    3.) Therefore claim C is true

    So the argument is, “If you Evolutionary theorists cannot come up with conclusive evidence of your theories, then creationism is right.” (Evidenced by the Bible of course)

    Further more, and this is the important part, claim C is not argued for; am I correct in that Mr. Theist Creationist? I am fine with ones use of the bible as evidence, however, where is the objective evidence that supports it’s claim to creationism outside of an appeal to authority?

    Although I’m certainly no creationist, I have no issue whatsoever with it as a theory in and of itself; so as I asked already, and no-one seemed to be able to respond (or simply disregarded it) what use does creationism have as a theory to science? As an example, what use is considering that biology has a static reality do you if what you view in the microscope changes and mutates? To put it another way, if we accept creationism, then we have to disregard our fundamental experience; yes/no? We have to say that what’s happening is, God created a new organism right there before our eyes, and there’s no underlying process behind it that we can use to predict, control and use to our benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Dani' El wrote:
    "Wrong Dave,
    God does what pleases Him.
    "

    That's what I said, and you say that's wrong?!

    "Yet Noah still was commanded to build an Ark and store food etc.
    God could have taken them up in a cloud, or many other supernatural ways, but the Ark was figurative of other things.
    "

    It certainly was figurative. Good job, Dani' El!

    "So there's nothing wrong with concluding that God did both in preserving and replanting, restoring the earth."

    There's only something "wrong" with it if you think that unbiblical, ad hoc explanations (which are demonstrably incorrect) that attempt to turn an allegory into reality are "wrong."

    In other words, if the answer to the question "how could a wooden boat of that size not snap in half in the roiling waters" was always "God did it" or "that's not the point of Genesis," then we wouldn't be discussing this because there wouldn't be a conflict with science.

    But that's not what happens. What happens is that psuedoscientific guesswork is employed to try to save naturalistic explanations for Noah's Flood, at least until they stack up into such a huge pile of nonsense that the literal-Noah defender is forced to say "God did it" and thus sweep it all under the rug.

    ReplyDelete
  128. We have to say that what’s happening is, God created a new organism right there before our eyes, and there’s no underlying process behind it that we can use to predict, control and use to our benefit.

    That would be a start. The Paradigm shift from evolution to Creation would be welcomed.

    OK I fully admit that our intellect cannot grasp the particulars of creation. I also admit that Science does attempt to find out the secrets of life through a reliable process. We are indeed in a conundrum; I personally cannot explain intellectually the Ark and life beginnings and you cannot explain logically how evolution explains how life expanded into new species.

    Until I get answers from God explaining the details and until you find overwhelming evidence explaining the details then we are all stuck.

    ReplyDelete
  129. CwC and Frodo,

    Remember 1 Corinthians 6:18 and 1 Corinthians 7:2 before you get a room.

    And am I invited to the wedding? I will bring good gifts. :=)

    ReplyDelete
  130. Dan, I stated:
    “We have to say that what’s happening is, God created a new organism right there before our eyes, and there’s no underlying process behind it that we can use to predict, control and use to our benefit.”

    You stated:
    That would be a start. The Paradigm shift from evolution to Creation would be welcomed.

    But that’s the problem Dan, this would be terribly damaging to science to take this view. It’s by virtue of an evolutionary stance that we come to understand the nature of change.


    You said:
    “….you cannot explain logically how evolution explains how life expanded into new species.”

    Dan,
    So what, the point isn’t whether or not we can establish absolute truth (as there isn’t any) the point, again, is whether or not it’s useful as a mode of thought; does it help us achieve the goals and breakthroughs that lead to a better life for all? Thinking in terms of evolution and it’s principles works to achieve this…. How does creationism assist us, how it a useful theory.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I asked "Dan: is String Theory scientific?"

    Dan responded with much, starting with this: Science is a process of falsification of hypotheses so technically no String is just one of many hypotheses/theories.

    I think the real answer is a bit less cut-and-dry, but yes - you're right. As far as I understand it today, String Theory is not science.

    Thanks, and nicely done.

    Now then - some of the reason that String Theory is so compelling is that it provides mathematical models that "seem to work". To date, all of our investigation of the natural world has revealed layer upon layer of elegant structure. Not just mathematical equations, but simple math that's capable of astounding complexity.

    This math is not scientific when it's not based on tangible data - but we have discovered an amazing amount about the universe by simply investigating and extrapolating from existing mathematical models.

    Math predicted background radiation from the Big Bang (measuring a temp of 3 degrees Kelvin), and soon afterwards, we found the radiation in reality. Math revealed the theory of general relativity. Math showed us that that less than an ounce of uranium could be turned into a bomb.

    In short, math can reveal clues. Not necessarily "fact", but hints that point to things we haven't discovered.

    String Theory is a prime example of this. And take note: science (ala. the physicist) has spent a lot of time and energy trying to validate a phenomenon for which we have no physical facts for.

    ---

    The theory of evolution? We actually have facts for that.

    However, like String Theory, it too encompasses stuff that we don't have all the facts for. We don't have a rigid scientific model for

    Earth --> Life --> Man

    Yet we have an awful lot of clues which suggest that the model excludes the possibility of

    Earth -- (God) --> Man.



    ---

    Christian critique of the theory of evolution ignores the fundamental fact that everything we've discovered seems to follow mathematical / physical rules. Stuff doesn't just "happen".

    Have evolutionists been guilty of proposing that slime evolved into the person typing this entry? Yup. To their credit, though, they're usually doing so in the process of defending the most successful methodology ever conceived of by man (re. science) from those not interested in fact or logic.

    ---

    I found the first clip to be ridiculous. A string of clips which I could barely understand the context of, smooshed together like a collection of "Zomg science bloopers LOL!" - as if this is particularly compelling.

    The second clip is more compelling, because it reveals questions that science definitely has not yet answered. valid questions, such as "How the freak did life here start?", etc. But ultimately, it conflates abiogenesis with the Big Bang with the ToE - an annoyingly common fallacy.

    And I find it remarkably dishonest for a group who rejects logic when it doesn't confirm their faith - to be using logic to critique science. The critique may be valid at times, but ultimately, the Critic doesn't give a flying eff you see kay about what logic has to say.

    As long as ID and Creationists continue to attack science as "illogical" without admitting that they don't give a rat's ass about logic, they'll continue to be viewed as without credibility

    ReplyDelete
  132. Dan said:

    "OK I fully admit that our intellect cannot grasp the particulars of creation. I also admit that Science does attempt to find out the secrets of life through a reliable process. We are indeed in a conundrum; I personally cannot explain intellectually the Ark and life beginnings and you cannot explain logically how evolution explains how life expanded into new species.

    Until I get answers from God explaining the details and until you find overwhelming evidence explaining the details then we are all stuck."

    This at least is an honest response, unlike your earlier (dare I say it - yes I do) arrogance in respect to my worldview. I think I am justified in my original statement - prove it scientifically or get out of the scientific arena. No untested hypothesis should be taught as scientific fact. End of story. If any untested evolutionary hypotheses are currently being taught as fact, this is also wrong.

    I would suggest that creation scientists spend more time researching and working on their hypothesis, and less time attacking those which are already established.

    The question remains as to how matter materialized in the first place. And to my mind, neither perspective can explain this satisfactorily.

    But lest we forget, evolution does not pretend to explain how matter manifested, so does not have to prove any claims on that front.

    Creationists - you have set the bar very high for yourselves. Just remember, your proof, evidently, is still pending.

    ReplyDelete
  133. CodewordConduit said: "The only proof you have that Yahweh is creator is entirely faith-based"

    How do you know that your reasoning about evolution is reliable?

    (Hey folks :-)

    ReplyDelete
  134. Sye said (to CWC):
    "How do you know that your reasoning about evolution is reliable?"

    Sye,
    how do you know it isn't? Further, she's not responsible for providing you a notion of reliability that your just going to reject anyway.

    As well,
    if she isnt' certain as to the reliability of her own reason, then why should you listen to her if she tells you (for example) the stove is hot?

    If you think her reasoning is reliable enough on the matter of the stove, then in what way is it not reliable on the matter of evolution?

    In other words, who cares what she thinks, if you yourself are reasonable enough you should be able to test the reliability of her claims on your own without her accounting for them on your contrived terms.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Sye,
    Are the Ten Commandments absolute truths/ morals?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Dan,

    Remember 1 Corinthians 6:18 and 1 Corinthians 7:2 before you get a room.

    And am I invited to the wedding? I will bring good gifts. :=)


    Sorry Dan, it'll be a hobbit wedding, you have to leave your scripture at the door.

    :P

    ReplyDelete
  137. Froggie said: "Are the Ten Commandments absolute truths/ morals?"

    Yes

    ReplyDelete
  138. Andrew said: "In other words, who cares what she thinks"

    Just making the point that anything she claims to know is 'entirely faith-based.'

    ReplyDelete
  139. Sye said...

    Yes

    Thanks for clearing that up. I'm totally convinced now. Where do I sign?

    ReplyDelete
  140. Sye said:

    "How do you know that your reasoning about evolution is reliable?"

    Isn't it obvious? Because God exists, I am working within all the absolutes that he has provided.

    One of those absolutes involves an absolute standard of reasoning. Ironically this reasoning leads me to believe in my senses (reliable because God exists), senses which tell me that there is no proof for God's existence (my absolute proof is based on the presupposition of God's existence).

    So by presupposing that God exists, and using the absolutes granted via this knowledge, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that God does not exist.

    Confusing, no?

    ReplyDelete
  141. CodewordConduit said: "Confusing, no?"

    Evading yes.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Sye,

    Evading yes.

    Double standards much?

    ReplyDelete
  143. Now I'm sure you can do better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  144. CodewordConduit said: "Now I'm sure you can do better than that."

    I can, but I have decided to seek answers to the questions I pose :-)

    ReplyDelete
  145. I haven't read the replies to my latest post yet. I say that only to explain I'm here to answer one of the questions Dan asked me:

    Of course I've seen The Elegant Universe. I own the book (dog-eared) and the DVD.

    I've got a bunch of material you might enjoy, including a NOVA series titled "Genius". It's 4 episodes from the show on various people who changed the face of science: Galileo, Newton, Einstein and (your fav) Darwin. All a bit dry, typical of PBS, but reall informative - and fairly entertaining.

    My commute is a minimum 3 hours each day, so I spend a lot of time in the car. I just purchased the audio book A Briefer History of Time. It's fantastic so far...

    If you have a place I can upload ~50mb of MP3s, I'll put em up for you...

    ReplyDelete
  146. I think you'll find that I answered your question satisfactorily. If you have trouble understanding any part of the answer, then do tell me and I'll try to explain it to you. I would hate to think that you didn't understand what I'd said (based on our shared absolute understanding granted by our shared presupposition).

    ReplyDelete
  147. CodewordConduit said: "I think you'll find that I answered your question satisfactorily."

    I know that you have to assume my worldview in order to argue against my worldview, but let's stick to what you actually profess to believe. I'm not interested in games.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Sye wrote Just making the point that anything she claims to know is 'entirely faith-based.'

    Just making the point that I find it highly entertaining that you're trying to insult someone by claiming they utilize faith.

    When theists use the basis of their own belief system in the perjorative, there's fun afoot!

    ReplyDelete
  149. Whateverman said: "Just making the point that I find it highly entertaining that you're trying to insult someone by claiming they utilize faith."

    Where was the insult???

    ReplyDelete
  150. CodeWord Conduit said: "Except word games, evidently."

    Also not.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Sye, can I help it if the absolutes granted to you and I by the very existence of God also serve as a powerful tool to indicate his entire non-existence?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Codeword Conduit said: "Sye, can I help it if the absolutes granted to you and I by the very existence of God also serve as a powerful tool to indicate his entire non-existence?"

    Just answer the question please.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Sye,
    you said:
    "Just making the point that anything she claims to know is entirely faith-based."

    You've actually said something I agree with; BRAVO!

    My point in the rest of my post still stand though…. You see, I don’t care too much for points that hinge upon privilege access (but that’s just me), what’s more important is how our beliefs (faiths) hang together, how useful are they, how do they impact our homogeneity as a society, how do they improve life in the here and now and for our great-great-grand children, so on.

    But yes, Sye, I’ll (and I may be the only one) will give you the tip of the hat on that sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Andrew said: "what’s more important is how our beliefs (faiths) hang together, how useful are they, how do they impact our homogeneity as a society, how do they improve life in the here and now and for our great-great-grand children, so on."

    I'm only concerned with their truth.

    ReplyDelete
  155. You want to know what I believe?

    IF perceived logic, reasoning and moral absolutes are proof of God,

    THEN evidently God exists.

    Unfortunately these absolutes certainly do not serve to prove God's existence, aside from the notion that their very existence is enough to do so.

    We are left in a catch-22 whereby existence of said absolutes prove the existence of said God, but in their utilization can serve to disprove certain assertations made by organized religion.

    If, as you claim, my reasoning is set by a predetermined standard of reasoning set by God; then utilization of such reasoning is proof of God's existence and I am presupposing subconsciously, by default.

    I'm down with that. But my conscious mind believes that while obviously I am incapable of assuming any absolute without knowledge of God, my conscious mind is not aware of God.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Codeword Conduit said: "You want to know what I believe?"

    No, I want an answer to my question, according to what you actually believe. How do you know that your reasoning about evolution is reliable?

    ReplyDelete
  157. You've actually said something I agree with

    If by "entirely faith-based" you're implying solipsism is a viable alternative, I would agree with that sentiment.

    However, this imaginary universe seems to be remakably ordered. It follows rules, and is predictable to a point.

    That an illusion should have a complex and logical ruleset (as opposed to being chaotic and unpredictabile) is evidence that it is not a complete hoax.

    In this sense, it is a logical inference that reality is real. As such, believing it is not entirely faith based.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Sye,
    so we're polar opposites (oh well),
    consider this:
    'one man is a convinced realist, another a convinced idealist, and each teaches his child to cross the road accordingly'.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Whateverman said: "As such, believing it is not entirely faith based."

    How do you know that your reasoning about this is reliable?

    ReplyDelete
  160. Sye:

    "No, I want an answer to my question, according to what you actually believe. How do you know that your reasoning about evolution is reliable?"

    The same utilization of reason that leads me to make my statements is the same utilization of reason that leads you to make your statements.

    If you choose to believe that without God said utilization is impossible, fine. I will adopt the same hypothesis and together we will test this hypothesis.

    You argue that any for of reasoning be it an atheist's or theist's is based on absolutes set by the God you belive in. This means that you must believe in the reasoning method utilized by another; as it's spark is divine.

    Every single statement that I make to you is under the umbrella of this hypothesis (God provides reasoning).

    ReplyDelete
  161. Whateverman, I have a response for you, but food awaits.

    Sye,
    that fits.

    INTJ here

    ReplyDelete
  162. Sye asked How do you know that your reasoning about this is reliable?

    I don't know that it is. I have hesitant faith that it is - which means that I'm willing to consider the alternative if information calls this faith into doubt.

    No absolute standard or knowledge needed.

    Reality and my perception of it are conditionally acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Codeword Conduit said: "The same utilization of reason that leads me to make my statements is the same utilization of reason that leads you to make your statements."

    Please answer my question. How do you know that your reasoning about evolution is reliable?

    ReplyDelete
  164. ANdrew said: "INTJ here"

    When I did the big Myers-Briggs test I came up INTJ, but that was years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Oh I don't know for sure that I'm not insane, if that's what you're getting at.

    Now I ask you a question.

    How do you know that any of your reasoning is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Whateverman said: "I don't know that it is. I have hesitant faith that it is "

    Which brings us back to my point; Everything she (and you) claims to know is "entirely faith-based."

    ReplyDelete
  167. Codeword Conduit said: "Oh I don't know for sure that I'm not insane, if that's what you're getting at."

    Nope, just looking for an answer to my question: How do you know that your reasoning about evolution is reliable?

    ReplyDelete
  168. I never claimed to "know". Short of beginning everything I say with "In my opinion..." I'm rather at a loss as to how to phrase things.

    You assumed that I claimed to "know". I do not claim ultimate knowledge, I speak from personal experience only. Okay?

    Now answer my question.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Codeword Conduit said: "You assumed that I claimed to "know". I do not claim ultimate knowledge, I speak from personal experience only. Okay?"

    What have you personally experienced about evolution, and how do you know that those experiences, and your reasoning about them are reliable? Or, are you conceding that you do not 'know' anything about evolution, and that everything that you believe about it is "entirely faith-based?"

    ReplyDelete
  170. Oh Sye...

    Have I ever said that I believe the theory of evolution, in it's entirety, to be either fact or fiction?

    ReplyDelete
  171. Me... earlier in this thread:


    "To be entirely honest, I was never particularly educated about evolution; so I don't know how much is established and how much is still in the hypothesis stage. However I believe that no untested hypothesis should be taught as fact.

    I intend to read a little more into the subject, but to be honest it's not that interesting to me.

    If you notice though, I don't offer too many opinions on the suject; I don't consider myself nearly qualified enough to talk about it."

    ReplyDelete
  172. Shalom brother Sye,

    I was wondering how pressup apologetics could be applied to evolution.

    Glad you showed up.

    I smell another long thread coming!

    ReplyDelete
  173. Whateverman said: "I don't know that it is. I have hesitant faith that it is "

    Sye responded Which brings us back to my point; Everything she (and you) claims to know is "entirely faith-based."

    I'm pretty sure I cast enough doubt on "entirely" to warrant that you (if you're honest) reconsider...

    ReplyDelete
  174. Dani'el wrote I smell another long thread coming!

    Wont happen - or at least, I wont contribute to it.

    Christian presupposition is no more than a dishonest attempt to validate the christian's faith. It has nothing to say about any subject that can't be boiled down to "{affirmation} because the Bible says so".

    Which is actually far more honest than using linguistics to avoid real discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Codeword Conduit said: "Have I ever said that I believe the theory of evolution, in it's entirety, to be either fact or fiction?"

    No, but you did say to Dan: "The only proof you have that Yahweh is creator is entirely faith-based" I was only concerned with demonstrating that anything you claim to know, or believe, about evolution, is "entirely faith-based."

    ReplyDelete
  176. Whateverman said: "Christian presupposition is no more than a dishonest attempt to validate the christian's faith."

    How do you know that your reasoning about this is reliable?

    ReplyDelete
  177. Yes, but I don't insist that everything I find to be personally true will result in a torturous eternity for those who fail to adhere to my nelief system. I also refrain from pushing what I do or don't believe through the political process. I do not justify the voluntary administration of physical pain onto a victim who does not wish it using my faith-based opinions.

    That's the difference, mate.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Whateverman said: "Christian presupposition is no more than a dishonest attempt to validate the christian's faith."


    Sye bleated How do you know that your reasoning about this is reliable?

    Repeating the same question over and over implies

    A) you have nothing of substance to say

    B) you tacitly admit the validity of the criticism.

    Be honest, Sye: you don't like admitting that your argument is nothing more than a demonstration of your faith in the Bible. Aka: it's not an argument.

    EDIT: spelling

    ReplyDelete
  179. Dan’ El said: ”I was wondering how pressup apologetics could be applied to evolution.”

    Actually, the application is more indirect at this point, I’m only addressing their ability to argue about evolution. If I granted them their ability to argue, which I am loathe to do, I would take a similar approach to the one I took with Josh; How does evolution give one ‘truth?’ If evolution were true, there would be no reason to believe it to be true, since the evolved person would be subject to the bio-chemical processes of their brains, not rational thought, in order to determine ‘truth.’

    C.S. Lewis said: ”The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.”

    And Douglas Wilson said: ”If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions”

    ReplyDelete
  180. Oh Sye, don't quote C.S. Lewis at Dan!

    Not a fan, are you Dani?

    ReplyDelete
  181. Sye,
    in an effort to keep on topic; what are your thoughts on the creationism vs. evolution debate?

    ReplyDelete
  182. Sye shows up again with his sophomoric solipsism. Sheesh.

    It's not faith, Sye, when it's impossible to know any differently than one does. At that point, whether one is sane or insane becomes irrelevant. The only other option is becoming so overwhelmed by doubt that it would be impossible to function at all.

    But this will be lost on you, of course, because it denies your faith and is thus impossible (according to you).

    ReplyDelete
  183. Codeword Conduit said: ”Yes, but I don't insist that everything I find to be personally true will result in a torturous eternity for those who fail to adhere to my belief system.”

    Either do I. “Truth” is not person relative.

    ”I also refrain from pushing what I do or don't believe through the political process.”

    I doubt that.

    ” I do not justify the voluntary administration of physical pain onto a victim who does not wish it using my faith-based opinions.”

    Me neither.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Andrew said: "Sye,
    in an effort to keep on topic; what are your thoughts on the creationism vs. evolution debate?"


    Largely misguided. Arguing evolution with an evolutionist, is granting him/her that which evolution cannot give them, namely: truth, knowledge, and reason.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Sarah-Oh Sye, don't quote C.S. Lewis at Dan!
    Not a fan, are you Dani?


    I knew you'd be on that Sarah.

    Just proves what I said about Lewis.
    A mix of cleverly written truths, and pagan imagery. (Narnia)

    Cyanide Kool Aid.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Dave W. said: "It's not faith, Sye, when it's impossible to know any differently than one does."

    What is it then Dave, and how do you know this?

    ReplyDelete
  187. Yeah, I phrased the politcal process thing poorly.

    Apologies.

    What I meant to say is that I don't push potentially violent (in my opinion) beliefs through the political process.

    Death penalty etc.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Whateverman said: "Repeating the same question over and over implies
    A) you have nothing of substance to say
    B) you tacitly admit the validity of the criticism."


    C) You haven't answered it.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Sye- Largely misguided. Arguing evolution with an evolutionist, is granting him/her that which evolution cannot give them, namely: truth, knowledge, and reason.

    Bingo!
    That's spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Sye wrote Arguing evolution with an evolutionist, is granting him/her that which evolution cannot give them, namely: truth, knowledge, and reason.

    I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of this.

    Arguing with an evolutionist can take many forms. It might be a critique of the evidence; it might involve the teaching of it as fact in schools (despite the gaps). It might also be that it conflicts with Creationism.

    None of these arguments gives the evolutionist truth, knowledge or reason.

    Or were you just harping on the old God gave us logic thing, and ignoring the topic at hand?

    ReplyDelete
  191. Sarah, What I meant to say is that I don't push potentially violent (in my opinion) beliefs through the political process.

    Abortion?

    I know your views on abortion are not as liberal as some.
    But are you pro-choice?
    There's a lot of militant abortion advocates.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Codeword Conduit said: "What I meant to say is that I don't push potentially violent (in my opinion) beliefs through the political process."

    Either do I (in my opinion :-)

    ReplyDelete

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