tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post8995789400127652633..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Creation Predictions Confirmed by Science.D. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-52015802355439316552016-04-22T18:25:28.289-04:002016-04-22T18:25:28.289-04:00What's YOUR definition of "testable, repe...What's YOUR definition of "testable, repeatable, and verifiable"? Can you demonstrate Darwinian Evolution? Give me 1 observable, repeatable example of a change of kinds, as mentioned by Darwin. Just 1. And you know - something I can observe myself.<br />Go ahead, I'll wait.<br />One biological organism changing into another kind. When was it observed, and when will it be repeated?<br />You believe what you've been taught. You've never witnessed, and you never will, Darwinian Evolution.M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01508524055179094736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-6774669845146292642013-11-11T08:30:00.162-05:002013-11-11T08:30:00.162-05:00just out of curiousity DI Ken Ham stand for "...just out of curiousity DI Ken Ham stand for "Deluded Individual" Ken Ham? :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12780902598780811023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-37510398117619609382013-11-11T08:28:08.422-05:002013-11-11T08:28:08.422-05:00It's called moving the goalpost falacy :)) But...It's called moving the goalpost falacy :)) But the thing is the field can only be SO BIG:)) at one point they would have to say i was wrong and we do know how religious people hate the "I'm wrong" or "I don't know" :))Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12780902598780811023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-51125030847532241802012-06-10T07:10:10.885-04:002012-06-10T07:10:10.885-04:00Smart post and so good blog
thanks for you good i...Smart post and so good blog <br />thanks for you good information and i hope to subscribe and visit my blog <a href="http://www.ancientgreece.me/2012/03/gods-and-mortals-in-dark-age-of-greece.html" rel="nofollow"> Ancient Greece Gods </a> and more <a href="http://www.ancientgreece.me/" rel="nofollow"> Ancient Greece Facts </a> thanks again adminBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240272162859229548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-34551112295273699032010-07-27T07:10:40.760-04:002010-07-27T07:10:40.760-04:00"G", I just read through many of the pos..."G", I just read through many of the posts again and can clearly see that I'm not the only one (though I never doubt the knowledge of the regulars here) who has shown you and Dan repeatedly that your claims & understanding concerning pseudogenes and the scientific community are absolutely wrong. <br />Dan & "G", Please explain to me why you chose to ignore the citations offered that demonstrate this and continue to act as if they do not exist. The evidence offered shows that this post is at best yo are misinformed and at worst you are knowingly perpetuating a lie.<br /><br />~ACAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-9392834169130020942010-07-26T21:32:33.630-04:002010-07-26T21:32:33.630-04:00So you copied this post over there as symbolic fle...So you copied this post over there as symbolic flexing after defeating evolution I assume based on you comment. Did you miss the part where I provided a list of papers I mentioned? Did you not notice these papers show that it was expected that there was a potential functions for non-coding DNA? Did it slip by you that most of the papers predate 2003 and some of them are even 30+ years older?! <br /><br />This truly does demonstrates that you guys are willfully ignorant concerning the subject of evolution. <br /><br />~ACAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-59809969180871849112010-07-26T15:20:29.229-04:002010-07-26T15:20:29.229-04:00lol that would certainly be appropriate, you seem ...lol that would certainly be appropriate, you seem to be in your own matrix like dream world.BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-44438432256335357422010-07-26T15:16:19.009-04:002010-07-26T15:16:19.009-04:00.
Dan, if you don't mind I stuck this over at....<br /><br /><b>Dan</b>, if you don't mind I stuck this over at my <a href="http://disussinggod.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Discussing God</a> site.<br /><br />I sorta feel like Neo after defeating the "G-Men" at the end, and he flexes and the walls are moved by his "prowess." This was fun.<br /><br />.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-37075944900512915802010-07-26T15:07:47.637-04:002010-07-26T15:07:47.637-04:00.
So, to be clear. You would agree with me that s....<br /><br />So, to be clear. You would agree with me that science is...<br /><br /><i>“... the human activity of seeking <b>logical</b> explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”</i><br /><br />and not, <br /><br /><i>“Science is the human activity of seeking <b>natural</b> explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”</i><br /><br />Phillip E. Johnson, <i>The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism</i> (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 68 (emphasis added).<br /><br />This was the whole flap in Kansas years ago. If you chose the first one as a good definition of science, I would be so happy. But, I doubt this will happen.<br /><br />I do work very part time for a friend (Mon, Wed, and Friday about 3 hours a day). So I am off to grab a few bucks. I am about done here -- I am like a cat who plays with a toy for a while and then moves on. <b>Chimp</b>, if you choose the blue pill and not the red, I may return.<br /><br />You guys should check out the business keeping me partially employed. They are at the top of my blog and the bottom banner ad... Kinda Cool.<br /><br />.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-45927729288744984782010-07-26T14:41:12.018-04:002010-07-26T14:41:12.018-04:00“G” said, “Your statement, "Evolutionary Biol...<b>“G” said, “Your statement, "Evolutionary Biology is not Philosophy," if it holds to a rigid materialism that is that is presumed a priori before evidence is categorized in the scientists/biologists mind, your statement is self-referentially defeating.”</b><br /><br />It only seems self defeating to someone who doesn’t understand the difference. There is a philosophy of science, but though you might use that while applying the scientific method, that does not make the conclusion you draw a philosophy. If you do have issue with the Philosophy of science that looks for ‘natural’ explanations and excludes ‘super natural’ explanations, please explain why this is wrong to do, and what evidence you have to support your claims. If your issue is not with the exclusion of the ‘super natural’ from scientific research, then please share in detail what your exact issue is. My comment still stands, Evolutionary Biology and its theories are no a philosophy.<br /><br /><b>“Mute.”</b><br /><br />That’s the most intelligent thing you’ve said so far.<br /><br /><b>” Okay, now for my main point related to your post followed by two examples in my minds eye of good science. (I bet you are waiting with bated breath!)”</b><br /><br />You give yourself far too much credit. So far you have shared with us are the standard strawmen and rhetoric that I’ve seen over and over. You have shown you have little to no understanding of science or evolutionary biology. I could make comments on what followed but though the material you offer is nothing new to me, I would rather view the videos in their entirety before I post a response.<br /><br />I will say this much, what you have offered in no way refutes the theory of evolution and I really do not understand what the point of sharing it since you seem to agree with that.<br /><br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-38521483510826864632010-07-26T12:17:57.262-04:002010-07-26T12:17:57.262-04:00Sorry about that, the blog kept telling me it coul...Sorry about that, the blog kept telling me it couldn't post my comment. I deleted the duplicates.<br /><br />~ACAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-22881599242494197602010-07-26T12:12:39.370-04:002010-07-26T12:12:39.370-04:00.
This is another key area not well defined. Than....<br /><br />This is another key area not well defined. Thank you <b>Chimp</b> for bringing it up... it eventually does... in every discussion like this. May I say quickly before I make my main point, "<i><b>evolutionary</b></i> biology" is not scientific. <i>IF</i>, that is, you define evolutionary biology in the "Darwinian" context I mention <b><a href="http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/07/defining-terms-between-two-sides-of-an-issue-creationintelligent-design-and-evolutiondarwinism/" rel="nofollow">here</a></b>.<br /><br />Your statement, <i>"Evolutionary Biology is not Philosophy,"</i> if it holds to a rigid materialism that is that is presumed <i>a priori</i> before evidence is categorized in the scientists/biologists mind, your statement is self-referentially defeating. Mute.<br /><br />Okay, now for my main point related to your post followed by two examples in my minds eye of good science. (I bet you are waiting with bated breath!)<br /><br /><i>"The proponents of a theory, in science or elsewhere [in criminal court], are obligated to support every link in the chain of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of the theory, testing it for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any theory of his own or to offer any alternative explanations. He can be purely negative if he so desires."</i><br /><br />(Norman MacBeth in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Retried-Appeal-Norman-Macbeth/dp/0876451059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280160409&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">Darwin Retried: An Appeal To Reason</a>. He is a Harvard Trained Lawyer; this statement appeared as well in the Yale Review in 1967.)<br /><br />Okay, like I said, while these two examples do not necessarily disprove evolution or even ultimately its dating... we could discover something that explains this in the future... I view them as good science. But for now the evolutionist would have to posit materialism or neo-Darwinian evolutionary positions (What I call: <i><b>Evolution of the gaps</b></i>) to refute them. These two examples do however exhibit <i>what science is</i>. Which is, again: <br /><br /><b>Science is: observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.</b><br /><br /><a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2009/11/helium-leaks-show-earth-is-young-dr.html" rel="nofollow">Helium Leaks Show the Earth is Young - Dr. Russell Humphreys</a><br /><br /><a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2009/03/catastrophic-geology-experiments-in.html" rel="nofollow">Catastrophic Geology - Experiments in Stratification</a><br /><br />.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89628801012516317072010-07-26T12:02:23.311-04:002010-07-26T12:02:23.311-04:00The amount of Junk DNA eliminated with the recent ...The amount of Junk DNA eliminated with the recent research was about .03%. That barely puts a dent in the very large quantity we are aware of. Also, in an article in New Scientist it says:<br /><br />“While many bits of DNA that do not code for proteins are turning out to have some function or other, this was predicted by some all along, and the overall proportion of our DNA with a proven function remains tiny.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/special/unknown-human-genome" rel="nofollow"> Genome at 10: What we still don't know about our DNA</a><br /><br />Dan the people or sources that would lead you to believe that the science world did not predict some function in some of the Junk DNA long before 2003 are incorrect. The fact that the research that showed the function was by evolutionary biologist not creationist alone is very telling . <br /><br />Dan, if you still doubt that they predicted this and wish to learn more please read the article <a href="http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/04/word-about-junk-dna/" rel="nofollow">A word about “junk DNA”</a> written by an evolutionary biologist. In it he offers these examples that show this is incorrect, <b>”Those who complain about a supposed unilateral neglect of potential functions for non-coding DNA simply have been reading the wrong literature. In fact, quite a lengthy list of proposed functions for non-coding DNA could be compiled (for an early version, see Bostock 1971). Examples include buffering against mutations (e.g., Comings 1972; Patrushev and Minkevich 2006) or retroviruses (e.g., Bremmerman 1987) or fluctuations in intracellular solute concentrations (Vinogradov 1998), serving as binding sites for regulatory molecules (Zuckerkandl 1981), facilitating recombination (e.g., Comings 1972; Gall 1981; Comeron 2001), inhibiting recombination (Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995), influencing gene expression (Britten and Davidson 1969; Georgiev 1969; Nowak 1994; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995; Zuckerkandl 1997), increasing evolutionary flexibility (e.g., Britten and Davidson 1969, 1971; Jain 1980; reviewed critically in Doolittle 1982), maintaining chromosome structure and behaviour (e.g., Walker et al. 1969; Yunis and Yasmineh 1971; Bennett 1982; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995), coordingating genome function (Shapiro and von Sternberg 2005), and providing multiple copies of genes to be recruited when needed (Roels 1966).”</b><br /><br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-52138946478660068782010-07-26T11:11:13.197-04:002010-07-26T11:11:13.197-04:00G said, “If one follows the book of nature alone, ...<b> G said, “If one follows the book of nature alone, what justification does he or she have in saying such acts are morally wrong.”</b> <br /><br />Your comment is pointless “G”. Evolutionary Biology is not Philosophy. If you or anyone would think to follow science or nature as a source of philosophy, they are misunderstanding its purpose. I no more would think to use evolution to develop my ethics anymore than oceanography or geology.<br /><br /><b>”Because if Darwinian evolution is the story, then there are no absolute ethics.”</b><br /><br />Are you claiming that ethics are absolute? If so, please show me what evidence you have that they are absolute.<br /><br />“G”, so far all I’ve seen a poor understanding of science packaged in a lot of rhetoric. Also you don’t really seem to be talking about the science. Why is it that you are talking about anything other than the actual science? What does it matter about what someone incorrectly draws from it? What does the possibility of misinformation in a book have to do with it being correct or not? If either of these things are a problem, I agree we should update the books and better educate people on how to apply scientific information, but that does not make any of it incorrect. <br /><br />Evolutionary biology is science so I’m interested in hearing what scientific evidence you have to support your claim that ToE is incorrect. Even if you were able to show valid issues with ToE, that does not mean your view would become the default. I would like to see how the hypothesis you support better explains the evidence at hand.<br /><br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-6157405354869125652010-07-26T00:33:22.356-04:002010-07-26T00:33:22.356-04:00.
What a great example you gave a Democratic raci....<br /><br />What a great example you gave a Democratic racism. The question still remains however. If one follows the book of nature alone, what justification does he or she have in saying such acts are morally wrong. Because if Darwinian evolution <i>is</i> the story, then there are no absolute ethics. So moral "duty" is merely the current popular vote. What, in nature, can you use to say, <a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2009/04/evolution-and-meaning-of-life-summary.html" rel="nofollow">"this is absolutely wrong."</a><br /><br /><br /><br />In fact, <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/red-in-tooth-and-claw.html" rel="nofollow">red in tooth and claw</a> is the story of materialistic evolution. So your example you gave me is intrinsic to the evolutionary paradigm. Rape has been advantageous in our evolutionary past, it may be again in the future, and naturalists will tell that rape today is instinctual "fodder" left over from our naturalistic past. So is dumping babies in dumpsters, murder, etc. So if naturalism is true, and Dawkins and Bill Maher are right that Christians (or any religious peoples) are mentally ill and that religion is merely a byproduct of evolution, <a href="http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/07/society-as-the-whole-excerpted-from-the-book-relativism-feet-planted-firmly-in-mid-air/" rel="nofollow">where does that leave your massacre?</a><br /><br />Mussolini will tell you. He had a masters in philosophy:<br /><br /><i>“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”</i><br /><br />.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-77701934103284983582010-07-26T00:09:51.245-04:002010-07-26T00:09:51.245-04:00The question, of course, would have to be, are we ...The question, of course, would have to be, are we more like angels, or do we occasionally <a href="http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/04/the-tulsa-massacre-1921/" rel="nofollow">erase towns from existence</a> because we can?<br /><br />You know, it's your choice. Either good, churchgoing people killed a bunch of black folks for being uppity, or... well, really there's no other choice, is there?<br /><br />Maybe the problem isn't the number of racists getting outed, it's the ability of people to measure the reports. To put it another way, maybe we get more reports because the system can record it better.<br /><br />And maybe you're just a lying idiot, like so many people have said.The Real Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530062576195556060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-66643884013337897682010-07-25T20:55:42.321-04:002010-07-25T20:55:42.321-04:00.
Again, children. Straw-men galore.
Real World,....<br /><br />Again, children. Straw-men galore.<br /><br /><b>Real World</b>,<br /><br />While these next three short jaunts through history do not have anything to do with evolution, you may benefit from their historical value. I will post a link as well to an interview Michael Medved has with an author. Enjoy.<br /><br /><a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2009/03/great-black-patriots-from-american.html" rel="nofollow">Great Black Patriots From American History (Part 1)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-bondage-to-halls-of-congress-part.html" rel="nofollow">From Bondage To the Halls of Congress (Part 2)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2009/03/civil-rights-movement-part-3.html" rel="nofollow">The Civil Rights Movement (Part 3)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2010/03/rev-wayne-perryman-speaks-with-michael.html" rel="nofollow">The Rev. Wayne Perryman Speaks With Michael Medved About Historic Democratic Racism</a><br /><br />.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-69917841782182659582010-07-25T14:54:03.680-04:002010-07-25T14:54:03.680-04:00Of course! It all makes sense now! Darwin publishe...Of course! It all makes sense now! Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859! And it was only 3 years later that Lincoln signed his Enslavement Proclamation, which consigned all races but the white to servititude!<br /><br />Why hasn't anyone realized this before!The Real Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530062576195556060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-88469282069684301562010-07-25T08:40:25.924-04:002010-07-25T08:40:25.924-04:00.
Welcome back Oranges. you are always welcome in....<br /><br />Welcome back <b>Oranges</b>. you are always welcome in my book friend. I wouldn't want to discard science, however, <i>scientism</i> we can do without. But this has nothing to do with racism. I am merely showing that these two worldviews (materialism, philosophical naturalism, dialectics, whatever) do not have to be <i>a priori</i> believed for science to advance.<br /><br />To <a href="http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/quotes/" rel="nofollow">quote</a> the atheist and author, <b>Bradley Monton</b> (<i>Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design</i>):<br /><br /><i>"...But in fact, Newton does not endorse methodological naturalism. In his Opticks, Newton claims that God sometimes intervenes in the world.... Newton’s own approach to physics provides a good counterexample to this—Newton is a leading contributor to the scientific worldview, and yet he does not bind himself by the assumption of uninterruptible natural law."</i><br /><br />This is the main point I make all throughout this discussion. My main modus operandi. One way of doing this is by showing the wide-gulf between the two worldviews of a totally "secularized" worldview and its lack of conferring on mankind (and women kink <b>Laura</b>) something greater than being merely an animal.<br /><br />I am not here to defend YEC, all I am here for ultimately is to get people to cock there head and go, <i>"hmmm... science (good science) marches forward whether one is an I.D.'er, young earther, atheist..."</i> This is the start of healthy <b>dialogue</b>, and would keep people from both sides from the extremes of absolutism, or, ideology. <br /><br /><i>This</i> is ideology/scientism, not science:<br /><br /><i>"Naturalism and materialism are not scientific conclusions; rather, they are scientific premises. They are not discovered in nature but imposed upon nature. In short, they are articles of faith. Here is Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, <b>because we have a priori commitment, a commitment -- a commitment to materialism.</b> It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”</i> (Dinesh D’Souza)<br /><br />This presupposed - unscientific - belief is not necessary. Again, I am not under the false pretense that I will convert anyone here to a moment where you will fall to your knees in the joyful exclamation that "Yes, I believe! The earth is only 6,000 years old." A person is a Christian whether he or she believes the earth is 6,000 years old or eternal. As persons, we convolute everything we touch (Reformational theology speaking). God is bigger than our misuses of his gifts.<br /><br />But for me to <i>at the least</i> or <i>minimally</i> convey that materialism is not needed for good science, and, in fact is just as religious a stance as YEC (because it is an ideology before it is a science), we all here can start to communicate a bit more effectively.<br /><br />.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-3793244764944144712010-07-25T08:09:31.717-04:002010-07-25T08:09:31.717-04:00.
Laura, first and foremost, hello. Or, as the Ke....<br /><br /><b>Laura</b>, first and foremost, hello. Or, as the Kenyan family we have supported for years through YWAM would say, jambo.<br /><br />To your point <b>number one</b>. Gould was a great writer and a decent historian, and at times, and honest scientist displayed when he would mention the lack of neo-Darwinian evidence to support his and Eldredges' <i>punctuated equilibrium.</i> And the book I pulled that quote from is an excellent read. I recommend it as mandatory reading to understand all sides of this issue. In fact, I recommend it being read by my son's - when they are a bit older and can chew on good reads. This book, <i>Ontogeny and Phylogeny</i>, is a whirlwind of history, which is the context of the quote. So, to keep it in context, I scanned the two pages in question from my copy:<br /><br /><b><a href="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h208/papa_giorgio/Creation/Gould-OntogenyandPhylogeny127.jpg" rel="nofollow">Page 127</a><br /><a href="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h208/papa_giorgio/Creation/Gould-OntogenyandPhylogeny128.jpg" rel="nofollow">Page 128</a></b><br /><br />To your point <b>number two</b>. We see eye to eye on this, but I am glad you stated this just in case anyone else here thought Plato post-dated Christ. The "god[s]" that Plato, and later Aristotle honed a bit is the same "concept" that Antony Flew now believes. <a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2010/07/lee-strobel-interviews-famous-atheist.html" rel="nofollow">Sorta</a>. He has kinda settled in the deistic/Aristotilian "god area."<br /><br />Your point <b>number three</b>. The general point I made still stands.<br /><br />And your unnamed <b>point four</b>. Thank you... ...I think?<br /><br />.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-26280393015369548652010-07-25T07:37:15.565-04:002010-07-25T07:37:15.565-04:00Despite it being blatantly untrue, let's for a...Despite it being blatantly untrue, let's for a second assume that "<i>Biological arguments for racism ... have increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.</i>"<br /><br />That someone uses or misuses science does not mean the science is untrue. <br /><br />You would have us discard science because someone has misused it, mostly in the distant past. I'm not sure where that kind of argument leaves Christianity and the attrocities it has inspired, past, present and no doubt future ...Orangeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13779361752011326130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-69372231693351964512010-07-25T07:20:58.595-04:002010-07-25T07:20:58.595-04:00Papa Giorgio:
1. You are wilfully picking a Gould ...Papa Giorgio:<br />1. You are wilfully picking a Gould quote out of its context<br />2. Plato was not christian, he was a hellenistic pagan, and would consider you lot just as atheistic for denying all the gods but one<br />3. Plato was wrong on a lot of things. The elements, for one, are observably wrong.<br /><br />As for the blog: nice job, you're writing the satire for the satirists themselves.agnosticnixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13366483161398597432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-53025932317415925852010-07-25T06:04:31.281-04:002010-07-25T06:04:31.281-04:00.
"The world just hasn't been the same s....<br /><br /><i><b>"The world just hasn't been the same since Darwin invented Racism."</b></i> <br /><br />It's like discussing things with my kids, I swear. I posted Stephen Jay Gould's quote to make a point: <i>"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they have increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."</i> A point made, by-the-by, by a staunch evolutionists (a punctuationist, so not a neodarwinist), not a wild eyed creationist (*says wild eyed creationist*).<br /><br />Why would this be the case? Is there something native to the theory itself that drives this thinking? What was Darwin's subtitle since almost all of what we are discussing is based loosely off of his theory: <i>The Origin of Species: <b>The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life</b></i>. Which, I suspect is why Darwin intimated his hope about Germany and his theory: <i>“The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.”</i> (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2, p. 270). Which is why I always mention that the <b>"African Eve"</b> story is one based in this Darwinian understanding of competing races:<br /><br /><i>"As late as 1962, Harvard anthropologist Carleton Coon concluded that modern human races did not suddenly appear, 'fully formed as from the brow of Zeus ,'but that the differences between living races could be explained only in terms of their different evolutionary history, and that each major race followed its own evolution pathway. Coon even wrote that African civilizations were less advanced because black people were the last to evolve into modern humans. The first hominids may have arisen in Africa, he concluded, but the evolution of modern humans occurred in Europe and Asia: 'If Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten.'"</i><br /><br />Young Earthers, which I am not necessarily defending here, have a very specified set of beliefs. I lay them out in video form in my first (and only) vlog - video blog - which can be found here: <a href="http://videorow.blogspot.com/2010/02/rev-jeremiah-wright-asking-hannity-and.html" rel="nofollow">Rev. Jeremiah Wright Asking Hannity (and us) To Read James Cones -- So I Did</a> (second video).<br /><br />The point is, "us fundamentalists" (hyuck hyuck) believe that the first man was medium brown or red in color. In fact, the Hebrew word for Adam is derived from the word that means "red clay." And us "crazy" creationists realize that almost half of the 200 <i>worldwide flood stories</i> from the various people groups from all over the world have a creation story and the first man being created as being red in color. Which, again, affirms <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A26&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Acts</a> when it says we are all from one blood. God blessing interracial marriage in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2012&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Numbers</a>, and the many pics of our interrelatedness (<a href="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h208/papa_giorgio/Creation/Twins-1.png" rel="nofollow">two sets of twins</a> and a recent <i>cute as a button</i> <a href="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h208/papa_giorgio/Creation/Couple.png" rel="nofollow">birth</a>). It affirms Genesis and the interconnectedness of all people to one race. Which gives birth to song lyrics like, <i>"Yellow, black, red and white, we are all precious in his sight."</i> Ingrained in the Christian message of creation is equality. Certainly there have been people who have tried to twist this message (any message) and use it to their own advantage and selfish desires.<br /><br />In evolutionary theory, however, this inequality is ingrained in the naturalist position. And the <i>"African Eve"</i> story is just another example of this racism <b>"blessed by science."</b><br /> <br />.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-21295962972708502912010-07-25T03:39:13.926-04:002010-07-25T03:39:13.926-04:00The world just hasn't been the same since Darw...The world just hasn't been the same since Darwin invented Racism.BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-92000577673931765892010-07-24T19:31:35.759-04:002010-07-24T19:31:35.759-04:00Wow. 98 comments and this is still going. Even wor...Wow. 98 comments and this is still going. Even worse, the arguments are more clichéd and irrelevant than at the start. <br /><br /><i>"The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo Sapiens ..... reprinted from January/February 1926 issue"</i><br /><br />Come on. 1926? You <b>know full well</b> biologists do not think this today. The above quote is evidence only of the racism in <b>society</b> in the 1920's, not evolution. <br /><br /><i>Evolution Is still (even after 150 years): UNKNOWN CHEMICALS in the primordial past … through UNKNOWN PROCESS… which no longer exist… produced… UNKNOWN LIFE FORMS which are not to be found… but could, through… UNKNOWN REPRODUCTION METHODS spawn new life… in an… UNKNOWN ATMOSPHERE COMPOSITION… in an… UNKNOWN OCEANIC SOUP COMPLEX [now bubbling clay]… at an… UNKNOWN TIME and PLACE!!</i><br /><br />You also <b>know full well</b> that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Different area of research.<br /><br />I'm sure you know this.Orangeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13779361752011326130noreply@blogger.com