…and this is a 
As you have heard a few times here, there's going to be a major conference of the godless in Melbourne in March of 2010. The bottom-feeders see that as an opportunity, and the hucksters of the Australian creationist movement are begging for crumbs of attention. The biggest organization of these kooks over there is Creation Ministries International, headed by Carl Wieland, and they've been nagging the conference organizers to sponsor a panel debate on creationism. Here's a bit from one of their first emails to David Nicholls of the Atheist Foundation of Australia.
I note that the public utterances of several of the planned speakers, particular Professor Dawkins, project a supreme confidence that the evidence most certainly does not support creation as per Genesis (recent creation of groups of fully-formed organisms, global flood, etc) but that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution (defined as non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years).
We find that a frankly bizarre proposition, and issue this invitation/challenge to a formal public debate in Melbourne on this matter (i.e. which position on origins, yours or ours, is better supported by the available evidence?). The exact wording can be finetuned between us, but the above should adequately clarify the nature of the subject matter with little room for misunderstanding.
We propose three speakers nominated from your array of atheist champions brought in for the purpose of this convention, vs three nominated from among our small group of CMI scientists and speakers. Since Dr Dawkins is by far the most vocal, this challenge should include him on your side, to "put up or shut up" in a sense. (Since it is a "panel debate", i.e. "Atheists vs Creationists", not "Dawkins vs X", this will hopefully be able to outweigh his normal stated reasons for not participating.)
They find the science "bizarre"? Color me unsurprised.
The emails went back and forth a few times, and David Nicholls stood firm: no, they weren't going to organize a debate for a bunch of grandstanding kooks, and no, they have no evidence to debate, so it would be an exercise in futility. Here's his final dismissal:
I thought I made it very clear that if you wish to debate any of our guests, then you will have to organise it yourself. We do not impart private information about speakers or performers. Our exact program is not finalised but we have a full compliment of speakers and performers.
If you skirt the question about accredited articles, then it is no wonder you are having trouble finding people to debate. Debate is not science, it is playing upon the prejudices of the audience. Scientific conclusion is about peer reviewing work from accredited scientific journals. I really can't see Professor Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers or any real scientist taking seriously or bothering to debate about alien abductions even though millions believe it to be true. There are just no credible studies on this as there are no credible scientific studies that support creationism.
I've learned my lesson on this. I've been in a few debates, and what I've discovered is that creationists will lie liberally on the podium — they are sometimes quite polished and slick, and sometimes disordered and unprofessional, but they are always in the business of building a rhetorical case on a foundation of ignorance and pseudoscience. What I've witnessed here in Minnesota is that even if they get their metaphorical butts kicked around the stage for an hour or two, they use it as a basis for claiming credibility in venues friendly to their ideology — they walk out of their public trouncing straight onto Christian talk radio to play the martyr and present their weak case unopposed. And of course what happens afterwards is that the loons plague me with more demands for more debates. There is no profit to be gained in sharing my reputation with a delusional lackwit; the case is much stronger for someone like Dawkins to turn these guys down.
So of course I have received an email request from Creation Ministries International to do a debate in Australia.
Dear Dr Myers
On 27 November, our organisation issued a challenge to the Global Atheist's convention in Melbourne next year for a panel debate.
We sent the invitation to the organiser, Mr David Nicholls, who has declined to pass it on to delegates.
When we persisted, he suggested going to your and Richard Dawkins' websites and passing it on by those means.
The web link below is to the exact wording of the invitation/challenge, and the subsequent email exchange that same day.
Please don't hesitate to write back if any more information is required.
Sincerely,
Tas Walker
Scientist, Editor, Speaker
Creation Ministries International (Australia)
Creation.com
http://creation.com/global-atheist-convention-debate-challenge
I thought long and hard about this request…I'm sure I spent hundreds of milliseconds wrestling over it. I also thought about how to respond appropriately, given that Creation Ministries International is a Christian organization. Here's my answer to Carl Wieland.
The comments to this thread have grown voluminous and unwieldy. Thread closed; if you must, the conversation can continue on a new thread.
Comments
Posted by: marcus | December 1, 2009 9:13 AM
Perfect.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
December 1, 2009 9:13 AM
Haha! I knew there would be a gesture of that sort under the fold.
Posted by: David Lee | December 1, 2009 9:16 AM
Ho, ho, ho.
I think they get enough press.
Posted by: Mark | December 1, 2009 9:16 AM
Yeah, how 'bout a nice big hot steaming cup of FUCK YOU!
Posted by: Michael N. | December 1, 2009 9:16 AM
A most appropriate response.
Posted by: Harmless Eccentric
|
December 1, 2009 9:17 AM
"Dear Creationist People:
Science is not settled by debate, but by doing science. A debate will not add any information to the evidence, and since your hypothesis is not yet proved, I will not waste your time in a debate, time which would be spent more usefully in doing science to test your hypothesis.
Love,
PZ"
Posted by: Medievalist Jon | December 1, 2009 9:19 AM
I was hoping for an image of Jebus farting in their general direction, but the selected image works too.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 1, 2009 9:19 AM
*clutch pearls*
*faint*
how.... how...uncivil of you, PZ!!
Posted by: qwertyuiop | December 1, 2009 9:22 AM
I bet they are now claiming victory as in you're quitting because you can't argue with them. They win by default... in their delusional minds only, of course.
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 1, 2009 9:26 AM
Instead of some feckin' hippy, it shoulda been Charles Darwin doin' the salute.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 9:28 AM
Well, they always have the option of publishing in the scientific literature. Oops, that requires no deity and physical evidence. Nevermind...
Posted by: Cory Meyer | December 1, 2009 9:28 AM
I always remember the immortal words of Gould/Dawkins: "Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. 'There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.' Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science."
Posted by: Mohamed Zaki | December 1, 2009 9:29 AM
Why is it a bad idea to debate with those christian guys in my opinion is a great chance to help open the minds of the closed although i know its extremely difficult.
I live in Egypt and i really hope they open the chance for such debates like that here, instead of even not having the freedom to tell people that you are an atheist.
I was just wondering why not?
Posted by: Tom | December 1, 2009 9:31 AM
That's fab :)
I reckon Jebus would have said the same thing to them ... I wonder how he'd feel about knowing that his sermons (surely devised to get him laid and fed for free), had been seized upon by the ignorant and inane, expanded for 2 millenia, then expounded to the general intellectual-proletariate to subdue them forever?
I think he'd p*ss himself laughing ... if it weren't so bloody dangerous ... if he actually existed ... oh god ... I'm, confusing myself just by even entertaining their ideas.
You go PZ .. stick it to the numpties :)
Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | December 1, 2009 9:33 AM
Isn't it very simple: in order to qualify for a debate, the opponent must have at least 5 peer-reviewed papers on the topic of the debate.
Posted by: Tim | December 1, 2009 9:34 AM
evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution (defined as non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years).
Errr... defined by who exactly? People who don't understand what evolution is?
Posted by: mattincinci
|
December 1, 2009 9:36 AM
they're just as crazy as the creationists in the U.S. wow
perfect reply PZ
Posted by: Atheist Chaplain
|
December 1, 2009 9:37 AM
Cory Meyer at #12, well said.
Mohamed Zaki at #13, the reason is well put in Cory's post above yours.
PZ I'm shocked, yes shocked that you spent hundreds of milliseconds, a nanosecond would have sufficed I'm sure.
I look forward to Melbourne, my tickets are already booked and my hotel is but a short drunken stumble from the venue.
Posted by: Michelr | December 1, 2009 9:39 AM
Just nitpicking words: why do you say "godless"? We can't be godless, as existence of such thing hasn't been proved yet. I think we should not give this sort of reality to the "god" concept. "belief-less" seems better to me, or better "nevrose-less". Even further, we're not missing anything, the believers are, so they should be qualified for example "reason-less" (but "kook" is fine too ;-) )
Posted by: Jessica | December 1, 2009 9:39 AM
#13 - First off, debating creationists is like beating your head against a wall with bright, shiny spikes on it. Secondly, this is a conference for atheists and freethinkers to come together for their own purposes... it is not meant to be a chance to have a debate. There are other appropriate times for that. Not to mention that every "point" that creationists make has been countered and destroyed yet they keep bringing up the same bullshit. I like watching debates, too, but there's a point when you realize if someone won't listen to reason they need more than just your help to get there.
Posted by: James | December 1, 2009 9:42 AM
Wow, PZ has finally embraced the guiding principle "What Would Jesus Do?" :)
Posted by: AndyD | December 1, 2009 9:43 AM
Maybe they could invite some atheists to a debate at the big religious conference - the one the government is sponsoring to the tune of $2.5M.
What are the odds that will happen?
Posted by: AnneH | December 1, 2009 9:45 AM
I'm still quite fond of Dr. Gotelli's response to the same kind of invitation-
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link
Posted by: mattincinci
|
December 1, 2009 9:45 AM
#21 WWJD = we won, jesus died
Posted by: Valdyr | December 1, 2009 9:45 AM
The Virus of Hatred rages on. How long before a Deep Rift forms between commenters who like PZ's reply and those who find it too (or not sufficiently) rude/blasphemous/insulting/flippant?
Posted by: Zeno | December 1, 2009 9:46 AM
Remember the "one way" mantra of the 1970s? (Yeah, yeah, I know a bunch of you are too young.) I was in college then and my classmates who were into "the Jesus movement" would go around waving a single finger in the air. Usually an index finger. My classmates who were not into the Jesus movement had a handy rebuttal with the adjacent finger.
Gee, I'm all nostalgic now.
Posted by: SomeOne | December 1, 2009 9:46 AM
Mohamed Zaki #13 - Context makes a difference. In a place like Egypt where you're not allowed to talk about atheism, it would be great to see debates about evolution vs. creationism. It would be a chance to expose people to evolution. But in a context in which you're free to talk about evolution or about atheism, there's no need to give creationists any legitimacy by debating them publicly.
Posted by: Pete Moulton
|
December 1, 2009 9:48 AM
"Professor Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers or any real scientist..."
I'm pretty sure you and Professor Dawkins *are* real scientists, PZ.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 1, 2009 9:50 AM
... hey now, waitaminnit... what's all this dumpin' on alien abductions?
... oh no, I'm not sayin' it's actually even remotely plausible or nothin', but c'mon... lumping it in with creationism? Totally unfair...
... I mean, let's review, shall we:
* Alien abduction--posits really rather improbably stealthy grey alien thingies apparently capable of hopping between planets--with a large dark eyes and an apparent fascination with human excretory orifices... Material evidence generally absent...
* Creationism--posits equally improbably stealthy and entirely all-powerful* being with peculiar fixations surrounding human dietary practices, headgear, and sexual practices, and which created the entire universe in one shot as some sort of weeklong hobby project... Material evidence starkly contradicts reams of existing evidence...
(Looks at bullet points again...)
... erm... okay... truth is, I guess that's not so far apart after all...
... still, it seems to me the real problem here is that once you get past a certain level of batty, it all kinda blurs into a sort of general 'notably bonkers' zone, I guess...
... so I guess it's really an instrument/methods problem. Detecting relatively small separations at high levels of wacko, we just don't have the techniques or gear for that yet.
(/Henceforth to be known as the 'impressively-cracked-to-stark-raving-batshit ranging/measurement problem'...)
*With noted caveats surrounding iron chariots.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 9:51 AM
For the same reason you don't wrestle pigs unless you have to. You get covered in slime, and the pig enjoys it.
what does Wieland think he is made of right now?
pixie magic?
I am still waiting for a non-bizarre explanation of the "global flood" which explains the long and terrible journey of the koalas from mount ararat to australia.
Posted by: PlaydoPlato | December 1, 2009 9:54 AM
Upon receiving PZ's visual missive, Wieland sputters, staggers, and slumps to the floor.
Athiest Incivility: Like kryptonite to Christers.
Posted by: 386sx | December 1, 2009 9:54 AM
Ha ha, I knew the nifty "Screengrab" extension of Firefox would come in handy some day!!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1146
Firefox – the faster, safer, smarter way to browse the Web, albeit a bit sloppy with the rendering, and has trouble with big pages, and the bookmarks are a bit clumsy to work with.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 1, 2009 9:56 AM
... erm... 'Material evidence starkly contradicts reams of existing evidence...' should rather read 'Starkly contradicted by reams of existing evidence'... perils of editing from parallel sources, what can ya do...
Posted by: Jag | December 1, 2009 10:00 AM
PZ - You should agree to the debate, but make sure that you have that image printed on a t-shirt that you wear to the debate.
On the back of the t-shirt either have "jesus riding a dinosaur" or the one with the "small boy's face in jesus' crotch" picture.
If you want I could make your a pneumatic powered "desecrated host" launcher and you could spray the audience before the debate starts.
Posted by: Foie Gras | December 1, 2009 10:02 AM
Brilliant !
Posted by: gr8hands | December 1, 2009 10:04 AM
Zeno, do you recall "rapture practice" or "rapture drills"? When a group of these evangelicals were standing around in public, someone would call out "rapture drill" and they would all hold up one finger pointing towards 'heaven' and leap as high as they could with big smiles on their faces. They'd come down, and laugh among themselves at how clever they had been, and how 'ready' they all were to meet jesus in the air. It was a chance to explain the bizarre behavior to any onlookers who asked.
It was the same "one way" crowd.
Posted by: Michelle R | December 1, 2009 10:09 AM
HAhahha... Great response, PZ.
You're absolutely right. They're a waste of saliva. You can slap them with the most solid evidence in the frickin' universe and they'll still go "You have no evidence!"
Posted by: Insightful Ape | December 1, 2009 10:11 AM
Personally I find it quite bizzare that the "creation" people are in such deep denial of science while don't hesistate to drive cars or use the web to spread their nonsense. Now only if my opinion mattered to them as much as they expect theirs should, to the organizers of the conference.
Anyway here is my challenge to them.
Will you please show us one peer reviewed publication before demanding public forums to discredit the side that is churning them out all the time.
Yours inside christ,
The Insightful Ape
Posted by: tsg | December 1, 2009 10:12 AM
As far as evolution vs creationism goes, it is no more appropriate to determine which is right through debate than it is through, say, a dance-off. It isn't how science is done.
Posted by: Mikey Nails! | December 1, 2009 10:13 AM
I do not remember whom Richard Dawkins quotes when he says, "That would look better on your CV than on mine."
Posted by: Damien Trotter | December 1, 2009 10:15 AM
Oh, how I would like to see PZed in a dance-off.
DT
Posted by: Scaryduck | December 1, 2009 10:16 AM
Ha haaa! Major WIN.
Jesus - as a carpenter - worked in the building trade. I'm pretty sure he'd have picked up a bit of 'language' from his workmates.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2009 10:18 AM
LOL! Where did you find that picture! :-D
ROTFLMAO!
Obvious intent: "Prof. RD, PZM, or, in general, any real scientist – that's a long list not limited to them"…
Posted by: Eric | December 1, 2009 10:22 AM
How about "their best" versus a few audience members with PZ and Dawkins murderating the debate? Set it up as sort of an after hours comedy event...
Posted by: Twin-Skies | December 1, 2009 10:23 AM
PZ, are you sure you couldn't find a similar picture of Jeebus flipping the bird while riding a T-Rex or a Velociraptor?
Posted by: Donovan | December 1, 2009 10:27 AM
Awesome! I love this picture. Is it copyrighted? I want this on a t-shirt.
Posted by: Valdyr | December 1, 2009 10:28 AM
I think this is from the same series with the edited "Jesus knocking on a door" picture that has Jesus standing to the side of the doorway, knocking with one hand and holding a pistol in the other. Don't think of it as a home invasion robbery so much as a "salvation intervention"...
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 10:31 AM
It should also be pointed out that PZ's minions are more than enough to debate a creationist given the hundreds of different answers on the "I get email — and create a contest!" thread.
Why is a debate with a scientist necessary when practically any wandering pharyngulite can make them eat their own words?
Posted by: Lynna | December 1, 2009 10:33 AM
Oh, dear, oh dear! I'm so shocked I'm speechless. So let me ramble on for several pages about how disrespectful you've been to the Jew that Died for You. Rude! You've been rude, and therefore that proves you are wrong in every way ... Therefore, God.
There, I think that covers the bases. Oh wait, there's also the timing issue. You have insulted the christians during the month of Christ's birthday, so I think that doubles the insult at least -- and it doubles your time in Hell! So, two times eternity for you, you SSSSSssscientist you!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 1, 2009 10:33 AM
If they will pay for my flight, lodging, and food, I will gladly debate them gratis. I suspect it wouldn't be too hard. I'll just have to study up a bit, and practice.
Ahem. "Jane, you ignorant slut."
There. I'm practiced up a bit.
(NOTE: This quote, while seemingly sexist, is strictly used for nostalgic purposes. I would not call any female [or male] ignorant unless they were; and as I myself am a slut, I would never use that term in a derogatory fashion.)
Posted by: Michelle R | December 1, 2009 10:38 AM
@Donovan #46: Well I'm not sure what kind of copyright you could put on a cheap photoshop. Look at the middle finger's sleeve... It's a resized copy paste of Dgeezus's collar.
Posted by: Menyambal | December 1, 2009 10:39 AM
A debate is just a sermon with the devil in the other podium.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 1, 2009 10:41 AM
We ... issue this invitation/challenge to a formal public debate in Melbourne on this matter...
A formal public debate? We already had one -- it's called the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. Both sides presented their best cases, and the creationists LOST -- despite the fact that the moderator, Judge Jones, was a conservative, Lutheran, Republican, Bush Jr. appointee, and was actually expected to be biased toward the creationists. Has anyone reminded the "challengers" of this?
Posted by: jose | December 1, 2009 10:48 AM
ATHIESTS ARE MEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Therefore, God exists.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 1, 2009 10:54 AM
No, I understand what that's all about now, since it was explained to me that their perspective and possibilities are not nearly so limited as those of us "materialists."
Apparently, then, pulling all of their "arguments" out of their asses is perfectly legitimate. Only those prejudiced against asses find a problem with their methodology.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 10:57 AM
In truth, I find the possibility of alien abductions far more likely than creationism being right. After all, there are planets outside of our solar system. It is possible that intelligent life evolved on those planets, and managed to invent some kind of interstellar travel (generation ships?). It is also possible that these lifeforms then traveled to our planet and for some unfathomable reason (perhaps it's a religious imperative) abducted humans in order to administer anal probes.
Though this is very unlikely (by which I mean I don't think this happened at all) to have occurred, it is by far more probable than creationism being true. Hell, I think it's more likely that a global Buddhist conspiracy is responsible for the assassination of JFK than creationism being right. For any creationists out there, that's how ridiculous your ideas are.
Posted by: dave | December 1, 2009 11:07 AM
I ponder the thought that they have something strange lurking in the water down under ... after all Ken ham comes from there as well ... :-)
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 11:08 AM
Entirely too funny.
Very appropriate use of "the fold".
Posted by: gerryfromktown | December 1, 2009 11:08 AM
Gould/Dawkins spoke with one voice?
Posted by: symball | December 1, 2009 11:12 AM
I feel a lot better about the UK having read this- and more importantly the comments!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/01/evolution-curriculum-intelligent-design-school
this is what I call a debate on ID/Creationism
Posted by: Bess Bibbentucker | December 1, 2009 11:13 AM
IIRC, this was from something Dr. Dawkins wrote
just before Dr. Gould's death, which was to have been published jointly under both their names.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 11:16 AM
symball,
What comments?
Posted by: JPS | December 1, 2009 11:18 AM
To David at #43:
I'm pretty sure you and Professor Dawkins *are* real scientists, PZ.
Forgive the pedantry, but your explanation doesn't fix the problem. Using "or" by itself creates an exclusionary parameter--it means that the items in the list are not included in the second group. What they (and you) mean to write is "Professor Dawkins, Professor Myers, or any other real scientist.
And by the way, P.Z., love the blog, but commas and periods go INSIDE quotation marks in American English. It's been driving me nuts for two years now.
/pedantry
Posted by: raven | December 1, 2009 11:20 AM
The debates always come down to an ignorant christofascist moron lying against a scientist. Waste of time.
What would be better is a written debate. With length limits to prevent the usual Gish word salad. Then post it on the internet. Or have actors reenact it for those who are post-literate on youtube.
That way the scientists can have their cake and eat it too. Avoid the lunatic fringe time wasters and expose them at the same time.
They always do the Hitler lie/fallacy of course. So predictable.
Posted by: devnulljp
|
December 1, 2009 11:22 AM
Can you just imagine the spittle-flecked indignation if this was the other way round? Some big chritian festival/meeting/whatever -- and a bunch of damned atheists rudely barge their way in and start demanding debates. How rude. How offensive. How strident. How militant.
The blogopandersphere would be so chock full of condemnation. You'd need to get the smelling salts out for Mooney. Not to mention the apoplexy among the catholic league. But of course if you have jeebus on your side it's just fine to go gatecrashing with your agenda where it's not wanted. A bit like banging on my bloody door of a Saturday morning with a stupid old book full of rape, slavery and ignorance as the way to enlightenment. Can I add my two "fuck yous" worth to the chorus aimed at these morons?
Posted by: daveau
|
December 1, 2009 11:24 AM
Pygmy Loris@62
I didn't see any comments either. But then I navigated away from the page and went back to it, and behold: 437 comments.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 11:28 AM
Pharyngulisation not necessary :)
In lots of little ways...England rocks.
Posted by: Carl | December 1, 2009 11:28 AM
Intellectually, I agree with you that these clowns don't deserve the time of day. However, I confess that I do rather enjoy listening to these kinds of debates, personally. Your trouncing of Geoffrey Simmons on that Xian radio station last year was particularly awesome, and I'd really love to hear more like it, though I guess it would probably be foolish to expect all such debates go so well for the "Darwinists."
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 11:29 AM
Pygmy Loris
Look to the immediate right of the title at the top of the article.
Comments...
Buzz Up
Digg It
(dig it, dig it, dig it.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/01/evolution-curriculum-intelligent-design-school#start-of-comments
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 1, 2009 11:30 AM
The hubris of this statement made my jaw hit my desk. It clearly demonstrates that these people are well beyond the reach of rational discussion.
All they have to do is show their work. Show where all that evidence against evolution resides. They seem to think that they somehow can "discuss" their way out of the simple fact that evolution is demonstrably true.
Complete idiocy.
Posted by: Moggie
|
December 1, 2009 11:31 AM
#31:
Not the floor: I'm sure he'll have his well-used fainting couch prepared. After all, when creationists ask for a debate at an atheist conference, it's pretty obvious that they're fishing for a refusal.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 11:33 AM
Well ok, but only if we get to see Stephen Fry telling them off.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 1, 2009 11:34 AM
@63: Are you thinking of XOR? A or B is true for A true, B true, A and B both true.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 11:35 AM
F,
Thanks. When I clicked on the link, there were not comments. I tried clicking on the comments link, but there weren't any comments there. Thanks for the direct link.
Posted by: Rick R | December 1, 2009 11:36 AM
devnulljp FTW!
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 1, 2009 11:37 AM
I too share the enjoyment, however, if strict formatting of the debate is not enforced, the creationists become squirmy, slimy, and dishonest very quickly. Without very specific debate topics and a moderator, the debate turns into a propaganda speech for creationists.
What PZ said:
...is spot on. And they use every opportunity to do so.
Posted by: Trav | December 1, 2009 11:40 AM
That's perfect.
Posted by: MikeM | December 1, 2009 11:44 AM
I would just like to say that this would make a very awesome tee-shirt. I'd buy one.
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 11:45 AM
Pygmy Loris
Friggin' internet.
Every site I visit regularly has servers barfing or admins "tweaking" the sites unto the breaking point. No reason that site shouldn't gag on a comments link as well. (Yep. The future is in the Cloud, all right.)
------------------
Yeah. Irony meter shrapnel in my forehead.
Posted by: Not that Louis | December 1, 2009 11:46 AM
Yeah, I know. It's wearying. Everything you say about the futility of debating creationists is true. You'll never get them to concede a point, no matter how much evidence you provide. You will never get their followers to really think about it. You will open yourself up for all the Gish-galloping, goal-post moving, Godwinizing, and quote mining that they do so well. But I keep thinking about that kid out there, the potentially bright science student. That's your target audience. He or she is a little confused right now, between what the parents and the pastor are telling him or her and what the science books are saying. If I had been that kid in the audience at the Bergman debate, I think I would have been impressed by what you said that night, PZ. If you won't debate creationists, you need to come up with an better alternative means of reaching that kid.
Posted by: Ken Shabby | December 1, 2009 11:48 AM
Jebus giving the finger was in poor taste. Mooning would have been so much better!
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 1, 2009 11:52 AM
Wow, PZ has finally embraced the guiding principle "What Would Jesus Do?" - James
Nah. Can't be Jesus: not with that near-white skin and those blue eyes!
Posted by: Steve
|
December 1, 2009 11:58 AM
There's no point in making it seem like they're on the same level, when they're not even in the same Universe.
Posted by: SteveM | December 1, 2009 12:01 PM
True, if English was Boolean, but "or" in common usage does tend to imply "exclusive or". For example the usually befuddling question, "Do you bring your lunch or walk to school?"
Posted by: middlekk | December 1, 2009 12:05 PM
@80....
It's called "school".
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 1, 2009 12:07 PM
But there are other uses: "Are you currently pregnant, or using prescription medication?"
These sorts of questions are not of the XOR variety. It's all a matter of context.
The original context was ambiguous.
Posted by: JimNorth | December 1, 2009 12:20 PM
I especially like the bit in the letter to Nicholls about "The exact wording can be finetuned between us,"
Fine. Tuned.
LOL
Posted by: kopd | December 1, 2009 12:23 PM
SteveM:
For example the usually befuddling question, "Do you bring your lunch or walk to school?"
In a text-only format that could be confusing, but voice intonation would clear it up. If it were uttered with a falling intonation then it would indeed be confusing, but otherwise it would be clear that it wasn't meant to be exclusive. English just isn't that consistent, really.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | December 1, 2009 12:32 PM
It should have been middle finger of BOTH hands.
Posted by: kalibhakta
|
December 1, 2009 12:35 PM
um, Dawkins needs to "put up or shut up"???
how about his ENTIRE OEUVRE???
well, that's for people who read.
OK. never mind. and I apologize for using a French word.
Posted by: Ticker | December 1, 2009 12:38 PM
Reading through this, I'm struck with a horrible realization.
When a biologist talks about peer review, he talks about critical examination of his research report by other biologists competent in the subsection of biology that it's about.
When a priest is to undergo peer review, wouldn't that be an act of theological discussion? In other words, nonsensical blather applied to nonsensical blather.
They ARE peer-reviewed. You keep asking them to submit to review by what aren't their peers.
Posted by: Umilik | December 1, 2009 12:49 PM
Good grief, time for my annual prostate exam already ??
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 1, 2009 1:06 PM
A debate about the reality of alien abductions should be held.
"the grays said it, I believe it, end of discussion"
Perhaps when one or two creats see that their arguments are the same as the whack-jobs that believe in alien abduction we may get a convert or two.
Posted by: tokenadult | December 1, 2009 1:20 PM
As a debate coach, and as someone well acquainted with the publications of people on both sides of the origins controversy as it exists in the United States, I can see some limited usefulness for public debates on the subject. But the debates have to be organized very strictly according to debate rules that have been disregarded in the previous public debates on this subject that I have seen. Maybe a debate coach should speak on these issues and let the biologists go on doing their research.
PZ, I hope to see you on Thursday evening, again with my young homeschooled son interested in evolutionary biology along, and beforehand I'll write ahead with a suggestion about how to handle the next debate request that comes up in the Twin Cities.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
December 1, 2009 1:45 PM
Actually, I'm a bit surprised at the reaction here. Wieland has made a friendly gesture and received rather a brusque response. I think he deserves at least a "No, Thank You.". It's clear that after hearing of the difficulties obtaining state financial support for the convention, he's just trying to be helpful and charitable. He's offering free entertainment, FFS. That's money saved that could be applied elsewhere in the convention's budget. Like beer. And antivenin.
Mohamed Zaki: Dawkins, PZ and others don't wish to help the loons turn Western society and governments into something resembling yours and others in the region. These IDiots and creationists are dominionists. They'd happily turn the U.S. and U.K. into something resembling Iran or Saudi Arabia with Jesus/God rather than Mohammed/Allah.
Posted by: cylusys
|
December 1, 2009 1:45 PM
Its a shame you can't borrow Private Eye's stock response to piss-taking requests - refer them to the response in the Arkell V Pressdram case.
http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 1, 2009 1:51 PM
Kind of a shrill graphic.
Posted by: KCGreg | December 1, 2009 1:57 PM
LMAO!!! P-Zed! I'm at work in Kansas, this is definitely NSFW! How 'bout a heads up for those of us in grey-matter challenged arenas.
Posted by: co | December 1, 2009 2:01 PM
JPS @63:
This has been brought up before on this blog, and it's called the typesetter's rule. It's also outdated, and I believe it causes more ambiguity problems than it solves.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | December 1, 2009 2:02 PM
@Richard Eiss
I commented too and I live in Scotland, and I'm sure plenty of Welsh and Northern Irish people commented as well as perhaps some Manxpersons or Channel Islanders.
There is more to Britain than England you know. This is kind of like ignoring the entire Western Seaboard, Alaska and Hawai'i when talking of the US, or maybe the South. Nothing important south of the Mason Dixon line Is there?
Posted by: godlizard | December 1, 2009 2:04 PM
Did they really use Comic Sans in their email?
Posted by: Bone Oboe | December 1, 2009 2:20 PM
You could send the Australian creationists these, to distract them.
Man opens replica of Noah's ark in the Netherlands.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269090,00.html
This one has more pictures. Still doesn't look like there was room for the dinosaurs.
Posted by: uncle frogy | December 1, 2009 2:22 PM
as much as it saddens me I have to agree that there is no such a thing as a debate with creationist. I do enjoy listening to debates with believers it is funny watching and listening to someone who is a fool having their head handed to them but it seems to make very little difference. when the topic comes up in conversation thankfully not often I can chose at the time to discus or not depending on if I have the time or would it be at all beneficial to me or any one else. Written discussions are OK but it is pretty hard to do as it is all so one sided.
How can you have a discussion with a creationist when they can not allow themselves to think about anything that goes against their beliefs as it would be sinful and damn them to eternal torment and that anyone who would deny creation/god would be the enemy of their soul what ever any of that is
Posted by: Carl | December 1, 2009 2:26 PM
I believe it's a Pharyngulean convention to format the words of creationist and other mentally-challenged folk with the Comic Sans typeface and the Monty Python "Gumby" character.
Posted by: Bone Oboe | December 1, 2009 2:33 PM
Oh, wow. Never-mind. I should've known Pharyngula would have known about the Ark in the Netherlands.
Posted by: Cathal
|
December 1, 2009 2:37 PM
OT, but it really grinds my gears when people write 'compliment', i.e. "your dress is nice", when they in fact mean 'complement', "full complement of speakers".
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2009 2:49 PM
Doesn't the "any" take care of that?
Why length limits? Refuting a Gish gallop just takes long on on paper, but at least it's feasible – and provides one teachable moment after another!
LOL! :-D
It solves any ambiguity problems??? How does that work???
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2009 2:53 PM
…If pronounced with emphasis, that is. Grmpf.
Posted by: James
|
December 1, 2009 2:56 PM
Now THAT is an eloquent response. Im glad that you declined their challenge, it would be like debating banana man's army.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 3:16 PM
If they were serious about the evidence fitting their story, they'd be doing research and publishing findings in peer review research. Instead they just want to look like theirs is a legitimate point of view by standing side by side with a famous evolutionist.
Maybe first they should publish material on why stars and galaxies more than 6000 light years away are visible, or that why the earth, and other solar entities date to ~4.6 billion years old.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 3:22 PM
Did I put England? I meant Britain.
Posted by: Amenhotepstein | December 1, 2009 3:31 PM
tokenadult @ #94
As a debate coach myself, I'm not sure that strictly applying the rules of debate would do anything to make an evolution/creation debate any better or more intelligible. There's no debate rule against lying, prevaricating, gish galloping or any other creationist tactic. The evolution supporter would still have to use their speaking time to show that the creationist was lying, or had no evidence, or was clinically insane.
What format would you suggest to make such a debate less of an exercise in futility?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 1, 2009 3:37 PM
I think a simple "no" would have worked but I'm not opposed to a little "Jesus loves you but not right now" humor.
Posted by: flawedprefect | December 1, 2009 3:47 PM
So their latest tactics are becoming clear: hijack conventions and invite themselves to places where they would not normally go, would be hotbeds of thought against their "worldview" and attempt to proselytize. I may be late in discovering this, but has anyone else noticed that they really just want a platform to preach? They're really not interested in proving their stance. If pressed to prove their scientific standpoint, they rattle off a bunch of refutations (usually boiling down to "I don't get it, so God did it, and we're all Cylons - erm - I mean, designed and put together like cars in a factory, not born as a happy result of mummy and daddy loving each other very much") But then they'll just rattle off passages from scripture because they're there, because they can, and because they've been allowed to speak.
I was hugely encouraged by the videos of those students refuting Comfort when he decided to sneak onto their campus and dispell his nonsense. CMI now wish to hijack an event not of their making. Fuck 'em. Good on ya, PZ for the right response to such nonsense.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 1, 2009 3:50 PM
Are you going to have a debate on some of the real controversies in science/evolution to show them how it's done?
Or will it be too much ore for quotemining.
Posted by: tsg | December 1, 2009 4:08 PM
I think having an "Answer the Question You Were Asked" rule would be a huge improvement...
Posted by: Qwerty
|
December 1, 2009 4:13 PM
Yes, they want to steal the lustre of "science" by debating actual scientists because debating a non-scientist just won't cut it with their supporters.
After seeing the last debate, I am not surprised you are giving them the gift that keeps on giving.
Jesus loves me, yes I know
'Cause his finger told me so!
Creation science is naught but gas
They can shove it up their ass!
Amen
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 1, 2009 4:23 PM
OT, but it really grinds my gears when people write 'compliment', i.e. "your dress is nice", when they in fact mean 'complement', "full complement of speakers". - Cathal
Me too. As in "complimentary medicine", which is presumably when the quack tells you how witty, talented and sexy you are...
Hmm, thinking about it, that could be a real money-spinner, and it might even work!
However, I must also point out that it really grinds my gears when people write 'i.e.' ("that is"), when they in fact mean 'e.g' ("for example")!
Posted by: JBabs073
|
December 1, 2009 4:43 PM
Wow, when I hit the "read on" link to see your response, I must admit, I was expecting a witty written response.
When that picture came up, it was lollerskates to the max.
You are my hero, PZ.
P.S. Can't wait for your lecture on Thursday! :)
Posted by: tokenadult | December 1, 2009 5:01 PM
"Wieland has made a friendly gesture and received rather a brusque response."
I call baloney on that. Wieland has asked to crash someone else's party. Nice work if you can get it, but he can organize his own conference on his own dime and include any debate he likes in the program, if that is his true concern.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
December 1, 2009 5:04 PM
Australian creationists - a very weird bunch! Our whole continent is so obviously incompatible with a literal genesis. Koalas trekking overland with a backpack full of eucalyptus leaves, anyone? Monotremes? A 40,000 year, maybe more, history of Aboriginal occupation?
BTW, since we're talking Australia, our Federal opposition party has just had a big leadership battle, and the new leaders are ... Abbott and Bishop! Very appropriate names, LOL. Abbott is also known as "the mad monk", he's a conservative catholic who opposes gay rights, abortion, stem cell research and doing anything about global warming. We seem to be growing our own religious right.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 5:09 PM
Has asked to crash someone elses party "repeatedly". To different people. Its like some snotty kid running around saying "pull my finger" to everyone.
Posted by: natural cynic | December 1, 2009 5:16 PM
OK, why not fine-tune it to a very specific proposition, such as: "Biblical Creationism explains the biogeography of marsupial moles. Responses will be limited to anatomy, paleontology, geology and scripture" or "Biblical Creationism explains the nested hierarchy of myosin amino acid sequences and ATPase activities". I'm sure they can accept a proposition that eliminates the Gish Gallop.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 1, 2009 5:34 PM
@120
"Friendly gesture" because he was offering "free entertainment" IIRC.
Posted by: Ticker | December 1, 2009 6:04 PM
Effect. Affect.
It's like nobody knows anymore.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 1, 2009 6:08 PM
You know, P.Z., I think it would be great fun to debate you sometime, you representing the atheist wing and I representing the Christian wing. I'll wager that between you and I, we could keep it fun, light, factual and informative.
The only thing is, we'd have a difficult time finding something about which we have a significant disagreement.
Posted by: Diane G. | December 1, 2009 6:09 PM
Precisely. If only...and in politics, as well!
***
We waste time when each new generation has to relearn the same lesson--in this case, what Gould, et. al., have already learned about how "debating" creationists always backfires. Very few scientists have the public charm of a Sagan, but too many still want to be his second coming.
If debates must be done, they're probably better staged with acknowledged entertainers, like Dan Barker, who can charm and also meet flat statement with flat statement without being constrained by scientific training to add "almost certainly," "in all probability," and similar qualifiers that actual scientists must be constrained by.
PZ's forte is obviously his amazing writing, and his success with that is proven daily not so much by his rabid followers as by the continual outcries from the "other side." Write on!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 1, 2009 6:27 PM
E.g., i.e., fuck you!
Points for getting the reference without clicking the link.
Posted by: tokenadult | December 1, 2009 6:44 PM
Thanks for the question, "What format would you suggest to make such a debate less of an exercise in futility?" To me, the key issue is to achieve clarity on the resolution (that is, who is affirmative) before the debate begins. Jerry Bergman was extremely dishonest in claiming to represent the status quo but still speaking first. I'll write to PZ off-blog with some suggestions. There are people in the audience at such events worth talking to--young people brought to such events by their creationist parents, of whom there were many at the Bergman-PZ debate, need to hear the best evidence for evolution as a scientific fact early and often.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 6:47 PM
natural cynic,
Must the cited scripture refer specifically to the biogeography of marupial moles? Cause if not, they can point to some random verse and say "goddidit" and the debate goes nowhere.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 1, 2009 7:13 PM
Ed Darrell: It's been done. I had a debate with Loyal Rue of Luther College -- he's a liberal professor of religion. It was fun and painless on both sides, I think, because we mostly agreed with each other.
Posted by: Ken | December 1, 2009 7:25 PM
I am traveling from New Zealand for this conference. This requires some investment in time and money. I don't want to waste that.
If these creationists managed to subvert the intention of the conference and occupy/waste precious time for me to hear such great speakers already on the programme I would probably decide against going.
Let the creationists organise their own venues and times.
Posted by: kantalope
|
December 1, 2009 7:45 PM
They pay my way I volunteer. I'll debate anyone they have, any format, say the day after.
It'd be fun.
PS I'll add no prestige to their rantings at all so y'all can support my candidacy.
PPS Would probably need to meet up with PZ at the local pub for some tips...CMI should pick up that tab too. Xtian payed for beer....mmmm.
k
Posted by: Rorschach | December 1, 2009 8:10 PM
If those clowns want to debate atheists for some street cred with their sheep, I'm pretty sure the local Pharyngulites can deal with them sufficiently without having to employ the help of RDPZM, count me in !
Mr Wieland can contact PZ and get my email address.
Then we can set something up, and 3 average Joe creos can debate 3 average Joe atheists.That should be fun and open some eyes.
Posted by: Steve in Dublin | December 1, 2009 8:17 PM
Kel, hi,
They have published 'material'. Standard creationist answer to first claim:
The speed of light changed over time. It used to be a lot quicker. Really!
And the second:
We don't believe in radiometric dating. Q.E.D.
Posted by: Katkinkate | December 1, 2009 8:18 PM
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook @ 121 ... "BTW, since we're talking Australia, our Federal opposition party has just had a big leadership battle, and the new leaders are ... Abbott and Bishop! ..."
It's just slightly better than the other potential partnership of ... Abbott and Costello !!!
:()
Posted by: Radwaste | December 1, 2009 8:31 PM
Nice portrait of the young George Carlin!
Posted by: Lion IRC | December 1, 2009 8:53 PM
To The Secretary
Global Foundation For Thinking Things Don’t Just Pop Into Existence.
(Formerly – The God Done It Society)
Ref. Debate request at your forthcoming “Common Sense Rising” Global Conference.
Dear Sir/Mam,
I am a very well known and admired and respected and academically credentialed scientist and naturally, of course, I am an atheist because, as we all know, only rational thinking people can ever…ahem…err… excuse me.
Anyway, I have just noticed on the agenda for your above mentioned conference that although you have 3 days of guest speakers there does not appear to be any topics being actually debated. It appears as though the audience will be listening to multiple presentations which are effectively all …well…to put it bluntly - in agreement.
Although I would never venture to suggest that your organization lacks imagination and I’m sure your guest speakers may be very interesting, the thought occurred to me that your conference might provide greater mental stimulation if you had some “contest of ideas” on your agenda. No doubt, your speakers may include presentation material which might ostensibly represent the views of their opponents but I’m sure you realise how insincere this will appear to impartial onlookers.
Since many of your members operate weblogs and chat rooms devoted to lively debates with opponents of the God Done It Society, and since they also routinely take part with great pleasure in public debates of precisely the same issues I would naturally assume that they have no objection to doing this at your forthcoming convention.
Perhaps you have had no previous offers from other atheist “opponent” guest speakers such as myself or perhaps you are anxious about my world renowned scientific debating abilities. I can assure you I would agree to any reasonable terms you might like to set for the debate including profanity limits, appointed moderators, blind entry/exit polling of the results with the live audience, etc. and I will maintain proper decorum so as not to offend the sensitivities of your audience.
Having a diversity of views debated is very much a part of the enlightenment values my fellow atheists and I represent and I trust you will consider this request.
I am sure your Convention attendees will derive much more value for their money from the inclusion of at least one open formal debate on your agenda.
Yours truly,
Christopher Paul Dawkingmyers, III Esq.
President and General Secretary
World Beacon Foundation For Coming Out and Thinking Rationally
(Formerly – The Anti-God Debating League)
Posted by: Lion IRC | December 1, 2009 8:56 PM
Dear Mr Dawkingmyers,
Thankyou for your request.
I can assure you we have had several other atheists all (predictably) requesting an opportunity to take part in a live debate at our forthcoming convention and all using the same old boring lines about free speech and censorship and accusing us of being afraid to face our opponents.
We agree with your point about rational debate and the contest of ideas and enlightenment values however, since we know that all your arguments have absolutely no merit and the result of any debate would be a foregone conclusion, (both in the minds of the live audience as well as later viewers) re must respectfully decline your request.
All our members have been surveyed and it was our unanimous conclusion that they would much prefer to spend 3 days listening to our “Dear Leaders” presenting their brilliant and unquestionably true propositions. In fact, we believe that to have our Dear Leaders gracing us with their presentations is an honour and a privilege for all our like-minded members.
Such polling of the audience you suggest would be, in our case, completely unnecessary – such is the sycophantic reverence we have for our Dear Leaders who, by their superior knowledge, have shown us all how to Come OUT. For we have spent many years unable to think for ourselves.
The very suggestion that value for money would enter into our thinking appals me. Why, we would be willing to pay $2000 dollars to listen to their “presentations”
Nay – We would pay $2000 just to be in the same room with them and drink cordial in their presence. Our Foundation has come so far and we have transcended the need debates.
We simply let our Dear Leaders think and speak on our behalf.
Yours truly,
Sarah Tonin.
Obedient Servant to the Foundations Dear Leaders
Posted by: Rorschach | December 1, 2009 9:00 PM
Lion, stop spamming the thread.
You missing the point by a few million lightyears is not remotely funny.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 9:03 PM
Smells like Kitty took a dump and missed his litter box, and hit us instead. *Grabs rolled up news paper* Bad Kitty...
Posted by: Lion IRC | December 1, 2009 9:27 PM
Hi Rorschach,
At #134 you agreed to debate the exact same people that PZ Myers thinks are a waste of time.
Would you be willing to do that in Melbourne in March 2010?
If so, you are, ironically, supporting Carl Wieland. So are posts #13, 34, 44, 64, 68, 72 etc.
What a laugh!
PZ Myers is being honest - he just cant be bothered and thinks it a waste of his time.
Now if only he can persuade the other Dear Leaders to abandon New Atheism and convert to New Apathy we can all pack up and go home.
Lion (IRC)
PS - Maybe argumentum ad nauseum has something going for it afterall. The atheist flesh is weak. So is their spirit. The last person standing will be a theist thinking about the heaven and what God wants them to do.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
December 1, 2009 9:29 PM
Please stop being so tolerant, PZ!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 1, 2009 9:37 PM
PZ, is there a reason you haven't banned this shithead yet? Seriously, the insipidity is making me nauseous.
Posted by: Paul Murray | December 1, 2009 9:47 PM
Amen.
Debate as a means of inquiry works like this: the participants present facts, and then explore what those facts mean. Cool - debate has it's uses. But the technique simply does not work when participants lie about matters of fact. It's like putting diesel in a petrol vehicle.
Creationists, religious folk, people with "an axe to grind" tell lies, it's that simple. You cannot debate them: the format just doesn't work.
Posted by: Caymen Paolo Diceda | December 1, 2009 9:50 PM
Even if the creationists were somehow successful in perverting science in countries with large christian populations, you can bet that the awakening giants of science, China and India who don't give a rat's ass about Genesis and creationism aren't going to pay any attention to that religiously motivated crap. Science will live on in the rest of the world and the creationist kooks will never win. They'd just wreck our place in the modern world
I can't believe that this perversion would ever happen in the US/UK/OZ, but if it ever did they'd never stamp out science ... and the English speaking world would sink further toward third world status.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 1, 2009 9:51 PM
Exactly. If they have science that supports their superstitious nonsense, let them publish it in the appropriate fora. Until they can do that they've got nothing worth hearing and should be ignored for the kooks they are.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | December 1, 2009 10:10 PM
"No, thank you; this is adult conversation time. You and your favorite toy go to bed and stop telling fairy stories."
Posted by: John Morales | December 1, 2009 10:14 PM
#145,146,147 make the same point: demagoguery is the only recourse remaining to the theists.
So does LIRC, though back-handedly: it admits argumentum ad nauseum is the tactic of choice for theists — that their arguments are fallacious is not an issue for them.
Heh.
Posted by: RC | December 1, 2009 10:32 PM
PZ & EVERYONE - STAY AWAY FROM TAS WALKER!
For the sake of all Australian scientists, don't give him the time of day. This itself is almost too much attention.
This jerk data mines all the biologists, and our whole biology department continually gets nutcase emails from this dude "showing" how Brisbane geology supports the great flood. His website is absolutely insane.
biblicalgeology.net/
Thank FSM for macs. Bounced him about 10 times and he's finally removed my email!
Posted by: RC | December 1, 2009 10:34 PM
Although the Petrified bottle is friggen hilarious...
http://biblicalgeology.net/2006/Petrified-bottle.html
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | December 1, 2009 10:47 PM
:::takes a whiff:::
MMMmmm, smells like Old Testaminty.
On the cult-speak scale I give it an 8~8.5
Posted by: Lion IRC | December 1, 2009 10:59 PM
Hi John Morales,
I wonder if the Roman Empire succumbed to argumentum ad martyrdom ad nauseum
I think “endurance/stamina” is an important point in this discussion.
In some small way the persistence itself constitutes evidence in SOME degree persuasive.
eg. Only someone who REALLY DID see God/miracle/Jesus/ghost could be THAT insistent.
"...no no...you are mistaken you only thought you saw a miracle" would surely give pause for thought to the Martyrs Ad Nauseum UNLESS they were absolutely CERTAIN.
You must surely know what sustains the theist.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 1, 2009 11:15 PM
Slagging, Stupidity, Insipidity, Trolling, Wanking, Wanking, Wanking like Mad...
The theist is the last person standing because everyone else smarter than him has walked away from his annoying insipidity.
Heaven's Gate.
Posted by: Caymen Paolo Diceda | December 1, 2009 11:17 PM
Dear Lion,
And you must know what sustains scientists and we will be just as tenacious in making sure that you are not allowed to pollute rational scientific thought. That does not mean we have to debate you. That's shown to be a waste of time as it makes no difference to the science. But we will speak up just as loudly (or louder) when we see your backwards ways spring up in public discourse or in our schools. Public opinion is important, but giving you the credibility of a public debate? As if that implies that creationism is an alternative to evolution? I don't think so.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 1, 2009 11:25 PM
and
This fails to be persuasive if the person dwelling on it possesses even an ounce of intellectual honesty.
Every religion makes the same claim, which renders any use of this as an argument for any specific religion completely redundant, unless that religion posits a god who has no expectations of humanity - which, of course, totally rules out Christianity - or a religion that explicitly states all other religions are equally valid - again ruling out Christianity.
I'm tossing up between two choices: denial or cognitive dissonance. Or maybe a little from column 'a' and a little from column 'b'.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 1, 2009 11:27 PM
Lyin' Irk, you aren't funny. You aren't witty. You're just tiresome.
Find another hobby.
Posted by: John Morales | December 1, 2009 11:28 PM
LIRC:
Nope.
Then you should buy into the dreaming.
Except that martyrs are common in many ideologies, and clearly represent a human disposition.
Indeed I do: Wishful thinking.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 11:32 PM
I'd go in for that, though I need to do some crunches so I can be Joe Sixpack atheist.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 1, 2009 11:37 PM
I think we start decorating one of cells, painted yellow for the Cowardly Lyin' Lion with a plethora of scarlet A's, well shielded behind some transparent polycarbonate. Patricia should get to put in the first A...
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 1, 2009 11:39 PM
Wow. I'm not sure I've come across "The argument from bloody mindedness" before.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 1, 2009 11:45 PM
Of course Mr Wieland will not debate non-PZMRDCH, it doesnt earn him cred with his deluded flock and the public to say, yay folks, last week, I totally showed it to the godless heathens in my public debate with...some dude.
Posted by: Craig P
|
December 2, 2009 1:28 AM
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 2:46 AM
The charmless fuckface should have been booted after his run in with Patricia. But it was going to happen at some point. No lose.
Now the turdkat is free to babble about how it has won this "debate" here and in the process, annoy others with it's poisonous illogic.
Can you imagine how loathsome he must be in real life?
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | December 2, 2009 5:03 AM
erK@153
Posted by: B^2 | December 2, 2009 5:16 AM
Turn the other cheek from the beginning. By that I mean ignore them because engaging them gets them fired up. Now they will say, "those atheists flatly refused our noble challenge!" By censoring them you have given a way to manipulate the public...job well done. Give them the void instead and use a spam filter that way you don't get their messages. If you ignore them they will argue about sacraments and their own internal differences. If you take them on then only one scientist is needed (that is all you ever need anyway). That way the scientist's logic is not distorted by the empathizing with the 'martyrs' tactic.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 2, 2009 5:56 AM
Aww, the putty-tat got turned out. I hope the Armor of God keeps him from shivering to death in the dungeon. :P And oh, look — darvolution proponentsist drew such a nice portrait of Lion as he went before the throne for the last time (#165). It must have come as quite a surprise to the defanged kitty that our tentacled overlord does not enjoy that sort of juggling.Posted by: AnneS | December 2, 2009 8:54 AM
Thank you. I'm not paying a couple of hundred dollars for my ticket to listen to Creationists spout nonsense! At least when I disagree with the another atheist - and it's not like we have a mandate to agree with each other about anything other than the non-existence of a supernatural being - it's likely to be about something vaguely interesting.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 11:48 AM
He's banned, but this utterly stupid argument comes up so often that I better reply anyway:
The PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party) has had suicide bombers. The PKK is a bunch of Stalinists. Got that? Stalinists.
Being Stalinists, they don't even believe in an afterlife. They believe that death is The End®.
It is very easy to be "absolutely CERTAIN" about something that's wrong. All that's required is just a little stupidity. :-|
And for the 756th time, it's nauseam. With AH, not with OO. Nausea, nauseam.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 2, 2009 12:08 PM
-Wow. I'm not sure I've come across "The argument from bloody mindedness" before.-
Surely only the insane would repeatedly stick with something after it failed and everyone else has left.
Lion it seems only opens his mouth to change which foot is currently having a spit bath.
Posted by: truthspeaker | December 2, 2009 3:13 PM
Is that picture a Missus_Gumby creation?
Posted by: SailDog | December 3, 2009 1:54 AM
You cannot have a rational debate between science and a belief system. There is no point, there is no hope of winning the debate (ie changing their beliefs). It is a lot like climate delusion. The science is in and has been for a long time. Believing some how that it is all a conspiracy is just a belief system. Equally, there is no point in debating it.
I wonder how many creationists are also AGW and Peak Oil sceptics?
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | December 3, 2009 4:32 PM
Naa, I snagged an image off the 'tubes and cobbled it together when I really should have been getting some sleep. It occurred to me later I forgot to add the "dropped ball"...
Posted by: Funny | December 3, 2009 10:11 PM
Wonderful response!!! That is exactly just the right amount of respect they deserve.
Cheers!
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | December 4, 2009 1:47 PM
Umm ... it now occurs to me that truthspeaker likely meant the jebus finger pic. Never mind.
Posted by: Bill | December 31, 2009 6:49 PM
I think the extreme emotional reaction displayed in this article (and subsequent comments) to the idea of debating Creationists shows that the debate really isn't about science vs religion, but is one religious view-(Atheism) pitted against another. Two opposing worldviews/systems of thought that are incompatible. Your reaction is as defensive and hate-filled as that of any other religious fanatic who has their dogma challenged by reason. If Creationists are merely "kooks" a public debate would surely show them up once and for all. For example, I wouldn't have a great deal of difficulty shooting down the argument that the moon landings were faked! Face it- the truth is, you are scared that the Creationists will show you up for the fanatical religious frauds that you are. Your pathetic attempt to shock Christians and amuse your God-hating friends, by showing a picture of someone I suppose you think is Jesus giving the finger, is the height of immature, unintelligent behavior. It is sad to see the level of discourse descend to the gutter, but it is about what I would expect from the intellectually and morally bankrupt, brainwashed and blinded radical Atheist community. I think that for Creationists to debate people who spew bad language, misrepresent their opponents shamelessly and cling to their no-god religion like brainwashed cult members- might actually damage the Creationists own credibility and reputation.
Posted by: Matthew | December 31, 2009 7:47 PM
I guess, like God, nothing is happening in Melbourne in March right?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
December 31, 2009 7:55 PM
Face it- the truth is, you are scared that the Creationists will show you up for the fanatical religious frauds that you are.
Despite a century and a half of trying to disprove evolution, creationists have not been able to do so. Also, debates is not where knowledge is shown and matters resolved, just who has the better rhetorical chops. Sorry, Bill, but no one is scared.
And fuck you if you think that the use of swear word discredits anything.
Posted by: Patricia Queen of Sluts, OM | December 31, 2009 8:20 PM
Let's just see you show any of us up as fanatical religious frauds Bill.
We have no gods, we have no religion. Fuck off moron.
Posted by: Ben Michael Fournier | January 1, 2010 3:55 AM
Wow, PZ Meyers can twist words just like all the trolls on Wrong Planet can also... especially in the deceptive paraphrase of Dr Carl Wieland's words to David Nicholls, which is actually,
" 27 November 2009
Dear Mr Nicholls
Open Invitation to public debate – atheists vs creationists
I refer to the Global Atheist Convention, “The Rise of Atheism”, due to take place March 12-14 next year in Melbourne, Australia.
From your website, all the speakers appear to have been chosen but not all details are yet set in stone.
I note that the public utterances of several of the planned speakers, particular Professor Dawkins, project a supreme confidence that the evidence most certainly does not support creation as per Genesis (recent creation of groups of fully-formed organisms, global flood, etc) but that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution (defined as non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years).
We find that a frankly bizarre proposition, and issue this invitation/challenge to a formal public debate in Melbourne on this matter (i.e. which position on origins, yours or ours, is better supported by the available evidence?). The exact wording can be finetuned between us, but the above should adequately clarify the nature of the subject matter with little room for misunderstanding.
We propose three speakers nominated from your array of atheist champions brought in for the purpose of this convention, vs three nominated from among our small group of CMI scientists and speakers. Since Dr Dawkins is by far the most vocal, this challenge should include him on your side, to “put up or shut up” in a sense. (Since it is a “panel debate”, i.e. “Atheists vs Creationists”, not “Dawkins vs X”, this will hopefully be able to outweigh his normal stated reasons for not participating.)
Our proposed conditions would be as follows:
* That it be public (if a modest fee is charged by mutual agreement, it can be shared among the participants less hire costs).
* That permission be granted for either side to professionally videotape (or we can share the costs of doing it jointly) with each side free to use or not use the final raw footage.
* That a mutually agreed-upon “neutral” chairperson, of good personal and public reputation, be selected and required to keep the parties, on the day, strictly to the conditions and times set.
* That the timing and structure be such that there is opportunity for proper rebuttal by both sides ( /-counterrebuttal and/or a series of audience questions). If a question time, the questions and answers should be strictly regulated in length, be alternately addressed to atheists and creationists, and that the opposing group to the answering group be permitted a (shorter) response time in each case.
Given that you have some of the world’s leading lights of atheism in one place, and that we are prepared to come down there (at a date and time of your/their convenience around the time of the conference), I would have thought that this would be an opportunity to relish. You have the chance (if your arguments really do stand up, as they are continually promoted) to be able to finally demolish some of the world’s most prominent proponents of scientific creationism in one sitting, and in public. Plus you could forever have the rights to market or otherwise distribute this “demolition” on DVD anywhere in the world.
Of course, it is possible that those are right who say that while Dr Dawkins and others have no difficulty countering “strawman” arguments of their own making, encountering the actual arguments of informed and scientifically trained creationists is something they would have no stomach for.
I hope that this turns out to be wrong, and if accepting, I would welcome being able to move forward on discussing the few remaining details. I look forward to your reply at your early convenience.
Sincerely,
Dr Carl Wieland
Managing Director
Creation Ministries International (Australia)".
Posted by: Peter | January 1, 2010 4:04 AM
Good on you Bill! The tone of most posts vindicates you. The atheist culture need watching to reduce pond scum.
Many cite ‘evidence’ but there is no debate about evidence. We all agree on the hard evidence we can touch or measure. The disagreement is over starting assumptions and interpretations. The reality is that the assumptions of neither evolutionists, nor creationists, nor atheists, can be proved by experiment – as creationists often say. So: atheists, evolutionists, and creationists all rely on underlying 'religious' beliefs – whatever they say. As Bill said: its one ‘religion’ versus another. If you won’t admit that, doesn’t the pond scum language indicate you have no better answer?
PZ accuses creationists of lying (but documents no lies). Yet evolution is riddled with documented frauds and coercive enforcement of evolutionary dogma. E.g.: Haeckel’s gill-slits; Piltdown fraud; the Bergman’s book: “Slaughter of the Dissidents”; and, Stein’s doco movie “Expelled”; etc.
It’s little wonder that people fear debating creationists because the truth might get out. Which is interesting considering that government billions back evolution compared with miniscule creationist budgets.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 4:15 AM
Ben @180:
To what alleged paraphrase do you refer?
(citation or quote needed)
What twisting has been done?
(specificity — not vague allusion — needed)
NB I suggest that only someone who is lazy and/or clueless would copy-paste the contents of a link on PZ's very post to purportedly counter said post.
Perhaps you have another excuse, though. :)
--
PS You've not only failed to peruse the post itself, you've also misspelled PZ's name, prominent though it is on the top of the post.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 4:23 AM
Call me cynical, but I suspect "Peter"'s IP will match that of "Bill".
Reasoning: you're doing it wrong.
Funny.
Posted by: andrew | January 1, 2010 7:52 AM
do you realize how unprofessional and intolerant this article makes you seem?
Unscientific is the word.
its like a bunch of school yard bullies pushing around the little guy and the crowd chanting 'yeah get im mate' 'kill im'
This response reinforces the weakness of your case rather than the strengths.
a more appropriate response would be...'we dont want to debate the topics....we want to give our case to a partial crowd and have our biases unchallenged'.
At least it would be honest!
regards
Posted by: AJ Ballard | January 1, 2010 7:53 AM
Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 8:08 AM
Andrew, there is always a proper forum for a scientific debate. It is called the peer reviewed scientific literature. Creationists are not scientific, so they can't debate there. They are frauds, lie about being scientific, and continually lie about the motives of those who know where the debates should occur. You too are a bully trying to pretend that you aren't. That is what the evidence says. Welcome to science.
Posted by: Patrick | January 1, 2010 8:22 AM
I'm interested that evolutionary arguments never really rebut the major argument of creationism (Christian or otherwise), which is simply that there is no evidence to support the increase of genetic information from one generation to the next. In every recorded case, there is either no difference in total, or a decrease (which would be expected as per thermodynamics). The argument from evolutionary biology is that no genetic information became some genetic information, and that increased to give the variety seen today, which is not supported by any evidence I know of.
The creationist argument therefore is that there had to be a group of initial organisms from which the genetic information originated. This of course is labelled pseudoscience because it involves a creator. As the cited aim of "science" is to find a natural explanation for observed phenomena, the label is understandable.
From the chemical point of view (my own field of knowledge), the standard evolutionary model makes little sense as a scientific theory because it defies thermodynamics. The chemical reactions required to make new genetic information from scratch would require an increase in enthalpy and a decrease in entropy, making it a non-spontaneous process. While this is not an issue within a cell reproducing genetic information within an organism (which provides the correct conditions), outside of that it would be near to impossible. For this to occur repeatedly in a single location such that the different chemical constituents of the first cell could come together, have life and the ability to reproduce itself requires, in my opinion, a great deal more faith than belief in a creator.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 8:55 AM
Patrick, if you are a chemist (in any sense other than operating a meth lab) then my ass chews gum!
Dammit, dammit, dammit. I knew I should have invested in straw last year, because if your email is any indication, creationists are gonna be building a lot of straw men this year.
First, evolution is not claiming that information in the genome "from one generation to the next", merely that it changes to reflect the demands of the environment on the organism. Rarely, there may be a mutation that is beneficial to the survival and/or reproduction of the organism, and that gene will be favored. That's it. That's all it says. Not only is this a reasonable expectation, it has been observed repeatedly--both in the wild and in the lab.
Now, as to your tired ol' 2nd law of thermodynamics argument, you need to resynch up with the IDiot mothership. Even Answers in Genitals doesn't endorse that one any more. You know why? Because Earth is not a closed thermodynamic system. There's a big ball of plasma ~150 million km away radiating at a blackbody temperature of ~8000 K and bathing the planet in energy. Now if you were in fact a chemist, you would know that energy can locally reduce entropy.
Dude, this post is lame even by the very low standards of your own side. Mahalo!
Posted by: Christopher Nelson | January 1, 2010 9:30 AM
LOL, typical atheist coward. Afraid to debate, and full of copout excuses as to why. Also, I enjoy how insulting that pic of Jesus is to christians. But yet the creationist group was civil and non insulting. Why the need to be insulting back? Science or emotion, I wonder. Like a spoiled child, or highschool kid, responding to a challenge that might show them to be the charlatons that they really are. It has to be emotional tho. When based on science and logic, evolutionists and atheists always fail. They can argue straw men all day, but hardly face to face, less they be exposed. Infact, I would expect nothing else from evolutionists. So their reply not to debate is perfectly in line with their behavior.
Posted by: Shawn Martin | January 1, 2010 9:32 AM
Umm, may I humbly speak up for the Creationists? I was somewhat shocked at how many of these comments misrepresented their beliefs and again realized how many misconceptions people have of these guys. To discover what CMI REALLY BELIEVES, may I ask you to check out their website (creation.com) for yourself?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 9:54 AM
Sorry, creobots are afraid to debate the only place it matters, in the peer reviewed scientific literature. With what they consider a debate, rhetorical flourishes will win, not the one the evidence backing them up. A mock trial would be a better way of getting at the truth, with the need to demonstrate the validity and rigor of the evidence prior to it being presented to the jury. Creationism will lose every time in such a situation, as they have nothing but a religious wish for the mythical babble to be inerrant.Shawn, we represent creobots accurately as they appear to those who know how science is done. They have nothing to offer science. Period, end of story. They are nothing but religious liars and bullshitters. What part of that don't you understand?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 10:17 AM
Christopher Nelson, So should NASA officials debate those who claim the moon landing was a hoax? How about debating holocaust denialists? Or flat-earthers? Debate presumes some basis for discussion. There simply is none for discussions between scientists, who are bound to accept evidence, and anti-science types like creationists who can simply say GODDIDIT.
Creationism is not and cannot ever be a scientific position. By assuming an omnipotent creator, it can explain absolutely everything--just as you will always be able to fit n points on a graph to a polynomial with n parameters. In so doing, however, you lose all predictive power. You also wind up with a creator with some VERY STRANGE proclivities. You can believe whatever you want. I'll take science.
Posted by: Steven | January 1, 2010 11:22 AM
The analogy to bullies is perfect! The pond scum bullies will always run from a FAIR fight. The comments on emotionalim are spot on as well. As to the comments about real scientists: I would stack up Dr. John Sanford's credentials against PZ's anytime. Dr. John C. Sanford is a well credentialed and well known scientist who believes in biblical creation, which refutes the ad hominem attacks made by many of the Christian haters and skeptics. There are many more like him, both “out of the closet” and “in the closet” He has published over 80 scientific papers in peer reviewed mainline secular journals. He has a BS, an MS, and a PhD in plant breeding and genetics from secular universities. He has received over 30 patents. His most famous is the “gene gun” used by many in genetic engineering. He was an Assistant and then Associate Professor at Cornell for 25 years, and has an honorary Adjunct Associate Professorship at Duke. His research has been primarily in genetic engineering and he is well qualified to comment on population genetics. I'd love to see him debate Dawkins since Dawkins has stated that the absolutle irrefutable evidence for evolutionism comes out of genetics. You pond scum are so ignorant of true Creationist arguments and the nature of the true Creationist movement it's hilarious. And you continually lie to your cronies and the public about creationists.
Of course, that would not be wrong in your debauched world veiw. POND SCUM! you have such FAITH! But, be prepared for your own research to falsify your SUPREME RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE: The Theory Of Evolution.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 11:40 AM
Now, how many peer reviewed scientific papers has Dr. Sanford published on creationism? I'll bet the number is zero. That is because creationism is not scientific. We are still waiting for the evidence that it is. And we will still be waiting a hundred years from now. Any scientist can have loony spots in their outlook, even Nobel prize winners. That is why evidence, not authority, will win scientific disagreements every time. And there is no scientific evidence for creationism, only religious evidence. Hence, it does nothing to refute evolution.
With a million or so scientific papers backing evolution, both directly and indirectly, and none supporting an alternative scientific theory, there is no faith required to believe that evolution is the scientific explanation for life on Earth. Only a scientifically illiterate and stupid fool says otherwise. For some reason fundies proudly proclaim their stupidity and ignorance, and we love making fun of their stoopidity.
Posted by: exoticdoc2 | January 1, 2010 11:47 AM
Such excuses. The evolutionists are terrified of debating creationists because they understand full well that their belief system, their failed hypothesis, cannot stand up to scrutiny. It simply crumbles when subjected to the light of reason, it dissipates like so much smoke. The evolutionists prefer to set up their straw men, much easier to knock down, with no one around to point out their lies and faulty "reasoning." The response with the blasphemous picture presented by Myers demonstrates how evolutionists/atheists must resort to name calling and insults rather than open, honest debate. They have nothing, so they must sink to the level of schoolchildren, albeit very rude and nasty ones, to try to hide their own fear. If creationists are so off base, then by all means debate them and expose them. The excuses about lending them credibility by debating are transparent dodges and wearing thin.
Posted by: exoticdoc2 | January 1, 2010 11:48 AM
Such excuses. The evolutionists are terrified of debating creationists because they understand full well that their belief system, their failed hypothesis, cannot stand up to scrutiny. It simply crumbles when subjected to the light of reason, it dissipates like so much smoke. The evolutionists prefer to set up their straw men, much easier to knock down, with no one around to point out their lies and faulty "reasoning." The response with the blasphemous picture presented by Myers demonstrates how evolutionists/atheists must resort to name calling and insults rather than open, honest debate. They have nothing, so they must sink to the level of schoolchildren, albeit very rude and nasty ones, to try to hide their own fear. If creationists are so off base, then by all means debate them and expose them. The excuses about lending them credibility by debating are transparent dodges and wearing thi
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 12:01 PM
As usual, the creobot gets it backwards. All his alleged evidence evaporates when subjected to scientific scrutiny. For example, multiple means of dating the Earth come to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old. Only one source, the mythical/fictional babble, comes to 6,000 years. So, scientists know who lies. The place that debate should take place is in the peer reviewed scientific literature, a place the creobots find absolutely frightening, since their whole argument is not scientific, but rather religious, and won't pass peer review because of that. The attitude of the creobots is hilarious. Creobots, either put up your evidence in the peer reviewed scientific literature, or shut the fuck up. Those are the choices of people of honor and integrity, like scientists. Only liars and bullshitters like creobots try the other option. Which demonstrates to the world their lack of honor and integrity.Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 1, 2010 12:04 PM
Scientists have better things to do than debate creationists. Namely science.
Expecting leading biologists to take time from a productive schedule to debate a half-ass panel of creotards (the best panel you have), is like expecting leading astronomers to debate the astrology contingent, or chemists to enter a debate with alchemists.
The point is that there is no serious debate to be had. You guys lost 150 years ago and don't even know it.
Posted by: John | January 1, 2010 12:16 PM
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf wake up you clowns, the circus is leaving town soon.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 12:22 PM
Yawn, we know the DI is staffed with nothing but clowns, so anything they publish is humorous, but not serious or scientific.
Try some real evidence, found in the libraries of institutes of higher learning found worldwide. It is called the scientific literature. And creationism/ID is not present in it.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 12:27 PM
Steve@193, Given your moniker and your citation of a single creationist "scientist", I thought this link might interest you:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Posted by: Steven | January 1, 2010 12:59 PM
Nerd of a Redhead (#197):
Your "people of honesty and integrity" (not to mention "class") are so well represented and depicted on this blog and by its founder.
God bless you!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 1:05 PM
And you show your lack of honor and integrity by never citing the peer reviewed scientific literature, which is the only way science is refuted. You have nothing scientific, but you don't have the honor and integrity to admit it. Keep up your inanities for our amusement. We laugh at the lairs for Jebus™ like you who make claims they can't back up.Posted by: Owlmirror | January 1, 2010 1:26 PM
This is a perfect example of why debate without evidence is useless: Morons who presuppose that Creationism is true will reject the evidence for evolution out of hand and ignore it. They'll even say something as moronic as evolution being a "belief system".
Of course, everything Creationists say about evolution is actually true about Creationism -- a failed hypothesis, that crumbles before the light of reason; an vicious attacker of strawman concepts of evolution -- which is why they make so much noise: they have no empirical evidence.
The Discovery Institute is leaving? Yay!!
Where are they going? Or should I even care?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 1, 2010 1:35 PM
And you're blatant dishonesty, idiocy, and childlike tantrums are always so amusing. Than you for letting us laugh at your follies, creationist.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 1:35 PM
Is this a troll with multiple monikers or have a bunch of trolls decided to tag team on a month old post?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
January 1, 2010 2:13 PM
It's a bunch of idiots. Carl Wieland just called the atheists out, and they're all running over here to whine at us.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 1, 2010 2:24 PM
Did someone sneeze?
We might be insulting, miserable, uncultured barbarians*, but you're wrong. Better an asshole that a creotard!
*Not all of us actually, but I am.
Posted by: Steven | January 1, 2010 2:26 PM
OK, I'll address your claims about the lack of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting creationist claims and I'm sure you know this well(but won't admit it): PREJUDICE, plain and simple. And it is as ugly and hateful as the racial prejudice that led to the Jewish holaocaust perpetrated by Hitler (a pond scum himself)(several anti-Christian, evolutionist, atheist blogs as case-in-point). The so-called referees and peer reviewers have an emotional/psychological adherence to the prevailing paradigm. Anything challenging that will be rejected out of hand, no matter its' merits. An example is the study on radiometric dating discordance done by ICR's RATE group. It was double blind and statistically analyzed. It showed that several commonly used different isotopes in the same rock gave isochrons that were radically different and OUTSIDE THE ERROR BARS OF EACH ISOCHRON! Of course, it was rejected when submitted because of institutionalized, systematic predudice! The "holy Grail" of "Deep Time" must be protected at all costs.
I'll be praying for all you pond scum.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 1, 2010 2:32 PM
Did you just say a prayer that would be giggling my ass off at your stupidity? Because it worked.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 1, 2010 2:38 PM
Bawwww! The mean scientists won't publish our half-ass metaphysical claims! Bawww! Mean scientists are mean!
Someone call Steven a waaaaaaa-mbulance.
Until the waaaaa-mbulance arrives Steven, maybe you should check out one of the bazillion threads on this site where your claims have already been refuted a gazillion times. Or crack open a book...you know, a science book? Or maybe get that GED and move on with your life.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 2:39 PM
Put up or shut the fuck up. Claims are irrelevant. Show us the submitted papers and the reviewers remarks. Failure to supply that evidence confirms your status as a Liar for Jebus™.You would be surprised to find that certain journals relish being at the cutting edge of science. They brag about the number of papers they publish that lead to Nobel prizes. And there is a Nobel prize waiting for a new theory for biology. But, that theory must follow the rules of science, hence it can't be religion based like creationism. Again, show your work, or acknowledge your stretching of the facts.Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 2:47 PM
Steven just Godwinned all over himself. He needs a clean outfit. Does anyone volunteer to clean and dress him?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 1, 2010 2:50 PM
Is he ever actually going to post any facts and support them or is he going to continue just call us scum and think he has won?
Posted by: Felix | January 1, 2010 2:58 PM
Steven, the word is spelled isochrone.
Please, when pretending to know the first thing about science, at least have the dignity to not smear poo all over your face before entering the room.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 3:10 PM
Felix, that is Godwin that is all over his face. Poo can be used as fertilizer. Godwin kills all intellectual life.
Posted by: Lowell | January 1, 2010 3:11 PM
Even aside from the ambitions of scientists and journals, what about for-profit corporations?
Do these creationists think oil companies would ignore better ways to find oil because they conflict with their prejudices in favor of an old Earth?
Would pharmaceutical companies ignore evidence that human beings were poofed into existence 6,000 years ago if it helped them make better medicine that they could then charge more money for?
Fat chance.
Posted by: Ganf17 | January 1, 2010 3:21 PM
At last I understand the true meaning of "Goats on Fire". Thanks CMI sycophants for the clarification.
Posted by: Felix | January 1, 2010 3:21 PM
Janine,
you're undoubtedly correct. I'm not getting close enough to smell the difference, so I'll just take your word on it.
Posted by: Steven | January 1, 2010 3:22 PM
Felix;
Maybe if your in England. Look it up in Webster's. Haven't seen much cogent argument from you pond scum.
Did you know that Felix means "happy" or "successful"? I doubt that you are either. And by the way, that name was taken by many eary Christians.
God Bless you Felix.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 1, 2010 3:26 PM
I like how you assume that just from a small internet conversation. Of course I am willing to bet he is happy, and a lot less deluded. Not like some people posting here with a religiously imbedded sense of undeserved self-worth.
So where are the facts that I asked for?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 3:28 PM
Steven, when are you going to present some evidence? All you have is blather.
Posted by: rmp | January 1, 2010 3:33 PM
Steven has no evidence and now he's just dancing in smoke and breaking mirrors.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
January 1, 2010 3:34 PM
#220
Every single time, you can spot the hypocrisy which must be inherent in all creotards. First off that Steven douche calls us "pond scum" (very christian of course), then ends with "god bless you".
Steven dude, may I humbly suggest you're a complete moron for christ.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 3:34 PM
Steven says, "And by the way, that name was taken by many eary Christians."
You must mean eerie Christians, don't you?
So, Steve, help us out here. In all the time I've been listening to creationists spout drivel, I've never heard one give a testable prediction of their theory. Got one?
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
January 1, 2010 3:36 PM
We use evolution in science to do things. What, might i ask, is the USE of your creation scam to science and progress? Not that scientists couldn't use some of that sweet, sweet tithe money.
Posted by: Felix | January 1, 2010 3:39 PM
Steven, thanks for your thoughtful reply. In Webster's online, I get isochron as the preferred German or Danish spelling of the word isochrone. I had not been aware that "your" spelling was in usage. I concede.
The Godwin is still there, though. :)
Regarding cogent arguments, for example take a look at this:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm
and this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isoprobsum
It's way too much material to copy to this thread, but I think you will see where the problems with RATE's work lie.
Posted by: Steven | January 1, 2010 3:44 PM
Cunninglingus:
If you were a cunning linguist you might realize that pond scum is your own label (remember Chuck's "warm little pond"
Did you know that that Genital Herpes is now commonly found in the oral mucosa?
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
January 1, 2010 3:44 PM
If there is one recurring theme about christian to atheist conversions, they always say how much more free and happy they are. They have 10% more income anyway ;)
Religion is a tiny gilded cage, that you pay to build yourself.
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
January 1, 2010 3:46 PM
Poor Steven. Can't get his tiny head around biology; can't get his tiny head around basic English. They're more to be pitied than scolded.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 1, 2010 3:46 PM
Still no facts from steven, just lame insults.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 3:47 PM
Steven, not that it would mean shit to you but the name of Felix predates christianity. The fact that there were christinians with that name does not determine who the commentator here using the name of Felix is.
Now kindly disprove that evolution happens. And crying "persecution" does not cut it. And you do not need a public debate to do it also.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 1, 2010 3:48 PM
I could do without your passive-aggressive drivel, thank you very much.
Posted by: Josh
|
January 1, 2010 3:52 PM
And of course you can provide evidence to support this assertion, right? Where is the manuscript text? What journal was it? What did the editor say when rejecting the paper? The authors of said manuscript will have the reviewers' comments, so it should be easy to have us look at everything the reviewers' said. An accusation of rejection for reasons of prejudice is a big deal; I can't imagine that the authors of said manuscript wouldn't be broadcasting that far and wide. So link to the discussion.
I've got the editor decisions for almost every paper I've ever submitted*, both for the accepted and rejected. And I have the reviewers' comments for almost* every one of the manuscripts that were reviewed**. I find it hard to believe that the authors of whatever manuscript it is that you're referring to have those data in their possession. It would be absolutely trivial for the authors to put the relevant pages of text online for us all to review and study, thereby shaming the journal in question (and if a journal tinkers with the review process on a submission because they are prejudiced*** against that submission or the authors, then they deserve to be shamed). If the authors haven't done something like this, then why the hell not?
_____________________
*There are a couple that I was way down on the author list on that I don't personally have copies of (but you can bet the first and second authors do).
**Obviously, if an editor chooses not to send the manuscript out for review, then there aren't any reviewers' comments from that submission.
***Prejudice is, of course, quite different from bad science, no science, a terrible manuscript, or a manuscript that a journal editor feels isn't "quite right" for that journal****. Actual prejudice is a big deal, and believe me, those of us who have been publishing scientific papers for years would be able to read between the lines of what reviewers said really easily. It would be pretty damn clear that the reviewers were reaching for reasons to have the manuscript rejected.
****Yes, editors have the right to reject manuscripts without review if they feel that the subject of the manuscript isn't right for that journal, and no, we don't get to sue Science every time they send back a manuscript saying that it's better suited for a more technical journal.
Posted by: Newfie
|
January 1, 2010 3:55 PM
The known universe and everything contained in it, was shit out of the arse of a flying pink unicorn about 512 thousand years ago. I have a book that says so. And in a vision, the Unicorn came to me and spoke, saying, "Newfie, this is how it all began... crazy, huh?"
Prove me wrong.
How many other fairy tales can we make up to explain beginnings? How many believing idiots does it take to make the fairy tale 'truth'?
Is it the number of idiots, or the length of time idiots believe it, that makes it 'truth'?
And for any of the really devout believers, who get all their information from one or two books, or like most, don't even read those and just take their preacher's word for it... they lie to you to take your money.. the dude didn't exist.
Go back to your meadow, sheep... and do what your shepherds tell you to do, you're not supposed to think, and you've proved time and time again, that you're not good at the thinking bit.
Posted by: Steven | January 1, 2010 3:57 PM
Kseniya:
Just playing the game by your own rules
Jesus love you!
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 3:58 PM
Steven seems to have an incomplete definition of the concept of "Christian Love."
Posted by: Josh
|
January 1, 2010 3:58 PM
Yeah, to do things, like find oil. We use the principles of evolution to help us prospect, successfully, for petroleum. To jump up and down insisting that evolution is just a big lie while you're using petroleum-derived technologies and products really makes you look foolish.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 1, 2010 3:59 PM
If you were, you'd present facts.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 4:05 PM
So... this is how a "sniny" pelt feels and looks?
I'm ready for the bitches of Westminster!
Woof-woof!
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
January 1, 2010 4:07 PM
Supposed to have happened on multiple occasions over the last 150 years, still waiting...amusing how they never seem to differentiate between a little lighthearted humor and CAPITAL INDUCING,SPLUTTERING, HYSTERICAL RESPONSES, and yet it's those godless atheists that are the hate-filled cretins.Right.Then, to pull the old "Hitler was-a-Darwinist" argument out right from the start(historical documents that contradict this be damned!)was a move I certainly didn't expect nor was using ICR's RATE group study which most reputable scientists LAUGHED at (look up the complete discussion on radiometric dating by Calilasseia). Then of course, after all that , the coup-de-grace was to state their arguments were misrepresented.After presenting the same arguments that were laughed at.Again.And you don't understand why a debate would be viewed as a waste of time.Again(because I assure you it's already been done.many times.). You really are your own worst enemy.Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 4:08 PM
Just playing the game by your own rules
As opposed to playing the game as dictated From above. Sorry but your way is just a bit more arbitrary. Now fucking disprove evolution. And do not use platitudes like "Jesus Loves You">
May you and yours be eaten first!
(Pretty fucking convincing? Isn't it?)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 4:08 PM
Nope, our rules require evidence. If you don't have any, you are required to shut the fuck up. Can you be a man of honor and integrity and cease posting?Since there is no actual evidence that the Jebus of the babble existed, you are showing more inanities. Time to show solid, conclusive evidence that your Jebus existed, or shut up about him too. Welcome to science, where evidence, not belief, rules.Posted by: Kseniya | January 1, 2010 4:11 PM
Rules? You don't even know what the game is. Steven, you know nothing about me, you know nothing of my "rules", and it is (characteristically) disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 4:13 PM
Steven asks out of the blue "Did you know that that Genital Herpes is now commonly found in the oral mucosa?"
Speaking from experience, there, are you Steve?
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
January 1, 2010 4:17 PM
I'm not sure...but I bet it involves bondage ;)
Funnily enough wasn't a math paper submitted to a journal recently which was (indirectly) about evolution by an ID proponent. Now what was that again?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 4:17 PM
That sounds like a threat. "Okay, drop the gun or I'll pray at you."
Posted by: Steven | January 1, 2010 4:18 PM
#245:
I can't believe you didn't get that one!
Love ya bud!
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
January 1, 2010 4:19 PM
How would you know? Why would you even say this,unless you were hopeful someone elses misery would validate your perception of god and what you call your own happiness? Which is fairly twisted when you think about it.It also makes a hollow mockery of "I'll pray for you" doesn't it? I would have expected better from a christian.....or not.Posted by: Richard Eis
|
January 1, 2010 4:21 PM
Now we all know if you think you're being preyed for you are more likely to suffer more and get sicker. So its no idle threat.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 4:22 PM
I think I'm beginning to see a much clearer picture of Steven's life before he was "saved."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 4:25 PM
The genital herpes quip was directed at CunningLinguist. Steven thinks he's a wit. He's half-right.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 4:25 PM
Steven is such a bloody stupid git. First it Godwin's itself and now it attempt lame little insults. It is not even trying to disprove evolution. Go to the kiddie table, Steven. You are not ready to converse with the adults.
And while you are at it, fuck yourself.
Posted by: Newfie
|
January 1, 2010 4:25 PM
Oh, he's a 'real' Christian alright.
Calls you and idiot, but then says he loves you.
It's like cheating, stealing, lying, bearing false witness in this life... It doesn't matter because he loves babby jeebus, and will be 'rewarded' in the afterlife.
It's all about the carrot and the stick with your lot, ain't it Steve?
Posted by: Steven | January 1, 2010 4:30 PM
...by your own rules. Ugly isn't it.
been fun!
Posted by: Josh
|
January 1, 2010 4:34 PM
Yeah, Steven, asking you to provide evidence for your assertions is so very very ugly. How dare we?
Or is it the calling you on your hypocrisy that you find so offensive?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 1, 2010 4:35 PM
Seeing as you failed completely, I say it's more funny than ugly.
God fucks you (he'll fuck you over every time.)
Posted by: reyfox
|
January 1, 2010 4:36 PM
"Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess..."
Fascist.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 4:36 PM
Steven, you dumb fuck, the only ugly here is what you tossed about like confetti. You have done nothing, achieved nothing and said nothing.Go forth into the darkness that is your brain. If you are an example of Carl Wieland's ignorant army of the night, your might is thwarted by a street light.
Fuck off.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 4:39 PM
Steve@248, No, it sounds like you got that particular virus.
FWIW, I did get your pathetic attempt at humor (Jeebus, why is it that Xtians always have such lame senses of humor? Are humorless twits attracted to Xtianity or does the religion itself turn them dull?). It's just that your attempt failed.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
January 1, 2010 4:41 PM
I shall think about you tonight as I* touch myself and imagine dirty, depraved activities.
What's that you ask? Why must I make you feel dirty by informing you of things I do that are supposed to be private?
Well, you see, I'm just playing by your own rules.
*My sex, orientation and age are for me to know and for you to guess.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 1, 2010 4:49 PM
Here are Steven's Rules:
1. Play ignorance card.
2. Play piety card.
3. Provide nothing of substance to the argument at hand.
4. Descry insults, while delivering own from behind thin veil of counterfeit brotherly love.
5. Depart, making sure to point finger of blame at the local community, tacitly claim high ground by implying that the "ugly" tone is purely the fault of the "pond scum" while completely missing the irony inherent in the implication itself.
In short, typically vacuous creationist enters, makes mess, leaves without cleaning it up, blames Pharyngula.
I see that nothing much has changed in my absence. ;-)
Posted by: andre | January 1, 2010 5:06 PM
Your response to creationists and the picture you provided below Mr Myers proves that your scientific evidence for evolutionism is nonexistent and you have to resort to arguments from emotions and propaganda.This is as i understand the famous @intellectual fulfillment of an atheist" postulated by Dawkins.No wonder, you people have somehow come up with an explanation as to how the matter and energy of the Universe ,information and life on top of that ,came to be out of nothing.As you possibly know professor , there is no known law of physic that enables spontaneous generation of information and therefore life. Not to mention matter and energy.
Works of "intellectually fulfilled" authors oozes hatred of God and Christianity in particular. I can not understand how can you people be so angry with God , who according to your beliefs, does not exist..
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 1, 2010 5:06 PM
Aw, it looks like poor little Steven ran away, crapping himself in fear like every other creationist who comes here and is asked to present evidence to support his
fairy magic cult'sreligious beliefsRe: the herpes comment; perhaps Steven's another class act who would never 'inflict oral sex on a woman'.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 1, 2010 5:09 PM
Yes yes yes -- for a given value of "proves".
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 1, 2010 5:10 PM
Nope, there are thousands of peer reviewed data supporting evolution. The only thing supporting creationism is dogma.
Creationist Bingo! You hate god!
Posted by: Steve_C | January 1, 2010 5:11 PM
Andre the Midget.
Who's angry with god? No one here.
You're pathetic debunking of evolution doesn't even make sense. You're too ignorant to even see why.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 5:12 PM
Kseniya, I thought you knew by now that creationist trolls are as unchanging as what they claim species are.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 5:16 PM
Have you actually read those books? The authors are not "angry with God", they are angry with religious followers. That's the problem, that certain religious followers use their religion to force others to behave a particular way, to subvert liberty, to murder, to undermine education, to deny medical procedures to those who need it, who brainwash children and threaten them with eternal damnation, etc.If you have actually read the books then you would know that they are about the consequences of absurd beliefs. They are not angry at God at all, just angry that we live in a society where any speaking out against religion is met with gasps.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 1, 2010 5:17 PM
I can not understand how can
you peopleChristians be so angry withGodZeus.Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Vortmax | January 1, 2010 5:22 PM
Hey Steven, exactly which rules are you using, which you think are "our" rules? Our rules are pretty much : Present peer-reviewed evidence to back up your statements, or go away. Put up or shut up. We've got about a million papers behind us, so you get started.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage!
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
January 1, 2010 5:23 PM
Egads!, I feel all humble now. The first time i've been "savaged" by a creotard. I'm shocked these creotards can find their way out of a birth canal.
Are the fainting couches in Pharyngula just for the religious, or can any one utilise them?
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
January 1, 2010 5:24 PM
You don't understand information. You clearly know nothing about physics...nor chemistry for that matter.
Spontaneous generation of matter = creationism.
Your projecting can be seen from space.
My dog, you people are embarrassing.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 5:24 PM
I can not understand how can
you peopleChristians be so angry withGodZeusThor.Posted by: Vortmax | January 1, 2010 5:29 PM
I can not understand how can
you peopleChristians be so angry withGodZeusThorCthulhu.Posted by: Newfie
|
January 1, 2010 5:29 PM
I love this argument, it really shows how narrow minded some people are.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm
Yes, Andre. We are angry with all of these fictional characters, including the one you believe in. It takes up so much of our time though, what with having to go through them all alphabetically each day, and curse, and deny their existence.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 1, 2010 5:32 PM
That reminded me of this funny post by Blake Stacey:
http://scienceblogs.com/sunclipse/2009/11/how_to_reject_a_paper_advice_f.php
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 5:38 PM
Ah, you haven't seen the million or so peer reviewed scientific papers directly and indirectly supporting evolution, and no papers supporting an alternative scientific theory for biology. Gotta love the idjit creobots for their ignorance of the facts, like the delusion that their religion trumps scientific evidence. Only more science refutes science, and they never provide any.How can we be angry with something that doesn't exist? You have provided no physical evidence to back up your inane and insane claim, as usual. Evidence, that which separates reality from religious delusion.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 5:39 PM
Have you read anything on physics in the last 104 years? For matter? e=mc². The equation exists more than a measure of intelligence: it explains the relationship between mass, energy and the speed of light.As for energy itself, the total energy of the universe is ~0 (give or take quantum variation). The positive energy that we see is cancelled out by by gravitation.
So you're wrong, the laws of physics account for both matter and energy. And as for "information", the laws of physics allow for DNA to form, and DNA is turned into information through selection. In effect, evolution is a self-bootstrapping mechanism as randomness + selection = information.
Tiresome creationist rhetoric is tiresome.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 5:39 PM
I can not understand how can
you peopleChristians be so angry withGodZeusThorCthulhuPZ Myers.Posted by: andre | January 1, 2010 5:41 PM
and your posts dear "fulfilled" proved yet again: no scientific proof for evolution,therefore arguments ad persona. From behind a nick names of course in case you have to take responsibility for what you saying...
I will be waiting for those peer revieved works of the atheist inteligentsia proving impossible...For uninitiated in the evo faith :Peer of course mean the evo people peer that follows the faith and accepts the axiom number one as fundamental to the faith..
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
January 1, 2010 5:48 PM
Speaking of which, how 'bout that wait for Jesus to come back? Any news?Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | January 1, 2010 5:48 PM
Um you want peer reviewed from us. If you looked at the archieves from the last month you will find many. Now give me evidence that evolution is wrong. Or did you not read anyone post, godbot.
Christian lies and dellusion never cease to amaze me.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 1, 2010 5:48 PM
Good heavens, these trolls are pathetic . . . not enough meat on one to make it worth gutting and skinning. We'll have to make our fangs sniny by brushing with Pepsodent in the absence of any nutritional value from noshing on these specimens.
But here's a clue for the creotards who've swung by . . . while PZ is indeed an atheist, bless his sweet heart, the Theory of Evolution itself is a separate issue altogether. Not everyone who understands and accepts the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory is an atheist. Nor is acceptance a matter of faith (a belief in things unseen); it is a matter of evidence, the belief in things seen and demonstrated.
I myself, for example, am a devout Christian. As a Christian, I must tell you that your foolishness in adhering to bad theology, your hostility, and the way you Lie for Jesus are the worst possible witness for Christ. And no, it doesn't matter what the atheists here say. They don't claim to follow the Prince of Peace, so that's no excuse for your behavior. You have been told to turn the other cheek, not to spit in their faces.
Perhaps you should spend a little more time studying the example set by Jesus, and a lot less time sallying forth to engage in a battle of wits on the internet. You amply demonstrate how little you engage in the former, and how poorly you're equipped for the latter.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 5:48 PM
Dude. Sober up.
Posted by: andre | January 1, 2010 5:49 PM
ha ha ha !!! and of course another evo people argument: "you do not understand evolution chemistry and physics". Evo people often say that they avoid debates because their arguments are so sophisticated (he he he , sophisticated) that only initiated in the faith could understand. On the other hand creationist's arguments are so simple that anybody can understand...
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
January 1, 2010 5:49 PM
From behind a nick names of course in case you have to take responsibility for what you saying - andre
andre,
You are not only a bare-faced liar, but also a hypocrite. Liar: the scientific evidence for evolution is vast and varied: from comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, biogeography, development, palaeontology... Hypocrite: whining about others using nicknames when you use a personal name that does not allow you to be identified. Well, well, - a Christian who is a liar and a hypocrite - no surprise whatsoever.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
January 1, 2010 5:52 PM
On the other hand creationist's arguments are so simple that anybody can understand... - andre
and see just how fucking stupid and dishonest they and those who promulgate them are.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | January 1, 2010 5:53 PM
Yeah because anyone can make up shit right of their back. Which creation argument. Christian creationism is too lame, lets go for Shinto creationism!
(he doesn't read our post)
GIVE ME FACTS, IDIOT!
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 5:53 PM
It's easy to understand the phrase, "God did it." Proving it, on the other hand, is where creationists run into serious problems.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 5:56 PM
andre:
Andre, why do you wait, when you can use Google Scholar?
There's well over 2 million hits right there.
Posted by: Newfie
|
January 1, 2010 5:57 PM
this is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la, can't hear you."
so, what's your answer then andre? please enlighten us. Give us the wheres, the whens, and the hows. Please show your work.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 6:00 PM
I'm not quite sure what evolutionism is, but I'm going to guess you're talking the current accumulated scientific knowledge including in physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and psychology that collectively paint a picture of the universe being billions of years old and life on this planet emerging over time. As opposed to just talking about evolution itself, whereby inherited variation in populations over time leads to change and the notion that all life has emerged from a common ancestor.Now we could take two paths to a response, but they would require you to clarify something for me. If you want to go down the road of life, the universe and everything - we can do that. The reason the earth and universe are old has nothing to do with evolution itself. Indeed one of the objections in the late 19th century to evolution was that the earth wasn't old enough for evolution to happen. It wasn't until the 20th century that the mechanism of fusion was discovered, thereby making the sun billions of years old. And as for the date of ~4.6 billion years? Nothing to do with evolution, but the results of radiometric dating on solar objects.
The other path of course is to just talk about evolution itself - that life has changed over time and that we all share a common ancestor. If we focus on this, it allows a bit more of an in-depth exploration of the evidence for evolution and why is it so strongly supported in the scientific arena. And there is plenty of evidence, far from your cry of "nonexistent". If you want a good place to start (this is assuming you want to be intellectually honest) would be Jerry Coyne's wonderful book Why Evolution Is True. Another great book is Don Prothero's Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters. That not enough? Then try Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish. And if you're looking for a primer on Natural Selection then you could do a lot worse than Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth.
So it's up to you, are you intellectually honest enough to take the arguments on their own merits? Do you actually want to argue the science as scientists understand it? Or are you just here to preach?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 6:01 PM
On the other hand creationist's arguments are so simple that anybody can understand...
Therefore there is no need for education past the third grade (to pull a grade out of my ass) because the strength of a idea lies in how simple it is. Andre, the concept of the Sun moving around the Earth is easier for a four year old to understand. Does that make it right?
Posted by: andre | January 1, 2010 6:01 PM
...and I can see some einstein impressed evo poeople here as well.
OK,for your intellectual fulfilment a question asked by a guy who could use his brain..
Herbert's Dingle asked:
"According to the theory, if you have two exactly
similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respectto the other, they must work at different rates, i.e. oneworks more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B
moves and that B rests while A moves. The question
therefore arises: how does one determine consistently with the theory, which clock works more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A - which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
January 1, 2010 6:03 PM
I was going to cheer the Aussie creationists for being more literate than their American counterparts, but then Andre came and typed that word salad. Oh well, so much for national pride.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | January 1, 2010 6:03 PM
He's not even reading our post. Fucking godbots, Go read a science book, even elementary ones give more facts than you have done!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 6:05 PM
You want "proof" in science? You don't get proof in science, you get theories. This has nothing to do with atheism. The majority of scientists are religious in some form with a large minority having a belief in a personal deity. The most prominent advocate for evolution in the United States is a Christian! The former head of the human genome project is a fundamentalist Christian! One of the leading palaeontologists in the United States doubles as a Pentecostal preacher! One of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the 20th century was not only Christian by a pretty competent amateur theologian.Evolution is not atheism, it's science. By equating the two, you misrepresent what the science is.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 6:06 PM
Easy. Go to George Webb's.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 6:07 PM
And yet relativity is used for GPS. Andre, I get the feeling you have more respect for your own ignorance then you have for other people's knowledge.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 1, 2010 6:08 PM
Hey Andre,
How old is the earth? Just wondering how ignorant you are.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 6:11 PM
Gyeong, andre is not even a creobot, it's just a capering troll. Of course it's not reading our posts.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 1, 2010 6:13 PM
Andre, you forgot the following disciplines which also fully support the Theory of Evolution:
Paleontology, genetics, microbiology, anthropology, geology, ecology, comparative anatomy, organic chemistry, astronomy, molecular biology
It's also escaped your notice that a partial list of the authoritative scientific organizations fully support evolution and reject the teaching of religious dogma in science classrooms includes these:
National Academy of Sciences
American Association of University Professors
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Astronomical Society
National Association of Biology Teachers
Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
American Institute of Biological Sciences
The Paleontological Society
Botanical Society of America
Other than a tiny, indeed miniscule, number of religious cranks who also happen to be degreed (though rarely practicing) scientists, NO ONE is on your side who has an education in the sciences. That includes the big majority of your fellow Christians, who know that your foolish doctrine of inerrancy has ironically led you into gross error.
You are an ignoramus who has been led down the garden path by con men, religious hucksters who prey on gullible and poorly-educated Christians. These snake-oil salesmen, the Ken Hams and Kent Hovinds, make a rich living from shearing you poor sheep.
Indeed, the creationists' arguments are easy to understand. They are lies simplified to the lowest common denominator. They're aimed at the simple-minded and find no traction amongst those who are better educated.
If you truly have concern for the souls of Pharyngula community, get an education and come back here with a different attitude . . . one more closely modeled on Jesus Christ and less on the tactics of the World Wrestling Federation.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 6:16 PM
Try the libraries of any institution of higher learning in the world. They will have titles like Science, Nature, Biochemistry, Cell, Journal of Biochemistry, etc. We are waiting your evidence that your imaginary deity exists.Yep, but you never provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. So when you say "goddidit", you are telling a lie, and you know it...Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 6:19 PM
andre #295 is a cut and paste from the Anti Relativity website.
Posted by: andre | January 1, 2010 6:23 PM
@ Kel, OM
OK. Alleged first organism which organized itself from the primordial soup must have contained all the available information in its DNA for the many Darwinian miracles to happen. Name a process that adds information to genome in response to changes in environment.Support with experimental evidence.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 6:28 PM
Translation of Andre at #306. I am too fucking lazy to look up the research on this subject and demand that the rest of you drag it to my feet. And I will dismiss it anyway. Goddidit.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
January 1, 2010 6:28 PM
Why?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 6:32 PM
bzzt, wrong. Okay, there's a wonderful process called "gene duplication". This is a duplication of a region of DNA. It is often free from the forces of selective pressure. So it accumulates mutations. Occasionally such mutations may give rise to something new and advantageous.For evidence, I give the example of the nylon-eating bacteria. It's ability to digest nylon came from a gene duplication then a single mutation. And from that it was able to exploit a new environment. So there you have it, more "information" in the genome that not only harms the organism but is able to give it a Darwinian survival advantage to exploit a resource only recently invented and unexploited by any other organism.
Mammals have about 1000 genes for smell, all of which are duplications and modifications of a single gene. In humans, several hundred genes are switched off, which is no surprise, the same is seen in other primates that have trichromatic vision. i.e. We rely on vision more than smell so we should see the accumulation of vestigial genes on systems that are no longer necessary.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | January 1, 2010 6:32 PM
Um random mutations can and do add information. If there is a change in the environment, a mutation that is beneficial can be selected for. I think PZ posted some evidence of how the geographical separation (which is an environmental changes) do result in evolution of fishes in the Congo.
Your post seems to indicate that you have a problem with miracles. That’s odd since the whole foundation of Creationism is based on a miracle.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 6:34 PM
Andre, Steve, or whatever other creobots are about:
Just curious, but are there any of you guys who can string together a single, correct sentence in English?
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 1, 2010 6:35 PM
Andre, I see you've also been taken in by the current creotard craze for "information". That word does not mean what you think it means.
Gene duplication is the most obvious example, but here, from the TalkOrigins page http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
For pete's sake, go read some real science and give up this foolish devotion to the pseudoscientific nonsense served up by charlatans. I'll give you a paper to read in my next post.are several:
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
January 1, 2010 6:36 PM
I suspect andre is a contrarian at heart. Carl Wieland, Herbert Dingle, anyone who bucks the system is apparently a person who can “use his brain.”
Or he's just a troll.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 1, 2010 6:40 PM
Here is the fulltext of the famous 1995 paper by Prijambada et. al. that describes the evolution of the enzyme nylonase (creating the ability to digest nylon, which didn't even exist until 1935.
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 6:42 PM
As usual, Talk Origins has considered this point:
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 1, 2010 6:43 PM
In case you find the Prijambada paper a little challenging (as I do), here is a Wikipedia article that describes the discovery in more accessible language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 6:46 PM
Darn, I see Leigh Williams beat me to the Talk Origins article.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 1, 2010 6:49 PM
Don't worry, 'Tis, yours was formatted much more coherently.
Posted by: Josh
|
January 1, 2010 6:51 PM
Hey, Leigh, nice to see you commenting. It's been a while (or I haven't been in the relevant threads).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 6:51 PM
Yep, sounds like all creobots. Ignorance in one area branches out over others. They sound like idjits because they are idjits.Posted by: Newfie
|
January 1, 2010 6:54 PM
All religions are shit.
Just happened upon this image again, and thought I'd share.
Posted by: Owlmirror | January 1, 2010 6:54 PM
Fixed.
Gene duplication and variation.
It doesn't happen in response to changes in the environment; it happens at random.
Rapid evolution of expression and regulatory divergences after yeast gene duplication
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 1, 2010 6:58 PM
Happy to be back, Josh. I tend to come out to play when my fellow Christians show up, if only to demonstrate to them that their small notions of Christianity are a fundamentalist construct. Otherwise, I'm just lurking and learning and lol'ing . . .
Andre, did you notice that you got several immediate replies mentioning gene duplication and nylonase? We didn't have to google that, buddy. We already knew about it.
That's because we've taken the time to get educated. You could do the same, you know. And you don't have to fear for your faith, either. Lots of scientifically-educated people are also Christians (and Muslims, and Buddhists, and pagans, etc.).
You would have to give up young-earth creationism, of course, but that's just a lie you've been told anyway.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 1, 2010 7:00 PM
Woo-hoo! Kook stomp! However, I've next-to-no science-foo, so I'll just be a cheerleader for this evening's troll dismemberment.
However, I will ask this question: Andre, as Leigh Williams has pointed out, many Christians - including the entire Catholic church - accept the fact of evolution. How do you explain that?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 7:08 PM
Wowbagger, I also have no science fu. It does not stop me from joining in the fun because I know the creationists tactics and comment on it. If anything, I would venture that your grasp is greater then mine. There is no need to cheer lead. Put on your troll stomping boots and join in the fun.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 7:08 PM
If I remember correctly, Pastor Tom Estes could write the English good. That was about the only thing where he showed proficiency.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
January 1, 2010 7:08 PM
Since when did simple imply correct( or even in the ballpark)?When you say "avoid debate" I assume you refer simply the Australian debate. I've been on this blogspot for over a year now and it's always the same scenario;some fool(like you) gets on and , laughing into their hand, spouts off some pseudointellectual "gotcha" conundrum dreamt up by some creotard that does little other than to exemplify the geniuses misunderstanding of abiogenesis/biology/developmental embryology/microbiology/geology/chemistry/physics( I could keep going).Then when evidence is supplied by some well meaning do-gooder it's ignored or the idiot fails to see the evidence that's clearly in front of their face.I would assume that eventually everyone gets tired of readdressing the same old tired arguments when the information is ignored like pearls before swine.Just look in the archives, it's all been done before and just because your fundamentalism doesn't allow for a belief in evolution, don't presume to speak for all christians(of which I am not a member, but know many ).Posted by: Sioux Laris
|
January 1, 2010 7:08 PM
My words! This Aussie contingient of creationists should be placed in charge of Koala-T Kuntroll at Conserve o' Pedia!
They somehow remind me of that WB cartoon where the dog, in order to inspire terror, sprays its muzzle with whipped cream to simulate a rabid condition, only to have the housewife berate it for getting into her whipped cream.
Yeah, a weird simile, but it won't go away.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 7:10 PM
In terms of the notion that evolution = atheism, check this video out.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 1, 2010 7:12 PM
Hi Leigh, long time no see. :-)
Happy New Year, everyone (and I do mean everyone).
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | January 1, 2010 7:15 PM
I just realized that my own science background is kinda iffy too. Oh well. I do know more about it that andre, and I can give peer review research too. :)
Sabaidee Pimai.
Posted by: Mercurious | January 1, 2010 7:19 PM
Andre, I'll throw my 2 cents into this also. Try looking up the Clergy Letter Project. As of Dec 30, 2009 there were 12,130 Christian clergy members, 462 Rabbis, and 211 UU clergy members who have signed and affirmed that the Theory of Evolution has no conflict with their faith (although I disagree, that is neither here nor there).
First paragraph of the letter.
Posted by: Newfie
|
January 1, 2010 7:35 PM
I'm more of Devo person, actually.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 1, 2010 7:36 PM
I don't have much formal science education either. But I can read and think; given the resources we have available nowadays, that's really all that's required to get enough education to at least be aware of what's true.
You've got to WANT the truth, of course, and not fear it.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 1, 2010 7:37 PM
I only meant that in a relative sense; if there's no-one else here to cite papers and so forth then I'm happy to take them on and just link to Talk Origins pages for each of their lies about science. But when someone can come along and toss out the most recent experimental findings, formulae, chemical equations and numbers etc. then I'm happy to take a back seat.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 7:44 PM
I understand. I try not to stand in the way of those who have superior knowledge of the subject. But all of we regulars have a better grasp of science than the trolls. And if I am in the right mood, I love wearing my blood red wooden shoes.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 1, 2010 7:57 PM
My fridge has a better grasp of science than the trolls we've seen today. Some of them 'know' (but have never thought critically about) how to ask trickier questions than I'm necessary able to answer without a bit of research, though.
Posted by: deep | January 1, 2010 7:57 PM
I came here hoping for a bloodbath and find not even creationist scraps left. I'll guess I'll have to go back to hunting them on the offtopic forums of obscure sites that deal with signature buddies or product reviews. Gotta stay sniny somehow!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 8:00 PM
The only biology course I've ever had was in high school. It was so long ago that we had saber-toothed mice to dissect.
However the creationist arguments are always the same:
Second law of thermodynamics is violated.
Evilution is only a theory.
Information can only be lost by mutation
You guys hate god, that's why you worship Darwin.
Microevolution but not macroevolution
Something can't come from nothing.
Hitler was an evilutionist.
GODDIDIT! Prove he didn't.
After watching people do it a few dozen times, it's easy for me to explain (or rather, try to explain) to a creationist what a transitional fossil is.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
January 1, 2010 8:04 PM
WTF?
I just read some 150 + posts and this is the best the trolls can do?
I'm going back to reading Lee Smolin.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 8:06 PM
Oh, I forgot one of the creationists' favorite arguements:
● You guys swear a lot, so evilution is falsified.
Posted by: Mookie | January 1, 2010 8:10 PM
Hey Andre #306
Creationists ae always complaining that evolutional milestones are just too unlikely to come about..........until a real scientist discovers a simple, elegant process by which it could happen. (Actually that's a lie,the creationists just continue to complain )
Andre, old buddy, meet the RNA enzyme that can replicate itself. No need for lightning bolts or angels, the RNA enzyme fulfills in only 1 molecule the function that creationists claim need hundreds. If you're up for some real science, check it our:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm
Best of all, it actually evolved in a lab! Evolution before your very eyes, my simple friend!
And to the other Dr. Wieland groupies: What's with the passive-aggressive whinging? Why always crying "Atheists aren't nice in their posts, and they swear"? The Mormons have a term for the behaviour you seem to expect. It's called "Keeping it Sweet", and it's an obnoxious, dishonest form of discourse that stifles communication. Christians at this site believe the whole world should talk like that.
Don't you Christians interact with any normal people?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 1, 2010 8:11 PM
'Tis, don't forget irreducible complexity - if that's not covered under 'Something can't come from nothing'.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
January 1, 2010 8:14 PM
You guys swear a lot, so evilution is falsified.
jeebus on a stick, these feckers do play that card every time, don't they?
Posted by: Josh
|
January 1, 2010 8:20 PM
'Tis is right--they play pretty much all of those cards every time.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
January 1, 2010 8:28 PM
And this one is goats aflame stupider than the cussing card.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 8:31 PM
ID Creationist Bingo.
Posted by: otrame
|
January 1, 2010 9:20 PM
There is a sort of fascination to be had in watching the feeding frenzy when a fundie falls into the water (or in this case, pushed in by dear old Carl) here. They've been pretty quiet the last couple hours. Nothing left now but a few shreds and some blood in the water. But we may see some more once the sun comes up over there in Oz.
I feel more than a little sorry for them, truth be told. They've been lied to so spectacularly. The ones who actually have a tiny shred of honesty are always so upset when they begin to learn the truth. The one's who have no honesty in them just keep spouting the same old crap, year after year after year after year after year. So you shall feed again soon, my brethren.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
January 1, 2010 9:32 PM
otrame, it's 1.30pm here. They probably clocked off for lunch :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 9:36 PM
Yep, that's why some of us get complaints that we sound the same. Keeps our teeth nice and tartar free though...Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 9:41 PM
Otrame says, "There is a sort of fascination to be had in watching the feeding frenzy when a fundie falls into the water (or in this case, pushed in by dear old Carl) here."
Oh, I think we're a pretty welcoming bunch. I always make it a point to say "Nice to see you...Chum!"
Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com
|
January 1, 2010 9:44 PM
André @ 295: Epic fail.
Both clocks are moving slower than each other, and neither is. It depends on your reference frame. The cornerstone of relativistic physics are the facts that all frames are equivalent (ie, it doesn't matter where you do your observations from) but ideas such as "simultaneous", "slower", "after", etc (any temporal idea, really) only have meaning if you specify your reference frame (specify how, where, when, and with what trajectory you observe this from). Thus, clock A is running slow if you are in clock B's reference frame, clock B is running slow in clock A's, and both are running slow from an external frame.
Everything is kept nice and neat by other facets of SR, such as relativistic length contraction bringing together loose ends.
Or, you can believe that scientists have been lying for 105 years since "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and GPS runs on magic.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
January 1, 2010 9:45 PM
Tis Himself says "However the creationist arguments are always the same..."
That's why I keep my Creationist bingo card at the ready!
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 9:52 PM
It would seem the motto of the Wieland fans is vini, vidi, fugi.
Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com
|
January 1, 2010 9:54 PM
By the way, we're not mean to Christians. We don't believe in any of these deities:
http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_deities.html
What makes yours any more worthwhile of consideration?
Posted by: David from Canada | January 1, 2010 10:22 PM
"You guys swear a lot, so evilution is falsified."
I would say that all the crudeness and fury in the comments makes you look like an angry mob ready for a book burning. For the average person who does not have a strong opinion either way - the arrogance and brutishness of the comments will be off-putting. It's not attractive.
Even if you are overwelmingly right in your opionon - no one likes a poor winner.
Some of you are so concerned about spelling mistakes (claiming they appear to make you look uneducated) but somehow can't see how swearing or posting offessive pictures shows a lack of good upbringing.
And to Leigh Williams - As a Christian are you ok with a picture of Jesus giving the finger? I'm glad to see your hanging out with the athiests but it must be hard to handle their constant mockery of religion.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 1, 2010 10:25 PM
I clutch my pearls regularly because of the lack of good upbringing around here.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 1, 2010 10:28 PM
Andre: On the other hand creationist's arguments are so simple that anybody can understand...
____
Simple is creotard for non-existent. Creotards have no arguments worth their salt, all they have is nothing. When I hear the creotards' case, all I can make out is that they are full of hot, stale air. Most Christians know this also.
Creotards are seen as abject IDiots in both atheist and Christian communities. No one will debate IDiocy with creotards because they did not get expelled, they flunked out as shown in the Dover case where a Christian judge was able to easily identify Intelligent Design as religion. The majority of Christians understand that science is not religion.
There is no excuse for creotards that is why they are ridiculed. They choose to stay ignorant despite having authentic information and knowledge at their disposal at many educational sites on the Web. And they truly do not deserve the comfort that scientific advances has given them. They are leeches and parasites, hanging on for the ride that so many hard-working humans are so kindly giving them.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 1, 2010 10:31 PM
Not sure what "clutch my pearls" means but it sounds funny. :)
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 10:33 PM
David from Canada:
You would, would you? Why don't you, then? :)
Never mind Leigh — why do you think story-Jesus would be at all bothered by it?
--
Oh yeah, I know you came here to whinge about tone, but do you care to explain why you're in denial of basic science, though it's accepted by the bulk of Christians?
Posted by: RJ | January 1, 2010 10:33 PM
@352
Amazing explanation. I thought I'd add that if you try to bring the clocks together to see how much time elapsed on each clock, you would have to accelerate one of the clocks. Then, the accelerated clock will have elapsed more time. This experiment has been done with airplanes before, and confirmed special relativity.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 1, 2010 10:34 PM
If I lack a good upbringing, blame my fundie parents.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 1, 2010 10:38 PM
"And to Leigh Williams - As a Christian are you ok with a picture of Jesus giving the finger? I'm glad to see your hanging out with the athiests but it must be hard to handle their constant mockery of religion."
I can't speak for Leigh, but on a personal level, and as a non-Christian (But not an avowed Atheist either), while the more extremely angrious ideas are a bit irritating to hear, it's STILL less grating because the mean things they say are ultimately not being used to spread widespread pain for humanity in general, or retard their educations.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 10:38 PM
David fC:
That's it is funny, and so very appropriate in this case.
Posted by: rmp | January 1, 2010 10:42 PM
David From Canada. If you are indeed sincere and not a troll, here's a question for you. Do you make your decision on issues based on who sounds the most polite? Certainly many of the comments here would not make it past Miss Manners, BUT, ... if you want to have a serious discussion here AND you don't resort to Ad Hominem attacks THEN I think you'll find very civil responses (well from most of us anyway ;))
Posted by: David from Canada | January 1, 2010 10:48 PM
"why do you think story-Jesus would be at all bothered by it?"
Most of the Christians I know would find it offensive. Many others would as well. It doesn't help you win freinds and influence people. But if shock and awe the objective then PZ has accomplished his mission.
"Oh yeah, I know you came here to whinge about tone, but do you care to explain why you're in denial of basic science, though it's accepted by the bulk of Christians?"
I didn't say what I believed.
Posted by: rmp | January 1, 2010 10:52 PM
DFC, I suspect that PZ is trying to blog honestly. By that, I mean he thinks religion is stupid and an enemy of reason. However, if you appear sincere in your questions, you will get sincere answers.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 10:59 PM
Yep, the use of profanities and blasphemy must mean we had a poor upbringing. Meanwhile the ones taking offence and trying to take the moral highground are either implicitly or deliberately lying in order to argue against science. Why is it that creationists have such a problem with naughty words but have no problem with completely misrepresenting a well established scientific theory in order to promote their mythology? This is what I don't get, that there's no problems to come down on those who swear or blaspheme as being uncouth, but the very next sentence they have no problems lying and lying and lying some more - just as long as it serves the lords purpose right?Now while some of us might have grown up poor in lower class neighbourhoods, attended public schools, received welfare, we aren't the ones who are willing to lie to protect a belief. If Leigh is a believer, so what? Do you have to impose groupthink on him and tell him what he should or shouldn't be offended by?
If you're sitting on the fence on the issue of evolution, get off the fence and into the library. Understand the science of evolution as scientists understand it. Maybe then you'll see why Leigh comes down hard on believers who profess creation as opposed to atheists who say shit and fuck and stuff.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 10:59 PM
David fC,
Maybe, but that's not an answer to the question that was asked.
You might've have a point if he'd posted it in a newspaper, or pasted it on the wall of a church, or the like.
However, since he posted it in his blog, and people have to choose to come here and read it, you don't.
No, you didn't. Are you a creationist, or do you genuinely concerned purely by the tone taken towards such in PZ's blog?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 1, 2010 11:05 PM
David: And to Leigh Williams - As a Christian are you ok with a picture of Jesus giving the finger? I'm glad to see your hanging out with the athiests but it must be hard to handle their constant mockery of religion.
_____
My perception is that Leigh is confident enough and serious enough about his Christianity, that he is able to realize that Jesus is not a photograph of a blond guy with blue eyes. As for his handling mockery of religion, since there is no push to outlaw religion in the discussion or in the blog posts, why would a Christian confident in his faith be concerned about mockery? Your concern about garden variety mockery makes a mockery of your faith.
So what if swearing and showing offensive pictures indicate bad manners? Do you think that the majority of the posters here go around swearing and shoving offensive picture under the noses of strangers like the way many Christians blab about their unproven god in any nearby ear, emphasizing that non-believers will burn in hell for all eternity, and shoving their religious propaganda in the faces of passing strangers?
You equate an online rough-and-ready milieu with the merde that Christians often do in meatspace? We are not the ones that lack manners. Christians who get away with being insulting, rude, and meddling, just because of the deferential treatment given to them are the ones who are truly lacking in manners. Well, they don't get deferential treatment here. Only their arguments count.
You seem to be implying that you are a fence sitter, that you don't like either extreme. Then go somewhere and vegetate, because here we (including some religious believers) do care about the damage that religion does.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 11:06 PM
Psst Kel, pretty sure Leigh is a she.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 1, 2010 11:10 PM
OK, sorry about that. I made the same error as Leigh is of the female persuasion.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 11:13 PM
Apologies Leigh. As you could probably guess, that's happened to me before - well the other way around.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 11:14 PM
That is my impression also.When will DoC get to his points other than tone? Tone trolls are so boring...
Posted by: rmp | January 1, 2010 11:22 PM
Nerd of Readhead, OM
Give DoC some time. I used to be a concern troll (but a sincere one!!)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 11:22 PM
I also find it quite odd that so many people go on about style as opposed to substance. Yes, it might be off-putting, but with or without the swearing the points are seldom (if ever) addressed. All this concern about tone putting people off? Nonsense, it's just an excuse people use when they are put off. It's okay to tell someone they will go to hell, but not okay to say hell as a pejorative? Come on...
Posted by: David from Canada | January 1, 2010 11:23 PM
"Do you make your decision on issues based on who sounds the most polite?"
No - but but delivery can make the difference.
"You seem to be implying that you are a fence sitter, that you don't like either extreme."
I'm not a fence sitter, but after reading all 370+ posts I'm not really eager to poke the talkback blog with a pointy stick. For the record I'm a Christian and a creationist. As Miki Z. says: "blame my fundie parents". :)
I just wanted to add my contribution to the discussion about on tone.
Posted by: rmp | January 1, 2010 11:24 PM
David, are you a YEC?
Posted by: David from Canada | January 1, 2010 11:30 PM
"Give DoC some time. I used to be a concern troll (but a sincere one!!)"
A Troll? Really? Isn't that someone who tries to start an online argument for fun? I'm low key and on topic.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 11:31 PM
Does tone really make a difference? Are you saying if we are nice to you that you'll stop believing that the distance between New York and San Francisco is 10 yards? Come off it, tone matters not. It's just another excuse people use to avoid actually addressing what is an untenable belief. Tone matters not, and every single creationist I've ever seen or talked to no matter the tone takes the same hostility towards anyone who says otherwise. Maybe they don't know why, and use tone as an excuse. But are you really going to be upset that someone has laced a reply with profanities or that they are denying your cherished belief?You can pretend tone makes a difference, but it doesn't. One can be nice as one can be but it still doesn't make a difference. You can't reason people out of positions they weren't reasoned into, swearing just gives an excuse not to think of one's own position as unreasonable.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 1, 2010 11:38 PM
The problem is that this conversation comes up time and time again. Why aren't we nice? Why can't we be respectful? Why do we have to swear? All it's doing is driving people away. etc. It's been discussed ad nauseum, so there's a reason why people on here call it concern trolling. Because there's always someone who pops up and complains about the style without adding any substance.As you probably gathered from my other posts, the reason why I think it irrelevant is that it makes no discernible difference. All it does is give someone an excuse not to listen instead of just flat out ignoring you. There's been plenty of times when I've tried to engage a creationist solely on the evidence, their response? Ignore any posts on substance and complain about the style of others. Same thing keeps on happening, no matter what there's never any substance addressed.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 1, 2010 11:41 PM
"David, are you a YEC?"
Yesh? Does that mean I'm really in for it?
I know that in most peoples opinion (on this site) - YEC is the lowest form of creationist - still that is what I'm convinced of.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 11:42 PM
David fC:
Your prudence is commendable. :)
You do recognise that they're not mutually-necessary, right?
You can still be a Christian and yet acknowledge science (including the evolutionary variety).
PS You still haven't answered my earlier question.
Posted by: rmp | January 1, 2010 11:45 PM
David, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and think you really want a constructive discussion. That being said it's hard to have a discussion about science if you really believe the world is only approx 10,000 years old. Are you willing to defend that position?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 1, 2010 11:46 PM
I would love to see, just for once, a YECer being thorough about responding to specific questions. In order for that to happen, David needs not to be inundated with tons of questions (not even the Flying Spaghetti Monster could handle such an overload). I will now retire to the mute background and read David responses to the already asked questions.
Posted by: philosoraptor | January 1, 2010 11:50 PM
For everyone here who is frustrated with the tedious activity of debunking creationist nonsense, only to have them retort with the exact same previously debunked argument, look no further than the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Here's a quick video from youtube on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 1, 2010 11:51 PM
David from Canada,
If you read my posts #339 and 341 you'll see that we've been dealing with the same creationist arguments for a long time. In this very thread are the "2nd law of thermodynamics" argument, "evilution is a religion" and even the argumentum ad Hitlerum. These arguments and the other ones that I listed, plus many more, were refuted years ago. For instance, William Paley gave his "watchmaker" argument in a book published in 1802. Unfortunately for this argument, David Hume refuted it in a book published posthumously in 1779. Yes, that's right, Paley's argument had been answered over 20 years before it was given. But creationists are still throwing the watchmaker argument at us some 200 years after Paley proposed it.
So we're getting a little tired of answering the same arguments time after time after time. It's especially annoying when the creationists not only don't consider our arguments, they usually pretend we haven't even given them. So fuck the creationists! If they're going to play stupid to us then we're going to be rude, crude and lewd at them. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not ours.
There's the further point that this place is Liberty Hall, where you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard.
Posted by: Newfie
|
January 1, 2010 11:52 PM
Mookie@342 wrote
I like it.
Henceforth, I shall refer to myself as 'normal people' and the others as 'hopped up on spirits'.
/ gargling that one down with some Jim Beam Black.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 1, 2010 11:53 PM
One reason we are somewhat rude is that if we aren't, some godbots think we can be converted. So, we are semi-rude to make sure they understand that if anyone learns and changes their minds, it will be them rather than us. They pay the price of our incivility if they try to proselytize. Normally we try to follow the three post rule, where we don't start getting semi-rude until after the third post. We have a few old trolls who have long passed this low bar, so they are quickly on the receiving end of our snark.Again, if you have a point other than tone (we hear your concern, and reject it), get to it. Failure to get to a point is very aggravating, and we respond in kind.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 1, 2010 11:54 PM
"I would love to see, just for once, a YECer being thorough about responding to specific questions. In order for that to happen, David needs not to be inundated with tons of questions (not even the Flying Spaghetti Monster could handle such an overload). I will now retire to the mute background and read David responses to the already asked questions."
Gonna second this on a general level. If you inundate someone with questions, and they're honest, you're raising the bar for entry. IF you inundate someone with questions, and they're /dis/honest, then they have a 'valid' dodge.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 1, 2010 11:54 PM
It pains me whenever someone admits it. It's like admitting you think science is useless. Your mythology overrides everything. We could point you to the evidence. You'll most likely ignore it or not understand it. We usually just point and laugh instead. A YEC is rarely interested in learning anything, it might shake their faith in their mythology.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 1, 2010 11:56 PM
Michelle,
Very true.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 1, 2010 11:56 PM
"PS You still haven't answered my earlier question."
Are you refering to "why would story-Jesus care?"? I thought you were being rhetorical. If Jesus is just a story he would not care. I'm not sure if Jesus cares about the picture but it does makes a few of his followers "clutch their pearls"
As for the "concern troll" business I won't preach about your cussing but you have to overlook my spelling.
Are you willing to defend that position? Yes but it is 11pm here and I do need my beuaty rest. Plus I'm sure that you may not be overly impressed by my arguments. I'm not a scientist or even play one on TV.
I can give you some honest insight into why I believe it.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 1, 2010 11:59 PM
David from Canada asked:
The picture makes me no nevermind, to be honest. The Christ doesn't care, that's for sure -- remember, He asked God to forgive those who tortured and murdered him, so I doubt He'll mind some childish humor. God is big enough to stand a little mockery. Recall that in the Book of Job, he rewarded Job for challenging Him with a little facetime.
I'll tell you what I'll bet does piss Him off, though, and it's real blasphemy. It's blasphemous to tell people He just loves certain people who mouth a religious formula without any real intention of doing what He told us to do, which is to love and serve one another. It's horrible blasphemy to claim he condemns the vast bulk of humankind to eternal torture.
It's blasphemy to Lie for Jesus. Look at the so-called Christians who've shown up here. Look at their arrogance, ignorance, and hostility. Contrast their behavior with the instruction given to us by Jesus, who told us to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. Do you see any humility, any desire to serve, any real attempt to communicate?
Most of the people who post here are doing their best to deal honestly. Yes, they can speak roughly, but at least they're not lying their asses off. And they haven't made any promises to follow the Christ in servanthood and humility.
We Christians have. Do you see us doing that?
Jesus is coming, and boy, is He pissed.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 1, 2010 11:59 PM
David the polite tone-concern troll creationist, to Leigh Williams :
You clearly haven't been around much.And probably havent read your own holy book recently.
What christians should not have a problem with if they have read their own book, is accept scientific facts like eg evolution and speak out against lies and deceit.
Which is what PZ does a lot in this place.And what a lot of christians have no problems with whatsoever.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 12:02 AM
David fC:
Dude, this is Pharyngula!
MinionsCommenters are around 24-7-365, so get your beauty-sleep and come back refreshed and bring it on at your leisure. :)Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 2, 2010 12:04 AM
I swear at creationists for this simple reason, it makes them upset. If it can be shown that the person will toss out legitimate arguments and ideas because of the arrangement of letters, it is shown that person does not have much going on intellectually.
As for why I swear at the regulars here, it is because they tolerate me and know it is not to be taken seriously.
Posted by: llewelly
|
January 2, 2010 12:08 AM
David from Canada | January 1, 2010 11:41 PM:
Please read Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. It will teach you what you need to know.
There are many other helpful books you could read instead - Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True, Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, just to mention a few. I think you find the evidence presented in any of these books captivating, amazing, and most of all convincing. These books will teach you a great deal, and you will be a wiser person for having read them.
Please understand that many of us here have read the contrary books - such as Behe's Darwin's Black Box and Whitcomb and Morris's The Genesis Flood. Many of us have also read the bible. (Note - I was raised a Christian, and I was also raised a creationist. Many others on this blog were as well.) We have considered the creationist points of view at great length, and in great depth. And we would like you to understand why we find those viewpoints wanting.
A huge number of creationist claims are discussed at length, and with great clarity, on the talk origins site, here. I encourage you to read this as well. Chances are, nearly every creationist argument you will think to raise has already been addressed there; and people discussing evolution with you, here or elsewhere, are likely to refer to the talk origins index. Even (or, perhaps especially) if you are determined to hold your point of view, you should read the talk origins index carefully, so that at the very least you will know what you face when you choose to argue against evolution.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 12:11 AM
David fC:
1. Yes I was, and no I wasn't.
2. It's story-Jesus because all that is known about the putative person is what's written in stories. It's an open question whether there even was a real person about whom the stories were based.
3. Well, my reading is he'd be amused rather than offended. He was into the loving bit, not so much the shunning.
4. Yeah, not uncoincidentally, that's the point.
Posted by: llewelly
|
January 2, 2010 12:12 AM
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | January 2, 2010 :
It saddens me to learn you think you are only tolerated. You need a hug.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 12:15 AM
"It's like admitting you think science is useless. Your mythology overrides everything."
Not useless since I enjoy my car, house and xbox. But just not the final authority on truth. When you believe in an all-knowing Being you tend to think his account of history and origins overrides ours. Most of what we call science is not in conflict with what I beleive.
Posted by: Eric | January 2, 2010 12:16 AM
#391
I had a discussion with a pastor once on Science and Evolution. I asked him what he thought about Red Shift. Specifically, does he agree that it is there and how does he explain it? His response?
"I agree that it is there, I just choose not to accept it."
I pushed him on it a little further, and then he said that it's possible god made the Universe look old. I told him that since he chooses to accept or reject scientific fact because it doesn't fit in with his religion that he's wasting both of our time, and I walked away. Sadly, in too many comments I see the same attitude. It almost brings a tear to my eye.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 12:21 AM
DfC:
So, did you hear a voice in your head or experience an epiphany or what? How you you know you've got the straight dope?
(If you read it in a book, remember that the book was written by people and is only their opinion.
If you heard it from a person, remember that it's only their opinion¹.)
--
¹ And ask them how they know. Have they heard voices in their heads, or did they read it in a book? ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 12:22 AM
Of course, which of the many accounts of creation, and which god of the 1000+ or so invented by man is behind it, makes for a very good investigation. Except, they all appear to be myths, including the deities.Posted by: Steve_C | January 2, 2010 12:27 AM
Uhg. Truth. Try reality.
How long do you think it takes oil to form?
And I see you completely skip the biological sciences. What you don't take medecine?
The bible does not provide truth. It's full
of lies and ignorance.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 12:27 AM
"Even (or, perhaps especially) if you are determined to hold your point of view, you should read the talk origins index carefully, so that at the very least you will know what you face when you choose to argue against evolution."
Thanks - I did enjoy reading through the now 401 posts so I will likely enjoy the link as well. I think I'm most interested in find out what "Gish galloping" is.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 12:28 AM
David, all Christians are creationists. I am too. What I don't do is mistake the Genesis creation accounts . . . yes, there are two of them, mutually exclusive . . . for a science textbook. The world was not created in six days. It's far, far older than 6,000 years. In fact, it's about 4.6 billion years old.
Nor do I mistake the story of Noah for a historical record. Why not? Well, all the available evidence tells us that there never was, and indeed never could be, a worldwide flood. There was no mass extinction on this planet 4,000 years ago. Human civilizations exist in recorded history far longer than that, and the Egyptians and Chinese somehow managed to miss that alleged flood with no gap in their records. All existing species didn't get on a boat and then migrate all over the planet, hyperspeciating as they magically transported thousands of miles and somehow getting their bones into the ancient geological column.
No one who knows anything about astronomy, or geology, or biology can mistake the Bible for a literal account. That's just NOT TRUE, in the sense that all the available evidence tells us something far different. Look, I love the Bible. I read the Bible. But I don't worship a book, or more accurately, a collection of books written by fallible human beings, reality filtered through mortal and limited perception. I worship the living God, and his Word is the universe He spoke into being. His own handwriting is in the spectra of stars, the fossil record, and the DNA that all living things on this planet share.
The silliest and most counterproductive thing we Christians can do is to keep lying about His handwriting. And creation itself tells us that God used the process of evolution to create life.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 12:31 AM
DfC: Gish Gallop.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 12:36 AM
So here's the problem. We've seen galaxies over 13 billion light years away, seen light that has travelled for 13.72 billion years. Measured rocks that show the formation of the earth around 4.6 billion years ago. So why is it that an all-knowing all-powerful being could make a universe that looks ~13.7 billion years old, an earth and solar system that looks 4.6 billion years old, a geological column that shows a gradual emergence and change in life, and ignore all that because of a story that says otherwise?i.e. if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and did create the universe as it says in Genesis, then why does the universe look like its billions of years old and that life evolved? Are you suggesting the Omphalos hypothesis, that God created the world to look old? Or something else? And what does this say about God? That you have no problems that a benevolent deity lied to us about the natural world? That while we can see distant galaxies, those are just an illusion?
Basically what you're saying is that scientists of all walks of life who work on the question of the age of the earth are off by a factor of about 700,000 and scientists working on the age of the cosmos are off by a factor of 2,000,000. The error is like saying the distance from New York to San Francisco is 10 yards. That's how much you're saying the scientists who derive the age of the earth from measurement are off by. It's 7 orders of magnitude out!
So what's it to be? Are you happy to believe in a God who lies about the universe in how it looks, or one who lies about the universe in the writings of iron age scholars? Maybe it could be the stories of Genesis are not to be taken literally, but metaphorically - that it's not God's describing the events to humanity but humanity trying to make sense of God.
The Creationist is one who bets that a God can both be a liar and benevolent. The same laws of physics that make you able to play your X-Box are the ones that show (coupled with observation) that the universe is billions of years old. Why is it so easy for you to dismiss the science that is the very underpinning of our society, yet so hard to see mythology for what it is? Being myth doesn't mean false, it doesn't mean true either. It's myth, storytelling from which an understanding of our place in the universe can be gathered. To take it otherwise would be to ignore what the myth means, and boy you've missed it by a long way.
The universe is billions of years old, life has been going for a few billion years, and you evolved. If you're deity rests on you being a Golem (animated dirt), then your God is dead. Yet many people can see that just because we evolved, it doesn't mean that God is dead. Biblical literalism is a largely 20th century invention, even early theologians recognised the dangers of such an endeavour.
Posted by: Newfie
|
January 2, 2010 12:36 AM
Leigh Williams
You're honest, I like that. And I think you are a great buffer here.
Arguing Christianity is for a different thread. ;)
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 12:40 AM
David: Most of what we call science is not in conflict with what I beleive.
_____
Science is both a method and a body of accumulated knowledge which will be revised if new evidence is presented. Most of science is in conflict with what you believe, that is, a young earth, as evolution is solidly supported by an interlocking matrix of many scientific fields--geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology, archeology, cosmology, etc. You name a scientific field, and it has contributed in supporting evolution as fact and scientific theory.
If you conveniently cherry pick science when it suits you, you are not an supporter of science, but instead a freeloader. Evangelical Christians like Francis Collins accept this interlocking matrix of evidence. Another Christian, Ken Miller, who presented the evolution's case at the Dover trial, is a devout Christian. Leigh herself is a committed Christian who cleaves fast to the Jesus is love theme. They don't cherry pick science. Once you cherry pick science and reject evidence staring you in the face, you are making a travesty out of the very essence of what makes science science.
Not to mention, that antibiotics and vaccinations that could save you and your loved ones uses evolutionary principles. So no more antibiotics for you!
Please do not hide behind what we call science is not in conflict with what I believe because that sentiment is intellectually dishonest and won't be tolerated here. Admit either that your religious beliefs requires some heavy duty cherry picking regarding science or that you are ignorant of how much scientific cherry picking you are actually doing.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 12:40 AM
"The bible does not provide truth. It's full
of lies and ignorance."
So far it's worked for me - I live a charmed life. Mostly from following the wisdom found in Proverbs. Why would I reject wisdom that works?
It's not like throwing salt over your shoulder - this stuff is effective.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 12:45 AM
So because Proverbs is wise, Genesis is historically accurate? Because no human hath ever said something wise, lest ye be channelling a deity...Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 2, 2010 12:45 AM
Thanks. But please notice the OM. I would not have been given that by the people here if they just tolerated me. I thought most people here realized that I am a smart ass. And no one loves a smart ass. Oh, wait a minute. Something does not add up here...
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 2, 2010 12:47 AM
David from Canada,
If you are indeed interested in a real discussion, one of the most important things to keep in mind is that science is not subjective.
Whatever other creationists may have told you, opinion is irrelevant to scientists.
This has some very important consequences, like, once an argument has been disproved, you can't use it again, no matter how convincing it seems to you. The fact that creationists don't seem to get this is one of the reasons why the regulars here get a little testy when dealing with creobots.
One other thing that you might want to consider is that creationism was discarded by science, not because it required a belief in gods, but because it didn't fit the facts.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 12:48 AM
David,
I highly recommend you watch 'Did Darwin Kill God?", a BBC documentary available on youtube. A UK theologian travels the world and talks to scientists about evolution, and reports that his faith can be compatible with all the evidence.
He did not start off as a YEC however.
Posted by: Newfie
|
January 2, 2010 12:48 AM
better than being a dumbass
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 12:50 AM
DfC:
Ecclesiastes 10:19.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 12:50 AM
David: So far it's worked for me - I live a charmed life.
_______
I hope this does not mean you are also a fair weather Christian as you are a fair weather science supporter. If the charm runs out, will your Christian faith?
Posted by: Steve_C | January 2, 2010 12:54 AM
Oil. Your car runs on it. How long do you think it takes to form? How do geologists know where to look for it?
This is the part where you don't ignore the question. You saw fit to defend your little book but skipped a direct question.
Are you galloping?
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
January 2, 2010 12:57 AM
I have a pretty awesome life. It got much better once I gave up the christian beliefs I had so blindly followed.
Religion is never to thank for whether one has a happy fulfilling life. That's something you obtain. By interpretting scripture in a manner that conforms to your values, you make religion work for you, not the other way around. Most of the conclusions people come to would be no different if they were non-believers.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 12:58 AM
David, please answer Steve_Cs question at #420.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 1:04 AM
David, Steve_C already has asked you the question at #405. So #420 is the second time. And you will be asked again so answer it please.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 2, 2010 1:06 AM
Most of what we call science is not in conflict with what I beleive.
so for the parts that are...
what process do you use to resolve them?
there really is only one way, you know.
....at least one rational way.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 2, 2010 1:06 AM
David @377:
When I say "If I lack a good upbringing, blame my fundie parents," you can't leave off the first part without perverting what I'm saying. That is, I cannot change my upbringing, so if you want to blame my unpleasantness on my upbringing, my parents are the ones to blame.
Now, if I continued to hold their fundie beliefs into adulthood, I should be asked to take some responsibility for that. If you read what I said in another thread, you'll find that I can be terribly and intentionally offensive to people looking for offense.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 1:06 AM
Kel @ 409,
Hm I'm currently reading the history of science part in a biology book, and seems that all science stopped for 1000 years essentially, and after that and to this day has been hindered to varying degrees, after St Augustine interpreted scripture (and invented theology), the roman empire fell and all that was left over to do was for christianity to take over and declare that reality is what's written in the bible and how Augustine interprets it.
That's the mothership of biblical literalism right there.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 1:08 AM
David, studying the wisdom literature in the Bible is a good thing. But have you noticed that some of the Proverbs contradict each other? The Book of Job also repays study; one of its main themes is that we're SUPPOSED to wrestle with our faith, and that conventional religiosity is often wrong.
Let me emphasize again that science and our faith are not mutually contradictory. The doctrine of inerrancy is a relatively recent (ca. 1840) invention, and it's on this foundation that modern Young Earth Creationism is built. The majority of Christians do not hold to the false doctrine of inerrancy and thus have no problem with evolution.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 1:11 AM
David mentioned a while ago that he needed to get his beuaty rest (sic), as it was 11 pm.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 1:16 AM
Right, no reason to keep on following through on this debate with David until he makes a re-appearance.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 1:20 AM
I note that when the bluster and accusations stopped, so did the hostility (if not the challenge).
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 1:48 AM
"I hope this does not mean you are also a fair weather Christian as you are a fair weather science supporter. If the charm runs out, will your Christian faith?"
No - I don't expect roses all the time.
As for all the questions about billions of light years and ignoring scientific facts, etc. I don't have all the answers, usually I treat these as "wait and see". They are puzzle peices that I haven't found a place for yet. I took the same approach to the scientific studies that told me that eggs were bad for me. After a few years they were good again. I am somewhat hesitant allow human science supreme authority in my thinking.
I know many Christian who see no conflict with Evolution and Billions of years. I don't agree mainly because Evolution does a lot to damage the central theology of the Bible. I'm not super-dogmatic on the
I'm kind of a slow thinker and really can't keep up with answering every question or every objection. Kind of like Gish Galloping in reverse. :)
Good night.
Ecclesiastes 10:19 - LOL
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 2, 2010 1:53 AM
I would love to see, just for once, a YECer being thorough about responding to specific questions.
go to either Richard Dawkins' website forums, or to the "After the Bar Closes" area of the Panda's Thumb, and search on "Air force Dave Hawkins".
IIRC, 'ol Dave holds the intarweb record for creationist diatribe. He answered questions "in detail", for over 15 thousand posts (on ATBC alone!).
no, I'm not kidding.
He was quite the tour de farce a couple years back.
In short, be careful what you wish for.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 2, 2010 1:55 AM
I don't have all the answers, usually I treat these as "wait and see".
How long will you wait to see?
'cause the answers are already there.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 1:55 AM
"Oil. Your car runs on it. How long do you think it takes to form? How do geologists know where to look for it?"
I don't know. I suspect that the answer has something to do with Evolutionary predictions about oil. Which adds validity to Evolution. Am I right?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 2, 2010 1:58 AM
I don't know.
why don't you know?
do you think this information is hard to find?
you are obviously capable of using the internet, so what is stopping you from finding out?
if you are afraid of the internet, surely you can go to your local library and find a book on basic geology?
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 2:18 AM
"why don't you know?"
Are you a cop? Is the next question: Why are your eyes bloodshot? :)
To answer your question: Oil is younger than the earth. So less than 10,000 years. To find oil they use shock waves to create a 3D geologic model. But drilling is the only way to learn if an oil or gas field really exists.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 2:24 AM
Cute.
Well that's the problem with creationism righ there David, it must be less then 10.000 years( by the way why 10.000 and not 6000?), or your book and the DI are wrong !
You have no choice then to deny that oil is older ! Do you see the problem that creates for you taking an open-minded look at reality?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 2:25 AM
No one is suggesting that you do that. Science doesn't address all the questions that are of interest to us as human beings.But it's important to recognize that science is our best tool for ascertaining what reality is. Scientific conclusions are always provisional and are subject to modification as more evidence is uncovered. So yes, you're going to see individual propositions, e.g., "eggs are bad for people with heart disease", being revised as further studies either bolster or refute them.
But some propositions in science, for example the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution, are so well-supported by literally decades of research and experimentation that they can be considered "proven" -- a word that is not, however, part of the vocabulary of science. We don't ever set these theories, these frameworks through which we interpret the data and make testable predictions, in stone. They are always subject to revision when new data are uncovered.
You would do well to learn more about the history of science so that you will understand how important that last sentence is. Science is ruled by data, not wishes or history or belief/faith. It is the way we search together for a communal experience of reality.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 2, 2010 2:31 AM
David, you seem to think that we ascribe evolutionary principles to the formation of oil. I don't know. I suspect that the answer has something to do with Evolutionary predictions about oil. Which adds validity to Evolution. Am I right? is a complete non sequitur. Evolution concerns how life changes over time. The production of oil is about geographic forces turning organic material into oil. Different processes.
David, you need to know what these terms mean before you can even debate them. And these should have been learned in earth science classes in high school.
Posted by: Dentroman | January 2, 2010 2:32 AM
"I don't know. I suspect that the answer has something to do with Evolutionary predictions about oil. Which adds validity to Evolution. Am I right?"
No. It's chemistry (and physics...a bit). Oil takes millions of years to form by what we understand to be conventional methods. This is independent verification of the age of the earth, and a serious blow to YEC. Honestly, I don't think this is the best evidence. I find the amounts of unstable isotopes observed far more convincing evidence. I should note that all of this i very solid work: physics and chemistry are far more static than nutrition (If it makes you feel better about the evidence, I must admit that I find nutrition to be a largely inaccurate science as well:)).
Dentroman
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 2:40 AM
DfC:
And there we have it.
(cf. Eric @402.)
Posted by: wanderinweeta
|
January 2, 2010 2:49 AM
Ichthyic #432
Ah, good old Dave! I learned so much from everyone's answers to him; he did ask for the hard stuff!
And then, once he got a complete answer, he plugged his ears and went on with his challenges. And started over, once the heat was off, with the same assertions from Day One. Standard procedure, taken to the nth power, hilarious and frustrating by turns.
I wonder if he's still on the same treadmill, somewhere on the web.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 2:51 AM
"by the way why 10.000 and not 6000?"
The Bible doesn't directly say how old the world is. You have to add up all the ages of the chronologies and then you get a little less than 6000 years. I use 10,000 is an approximation. I think others might use to account for small variances in interpretation.
According to Wiki, there seems to be two competing oil producing theories. I'm not sure which one is correct. Or maybe neither. I guess we don't have an answer to how long it takes oil to produce - yet.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 3:04 AM
"Evolution concerns how life changes over time."
Really? I'm confused. Why do I hear about Solar, Cosmic and Chemical Evolution. Evolution gets tacked onto quite a few words.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 3:06 AM
DfC, I can't remember who first posted the link to Radiometric Dating; A Christian Perspective (Sven, perhaps?), but if you bother to peruse it and report back you'll be the first YECcer I know of who has.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 2, 2010 3:09 AM
Please be a Poe.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 3:13 AM
David said:
No, it doesn't. Or rather, I guess it does if you think that Adam has to be a literal individual for Christianity to make sense. Millions of Christians don't think that, however. We understand that Adam and Eve are archetypes that illustrate humankind's prediliction for doing selfish and senseless things. My own understanding of the Genesis stories is that they're an account of the dawn of sentience and human civilization; it makes no sense to speak of animals "sinning", because most animals have neither a code of behavior nor the self-awareness to understand the effects of their actions on others. (Though there are fascinating studies that demonstrate altruism and empathy in animal behaviors, which to my mind show the clear continuity between us and the rest of living creatures.)
I would imagine that the theology you've grown up with is conventionally Protestant, which limits Jesus's mission on earth to the theory of substitionary atonement. That's the notion that Jesus is just a more sophisticated version of a sheep or a bull, useful only as a blood sacrifice to propitiate an angry deity who holds humankind in disgust and remarkable only because He was a willing sacrifice. John Calvin has much to answer for.
Fortunately, that is not by any means the entirety of what Jesus Himself seemed to think about His purpose on earth. Nor does it encompass the whole of John's thoughts on the matter, for example.
You might want to read this Wikipedia article for a different view of Christ's purpose. Also, google "theosis" or follow the link in the Wikipedia article.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 3:16 AM
DfC:
Not in general — but when speaking biologically it's shorthand for 'biological evolution', and then it does mean just that.
Evolution.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 3:19 AM
Dear fulfilled:I have other things to do than fruitlessly discuss your faith here with you today. The list of evolutionist's organisations supporting evolution provided by Leigh is really impressive. One need to be careful here: do not mix democracy with science.The other popular evo people argument to support evolution is also very impressive list of evolutionists named Steve.
I shall not comment on argument for evolutionism of "you can not spell" or similar. They are not scientific arguments...can somebody elaborate how Einstein's ideas of relativity can be applied to GPS?
Posted by: Dentroman | January 2, 2010 3:20 AM
DfC-"According to Wiki, there seems to be two competing oil producing theories. I'm not sure which one is correct. Or maybe neither. I guess we don't have an answer to how long it takes oil to produce - yet."
You speak of abiogenic petroleum origin? First off, most geologists think it's unlikely that any sizable quantity of oil is produced in such a manner. Second, doing your research on this (and golly do you need to do some research, on this and other things) would have lead you to see that both theories of origin lead to formation times in the millions.
"Really? I'm confused. Why do I hear about Solar, Cosmic and Chemical Evolution. Evolution gets tacked onto quite a few words."
I'll parrot Feynmaniac. I honestly hope you are a poe at this point, because if not, my opinion of your country just dropped. I really liked Canada, partially cause I thought there weren't any ignorant wackaloons like yourself there.
D
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 3:25 AM
David, please go immediately and read "What is Evolution?" so that we'll all be sure of what we're discussing.
At Pharyngula, "evolution" means biological evolution. When we're talking about YECism, we'll also drag in evidences from other scientific disciplines, for example geology, to address issues like the age of the earth, but "evolution" in scientific discussions refers only to biology.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 3:32 AM
Andre said:
You're right: scientific truths are not decided by voting, but by data. It is useful, however, to consult scientists themselves for a consensus on what constitutes our current understanding of the available data.
And about the Theory of Evolution, there is no doubt. It is true. Natural selection is true. Deep time is true.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 3:38 AM
andre:
You might wish to peruse this part of Wikipedia's Global Positioning System entry.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 3:55 AM
Leigh: gene duplication is not adding new information to genome.
Mookie: the same. If RNA replicates where the new info comes from. Understand the word replication.As far as I can understand the Big E, natural selection is the vehicle of the miracles required in order to push bacteria on the run to humanity. You do not think that natural selection would act on organization of the first cell, meaning that it would actually select necessary component for the first cell? Selection can act on genes already present in a genome.
And above all: there is no such a thing as stellar evolution. Stars simply use their energy and "evolve" towards the thermal death according to laws of thermodynamics..
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 4:09 AM
GPS fans consider:
a famed philosopher, the late Bertrand Russell said:
"Whether the Earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the Heavens
revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena
will be exactly the same.
and he concludes concludes …
…shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a
metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation"
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 4:13 AM
"DfC, I can't remember who first posted the link to Radiometric Dating; A Christian Perspective (Sven, perhaps?), but if you bother to peruse it and report back you'll be the first YECcer I know of who has."
I took a quick skim of the contents. It looks interesting...
Leigh - Thanks for your posts - I'll read your Wiki article later.
"Please be a Poe"
Are you refering to Poe's Law?: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
"I really liked Canada, partially cause I thought there weren't any ignorant wackaloons like yourself there."
Is that what is called "ad hominem"? Canada is still great. We are experiencing and economic boom here, probably due to all that oil. :)
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 4:19 AM
Andre, that word "information" doesn't mean what you think it means . . . I guess. I'm not sure quite what exactly you folks are talking about, and I wonder if you're sure either. Can you give me a definition of what you mean by it?
Because, after all, duplicating a gene *can* change what the child organism is, though it may not, depending on which gene it is.
In fact, duplicating an entire set of chromosomes is one of the most important avenues for speciation in plants. It makes a *different* plant.
I'm not sure where you're going with this assertion, since it's obvious that genes mutate and can do different things, making a different organism, which increases what I'd think of as "information".
Is it that you think the first gene must have been created to get the process started? While we don't yet have a solid theory of abiogenesis, there's no reason to think that a creator was necessary, especially since the Scripps study demonstrates that self-replicating RNA can arise spontaneously.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 4:20 AM
Andre - welcome back
I guess I can go to bed now.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 4:20 AM
You don't understand it at all, that's the problem. You talk in words like miracles when you yourself believe in a miracle. Meanwhile evolution is grounded in natural processes, no miracles required. Are you trying to be ironic? Why when you believe that life is caused my a violation of natural law (by definition a miracle) that you would call a mechanism that works solely on mechanisms we know to be true miraculous.This is the simplicity and eloquence of the Darwinian explanation. Of course it's eloquence has nothing to do with its truth, the fossil record, geographic distribution of life, gene remnants in our genetic code, HGT viral markers, similarities of DNA, similarities in morphology and anatomy, similarities in early embryology, vestigial structures, observation of natural selection, observations of emergence of novel traits, observations of speciation, observations of genetic drift, thousands of years of artificial selection - among other things - all attest to the truth of evolution.
Posted by: bad Jim
|
January 2, 2010 4:24 AM
Persistent, aren't they? Ignorance isn't invincible, or even impermeable, but it tends to have a heavy duty covering.
Over at Chris Mooney's place a global warming denialist, thrashing a dead thread, took to bashing Keynesianism (one conspiracy theory looks the same as the next). Here a creationist attacks relativity. I'd really like to see some action on the uncertainty principle, partly because the theory is particularly mind-bending, but mostly because the technology is ubiquitous. Got a problem with Heisenberg? Hand over your cell phone, hypocrite!
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 4:25 AM
Lord, yes, let's get ready for bed. It's cold tonight even here in Texas, and I have a hot bath drawn that is cooling off undesirably as we speak.
Hasta mañana, amigos.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 4:27 AM
Of course this is the creationist evasion. They keep talking about increases in information, but they won't define what information is. No matter what you think is information, a creationist won't say it's information then assert that "Darwinism" can't account for the complex information. Even the Mullerian two-step process of interlocking complexity, even the irreversibility of particular mutations, even the emergence of novel traits, even the increase in genome size, even the duplication of information being used to serve new function - none of it ever counts. Just like the "all mutations are harmful" spiel, whatever scientists define as a mutation it counts not. The same assertion will still be made and the same morphologically-hideous will be trumpeted as an evolution killer.Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 4:33 AM
Ah look, a fundie trying to kill a non-believer ! What else is new?
Police shoot man trying to enter Mohammed cartoonist's home
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 4:41 AM
"Ah look, a fundie trying to kill a non-believer ! What else is new?"
I can't help but to wonder if PZ would have the balls to post a picture of Mohammed giving the finger. Probably not.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 4:43 AM
aaaaand fatwa envy--check !
:-)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 4:44 AM
Again, fatwa envy shows itself. Go look at the cracker desecration pictures and see what is sitting alongside the nailed cracker and The God Delusion...Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 4:45 AM
Fatwa Envy - LOL
Posted by: bad Jim
|
January 2, 2010 4:51 AM
Kel, of course they've got information=entropy exactly backwards, which is why there's no arguing with them. When they stipulate that duplication isn't an increase in information there's no profit in proving yet again that it is. It's like arguing with an assortment of percussion instruments.
I do think though that "morphologically-hideous" sounds scarily like "ewige weibliche".
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 5:13 AM
Andre @455, interesting choice. :)
Here's Bertrand Russell's Philosophical Consequences of Relativity.
Here's Bertrand Russell's - ABC of Relativity, in video format just in case you find reading onerous.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 5:28 AM
Kel by evolution I mean progress from bacteria to biologists not variation or change in organisms.Propagandists of evolutionism by "evolution" mean either the mentioned progress or change in organisms in time,and use those two depends what they try to speculate about.
I can see that some people here can not understand the difference between new information in the genome and duplicated information.Darwinists can not understand or explain what information is in terms of the TE because information is not energy or matter, Information is a product of a mind therefore can not be explained in materialistic terms.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 5:33 AM
I can see that some people here are happy to talk out of their ass about things they have no knowledge of.
And again, what else is new...:-)
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 5:41 AM
Back out of the bath for a quick check, and here I find this:
Well, hell's jingle bells, ain't that a useful nondefinition.
You've cut yourself right out of any science discussion, Andre, which by definition is about material things.
If information is the product of a mind, I don't see that it has any relevence in a discussion about genomes, since you've got no evidence of a mind starting the whole thing up using supernatural processes (also outside the realm of science). That, combined with the demonstrably natural process of augmenting, fragmenting, mutating, and duplication that are creating new species all the time, sometimes as we're watching, pretty much makes this "information" thing just more creationist B.S.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 5:44 AM
BTW, has anyone spotted a good smackdown of the probability calculations in Meyer's new book 'The Signature in the Cell'?
I've been arguing with this tool for weeks on a facebook poll, and it has been like herding cats. Goalposts are sliding, he has no idea of conditional probability, and is absolutely convinced that the possibility of DNA forming is 10 to the gazillionth. I've used all the scienceblogs maths guys, talkorigins and so on, plus my own humble expertise.
I'm so frustrated that I want to burn down his house and punch his smug little face in.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 5:44 AM
andre, any comment on how Bertrand Russell endorsed and explained relativity? After all, you did (mis)quote him as an authority!
Care to provide a citation to the source document for the misquote you've provided?¹ (Which, by the way, does not imply what you think it does — Einstenian dynamics did indeed replace Newtonian dynamics!).
--
¹ And I don't mean the anti-science site you lifted it from, either! ;)
--
By the way, you're just demonstrating the proclivity of creationists to be anti-science, even in scientific areas utterly unrelated to biology and geology. Heh.
--
PS Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 5:51 AM
"Information is a product of a mind therefore can not be explained in materialistic terms."
100111000111100001010
Information, described by zeros and ones.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 5:51 AM
Thanx John at 455. The most devastating consequence of TR was applying it in morality.
someone said about impact of Darwinism on morality of mankind:
“Darwin only completed the revolution begun by Copernicus.” Man, created in the image and
after the likeness of God and blessed with the promise to enjoy Him forever in the age to come,
has now been found to be no more than a mammal destined to return to dust. Damnation by
science has superseded salvation by faith"
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 5:59 AM
DebinOz, can't say I've come across any such reviews, but FWIW MarkCC over at Good Math, Bad Math has addressed presumably similar arguments from Dembski before, here for example.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 6:04 AM
What? We have ALWAYS been mammals destined to return to dust. The Bible says so, too. Our current scientific understanding says no more about it than the Bible itself does.What I can't figure out is why this would wreck anybody's faith. It's self-evident that we are mammals, closely related genetically to a lot of other animals. Doesn't make us any less human than we ever were, and doesn't say anything pro or con about our souls.
Now, taking your methodological naturalism and continuing onward to philosophical naturalism, that's gonna cause a problem for faith; alas, unambiguous material proof for a deity OR a soul is sadly lacking. But isn't faith supposed to be belief in things unseen anyway?
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 6:09 AM
andre:
Too funny!
You don't have a clue of what it is, do ya? :>
Please explain how one applies this to morality.
Someone did, did they?
<yawn>
--
(image source: Wikipedia)
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 6:12 AM
andre would be an embarrassment to creationism, if such a thing was possible.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 6:13 AM
David, overlooked the Methodist doctrine of sanctification leading to Christian perfection, which is remarkably similar to theosis.
Ironic, since I myself am a devotee of John and Charles Wesley, and a Methodist.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 6:21 AM
Deb in Oz what is the meaning of those. Is that information according to you?
Nice piece of poetry there Leigh. Evidence of the work of the Mind in the information contained in the genome are codons "start" and "stop". Without them code built into sequence of nucleotide pairs would mean or be read as long huge nonsensical protein chain.Not so much for random evolutionary
work of natural selection isnt it ?
Have you got any scientific proof that such codons arise by random natural selection process? How natural selection select genes? Dawkins wrote a lot of stuff about the selfish gene. Can you for instance,while selecting your partner see what is in his/her genes?And how selfish is that in terms of evolution?
And John,the fact that Russel was not a Christian and why is of a little concern to me.There are many people who became Christians after being atheist their whole life.Can you tell why I misquoted him. I am under impression that you are pushing an old evo people paradigm that creationsts lie and misquote..
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
January 2, 2010 6:23 AM
It matters not a jot how many times you answer their ridiculously phrased questions. I've noticed over and over again, that even when the questions are answered, and answered, and answered again, even with patience and civility, the creotards merely overlook the evidence, or blatently avoid accepting said evidence, even refuse to acknowledge you all posit the answers.
I must admit to being astounded with the patience shown by all who answer their inanity, over and over again, but we all know, no matter how concise, no matter how accurate, no matter how succinctly their ridiculous claims are answered, you're trying to enlighten morons who will never accept facts.
As someone said earlier, even when they are shown an incontravertable proof,they decide to
deny it, because it means their particular brand of god didn't do it !
I could never be as patient as you learned folk alas, so fuck the deadheads.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 6:25 AM
Andre,
Do you not recognise binary code when you see it?
You know, how information is stored in computers?
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 6:34 AM
John : You are good at copying from the wiki. Give a link to a page in the future.Also,I am afraid you do not understand the principle of relativity: it all depends on the point if view. To make it simple: you may think "if I steal something form someone-this is good. If someone steals something from me this is bad". Point of view, see?
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 6:35 AM
"Without them code built into sequence of nucleotide pairs would mean or be read as long huge nonsensical protein chain.Not so much for random evolutionary
work of natural selection isnt it ?
Have you got any scientific proof that such codons arise by random natural selection process? How natural selection select genes?"
You do not have a single clue about the evolutionary process, do you? The freaken' codons don't 'arise' by natural selection. Natural selection doesn't make them. Mutations make them, and if they are advantageous to the organism, natural selection steps in, and those with the codons live on to reproduce.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 6:38 AM
No, no, no -- picking a mate is not what natural selection is! Natural selection is the winnowing process that favors gene combination because they result in an edge in survival and reproduction.Sometimes that selection operates on factors that enhance reproductive sucess, and sometimes those factors influence characteristics that make an individual more attractive to the opposite sex. That's the only way natural selection operates directly in mate selection, and it's still a blind process.
Natural selection is not the Dating Game, for pete's sake, in which creatures make some kind of informed decision to chose genomes. It's not an intentional process.
Unless we're doing it, of course, in which case it's called breeding, and it's unnatural selection in that case. But we're still selecting for characteristics that are desirable in a particular environment -- ours.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 6:45 AM
andre:
You were the first to cite him, remember?
a famed philosopher, the late Bertrand Russell said: [lifted purported quote]
You presented him as someone to pay attention to. :)
So, he endorses relativity and disses Christianity, and you should pay attention to this famed philosopher as you asked us to (unless you're a hypocrite!).
Not Bertrand Russell — the authority you invoked.
Well, it may not be a misquote¹. I'm pretty damn sure you copypasted it from an anti-science site, though. You can easily prove me wrong by providing the citation I asked for.
Not a paradigm, a heuristic (cf. The Quote Mine Project), and it's something I've seen for myself a-plenty here in Pharyngula.
Again, you could easily prove me wrong, had you any idea of where the quote came from. :)
--
¹ Those ideas are expressed rather similarly in the ABC I referred to above, but not in those words — and the sections separated by ellipsis are quite far apart in the text.
Also, I cannot find the quote except in anti-science sites.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 6:47 AM
Unfortunetely , Deb in Oz you do not understand the very definition of the term mutation. Mutation is an error in the info. Below there is a link to a web dictionary to brighten your understanding. Read it , understand it.Otherwise you will make a clown of yourself again...
http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/BioInfo/MUT/Mut.Definition.html
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 6:54 AM
andre:
You ask me for links to sources?
<spoing!>
Sure... :) After all, it's so very difficult to search for Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Your fear is unfounded; I merely fail to confuse the Theory of Relativity with Moral Relativism.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 6:55 AM
Don't be a patronising tool.
A mutation is a permanent change in a gene that is passed from one generation to the next.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 6:58 AM
John: "anti science" meaning the sites that are not peer reviewed and accepted by the evo people. Well,I got some news for you: evolutionism is not a science. It can be classified at best , using a huge dose of good will as an metaphysical research programme according to dr K.Popper.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 7:00 AM
Mutation is a change in the info resulting either from damage to the gene (chemical or radiation-induced) or from a transcription error. It may be bad (for the organism), good, or neutral. It's an error, undoubtedly, but the results may be beneficial for the organism and give it a survival edge.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 7:01 AM
That is correct.
As much as gravitism isnt a science.
Back to your cave now, troll, you've overstayed your welcome.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 7:03 AM
Deb, andre can't help it...
(my emphases)
andre: Mutation is an error in the info. Below there is a link to a web dictionary to brighten your understanding. Read it , understand it.Otherwise you will make a clown of yourself again...
The contents of that very link:
See, to andre an an alteration is just the same as an error!
Heehee...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 2, 2010 7:03 AM
Andre, maybe you should actually read what you link to.
'Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable.'
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 7:08 AM
A mutation LEADS to a change in information, because the genome itself is changed.
And yes, they can be harmful, neutral or beneficial.
Posted by: Alpha Bitch
|
January 2, 2010 7:08 AM
"Sincerely,
Tas Walker
Scientist, Editor, Speaker
Creation Ministries International (Australia)
Creation.com"
How many of you out there with PhDs sign "scientist" as your occupation? Wouldn't it likely read "Professor of _____" or even "Researcher"?
Just "Scientist", I have never seen on a syllabus or on any sort of correspondence from anyone with a PhD.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 7:08 AM
Deb, andre can't help it...
(my emphases)
andre: Mutation is an error in the info. Below there is a link to a web dictionary to brighten your understanding. Read it , understand it.Otherwise you will make a clown of yourself again...
The contents of that very link:
See, to andre an an alteration is just the same as an error!
Heehee...
Posted by: Zarquon | January 2, 2010 7:11 AM
Well,I got some news for you: evolutionism is not a science.
How the fuck would you know what is or isn't science?
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 7:14 AM
Can we just skip to the 'I didn't come from no monkey' part?
I love that one.
Yes, I did notice Andre linked to a page that refutes the very point he tried to make - FAIL.
Posted by: Leigh Williams
|
January 2, 2010 7:21 AM
Andre, quotemining is despicable form of lying.
How dare you jump on here and lie about what Popper said? And give us the TalkOrigins version, which RIGHT THERE ON THE SAME PAGE explains that he changed his mind about the testability of natural selection.
The amazing self-contradicting YEC. Your kind is convenient, at least. We didn't even have to look up any evidence.
And now that you know that Popper didn't continue in the belief that natural selection was a metaphysical discipline, you'll not use that argument in the future, right? Right?
Posted by: Mercurious | January 2, 2010 7:26 AM
Liar for Jebus (andre) continues to lie. News at 11. People wonder why we have little patience for creotards and call them all kinds of nasty names. Andre you have clearly shown you really don't know you head from your ass, in fact I believe they are in the same location.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 7:31 AM
For those zealots of Darwin having any pretensions of preaching science: a theory can be classified as scientific if is testable, observable and falsifiable. Evolutionism is none of those. You need to go to basics...
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 7:31 AM
Gosh, Andre is disgusting! Liar for Jesus, pure and simple. No one who has an adequate grasp of science would present the dodgy and silly 'arguments' that this liar for Jesus has been doing in this thread. And yet, this fool thinks that by intellectually dishonest tactics, like quote mining and aping our rational and logical approach (an approach, just like science, of which this jerk has no understanding or any motivation to do so), that he will make disappear all the evidence supporting evolution?
The delusion runs deep in this one. He is only deserving of ridicule. He is trotting out the samo, the stuff that was determined at the Dover Trial not to be science. Stuff that was refuted even before the potent scientific theory evolution was made public.
Andre, you are wrong. There is no discussion that will aid you in grasping how wrong you are. And since we got the evidence on our side, we can say over and over and over again, you're dreadfully, pitifully, stupidly, stubbornly, egregiously wrong.
Is he just racking up credits for some dismal creationist institute somewhere? YEC creation has been shown to be wrong, unequivocally wrong. It has been flunked by the very same science that gives David his house, his xbox, and his car (including the oil which is much older than his belief system). Why is the same science correct when it gives you things you like and wrong when it reveals that the evidence shows your pre-suppositional beliefs are wrong. The earth is not young. You and all your silly YEC friends are wrong. There is only one science (unlike of religions, which there are numerous brands)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 7:37 AM
Andre is showing why he is a Liar for Jebus™, and not to be believed. He will say or do anything, including bearing false witness (which commandment?) in order so show his ignorance. And still no evidence being presented.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 7:39 AM
Andre, People who accept evolution and the old earth do so not because they have pre-suppositional beliefs like you do and who need to desperately buttress them by any intellectually dishonest means, but because they have examined the evidence and the evidence says that you are wrong and they are right. You are the blind zealot.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 7:39 AM
Michelle a nice rant about nothing. As you can understand it does not help strengthening your case for evolutionism as scientific. Have I ever brought God to this discussion? Do us a favour and read some posts before,if you want to make some sensible contribution to the is blog.
No amuont of sincere confessions of faith can help it. As far as I can see evo people are those who lie or bend the research to fit the paradigm for the deity of Darwin...
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 2, 2010 7:41 AM
DebinOz @473:
The ersatz thinker with whom you are arguing about probability is stuck in what is sometimes called the "classical model" of statistics, where there are fixed a priori probabilities of certain events. This contrasts with the "frequentist model" which depends on observation to update a priori guesses about the likely bounds on the probability. Bayesian theory is making some headway in reconciling the frequentist model (which is what arises in observation) with the classical model (which is useful theoretically for things like the Law of Large Numbers).
A simple example:
Given a fair coin, the probability of getting any particular sequence of 32 coin flips is 1 in 4.3 billion, but obviously some sequence is going to have happened, which means that by flipping a coin 32 times, you've just witnessed an event rarer than 1 in 4 billion. Not only that, with just a coin you can witness such an event whenever you like.
This is the flaw in the "specified complexity" argument as well.
If there are any statisticians who comment, they can probably speak to it better than me; if not, most of us math people have taken statistics at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 7:42 AM
Andre,
I highly recommend you go and spout your anti-science crap on some of the facebook polls.
Here's a good one to start of with:
http://apps.facebook.com/realpolls/results/e0txwpwk8?_fb_q=1&
You are nothing really but a joke, and if you think you are making us feel bad about our PhDs or other degrees in science-related fields, you are truly deluded.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 7:46 AM
Andre, we do not have to strengthen our case for evolution. It is a fact. And there you go, parroting our rational and logical approach, in your inane mouthing of: ...evo people are those who lie or bend the research to fit the paradigm for the deity of Darwin...
You are a pathetic, cowardly, lying idiot. And you are your own problem--you have to live with yourself and your lies and distortions. And if you turn out to be right, and there is a Christian god, he will laugh at you before sending you to hell for not using the mind he gave you.
We are not going to pander to your glaring, willful ignorance. You are wrong no matter how glib or slimy your protestations to the contrary are.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 7:47 AM
What case? Evolution is scientific, and Popper agrees. So evolution is science. Period, end of story. If you claim otherwise, it is up to you to provide the evidence, as the status quo will remain in effect until superseded by new evidence. We are waiting for you to prove your inane claim. Show your work. Welcome to science.Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 7:50 AM
Thanks heaps Miki,
Yes, that is exactly the problem. I have studied biostatistics at the graduate level, and have tried to explain to this nong exactly what you have said.
His question always is 'But why'? He is the classic example of someone with a little knowledge (accountancy, thinking he is 'good with numbers') being dangerous.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
January 2, 2010 7:51 AM
Andre is disgusting. David seems to be trying. As to the tone issues, THIS. IS. PHARYNGULA!!!! But there are many other atheist blogs with different policies. For example, Greta Christina is one for politeness. (Though the explicit sexual content there might scare off some of the godbots, even without any impoliteness.)
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 7:52 AM
oh yes Michelle and all the evidence they examined and using for the belief of very old Earth is evolution. Have you ever heard of index fossils? Well,those are used to date sedimentary rocks. And how? "According to evolution we know that the creature found in the sediment evolved some ... millions years ago. Therefore the rocks that are found in them are ... millions of years old".
If you never heard of it for ytour education: you can not date sedimentary rocks.
Dr V.Sodera said in his book completely demolishing Darwinism "One small speck to man the evolution myth":
"In the absence of the evidence to the contrary any creature could have lived at any time before or after the time of its earliest or latest known fossils".
Understand if you can...
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 7:55 AM
Wait, what??
I might go and have a look lol....
Nah,Andre is just your garden variety creobot, I agree tho, David seemed at least to be trying to keep up
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 7:59 AM
No comments Michelle. sober up!! Ha ha ha.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 8:02 AM
‘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, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
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.
the rest of the quote there :
http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote
first you blind yealots of Darwin you need to studz what more learned Darwinistst say. I think that the frank admission of Lewontin should be printed on all the textbook with evolut
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 8:03 AM
Andre: Understand if you can...
I do understand, Andre, that you are wrong.
You are bringing up objections which have been soundly refuted for a very long time. As I said, your inability to understand that evolution is a fact, is your problem, not ours. You are oblivious to research that has been done after Darwin and which only strengthens and supports the scientific theory and fact of evolution. You have disgracefully and disgustingly denied facts. Your reliance on trying to disprove what Darwin did shows how you do not understand science. If there was enough evidence to overturn evolution, it would be overturned. Hence, there is no evidence to do so, only evidence that undeniably supports evolution.
And leaving a trail of ellipsis after your Understand if you can, only makes it sound like you are out of breath and does not add any gravity to your deepity.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 8:04 AM
What is it with creotards and books? Why do they think some self-serving book trumps scientific articles? Do they not know that PUBMED is free?
All questions above are rhetorical and need no answers, folks.
The patronising tone is really giving me the shits, I must say. That's where David has the edge over Andre.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 8:07 AM
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, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
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".
the rest of the quote there :
http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote
I recommend studying works of all,and above all those more learned evo people who understand evolutionism well,before you make a bunch of fools of yourselves.
Besides,frank admission of Lewontin should be printed on all evo people textbooks. There would be then no confusion as to what science is..
Posted by: Patrick | January 2, 2010 8:07 AM
To a_ray_in_dilbert_space @#188 (ok, so I've been away for about), I was half-way through writing a reply when I checked about the "AiG doesn't use this anymore" claim, and came across this. ANY system, open or closed does not spontaneously go from relative disorder to order on that kind of scale!
Your reply has shown your own misunderstanding of basic chemistry, though you accuse me of running a meth lab. Your poor argument about the sun's energy shows me that you haven't really thought about what you are saying, or simply don't understand the science you are trying to argue.
Generally speaking, creationists and evolutionists have different deductions based on the same scientific data. I was brought up to believe there is no God and that humans evolved from primitive apes and so on. It was later that I questioned the conclusions made from the data and it became apparent to me that creation fitted the data better overall than evolution. When it comes down to it, we're debating philosophy. The scientific data, by definition, has to show that there is a natural explanation for what is seen. When it comes to origins, the natural explanation is not the only one. Gravity, for example, falls into the realm of science (I don't think anyone is going to argue that angels push the planets around), but origins is a philosophical subject.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 8:07 AM
Yes, David disgraces Andre even more than Andre disgraces himself (if that is even possible!) David is significantly less intellectually dishonest than Andre is, despite David being a YECer. David also has a charming sense of humor.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 8:09 AM
What an asshole. Darwin isn't our god, and to pretend otherwise shows your ignorance and stoopidity. Darwin is a great scientist, but he made mistakes in his theory. For example, he had no method for heredity. But, science built for 150 years upon his basic theory with genes, DNA, genomes, protein and DNA sequencing, and it all fits together. There is no need to invoke your imaginary deity. And you have presented no alternative scientific theory. Until you do so, you have nothing but hot air and stoopid blather.Trying to cite a creationist web site shows your ignorance and stoopidity. Those sites lie and bullshit in order to make the mythical/fictional babble seem inerrant to the weak of mind, which excludes us. Try the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 2, 2010 8:10 AM
@518:
Assuming that this quote is even real, so what? Most people, whether atheist or deist, scientist or lay-person, don't accept that anyone else speaks for them without regard to what is said. Do you have someone authorized to speak on your behalf their own opinions?
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 8:12 AM
Whooopiiiee,
I requested a 'I didn't come from no monkey', and here it is.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 8:12 AM
Evolution is not the same as origins(abiogenesis). And evolution is solidly scientific.
Patrick: you did not questioned the real data. If you did, you would not be lying about that evolution is not a fact, when it is.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 8:20 AM
Andre: Besides,frank admission of Lewontin should be printed on all evo people textbooks.
______
I see no problem in that. It would not refute evolution or dissolve all the evidence that supports it. Of course, it would silly to do something redundant like have a quote like that on all textbooks. It is already a given. You YECers are so out of it, you think support for evolution based on the overwhelming evidence is indication of a conspiracy or blind zealotry against the supernatural.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 8:21 AM
....and before I go,because the discussion with the brainwashed of Darwin is indeed fruitless,below there is a link to a site where you can prove the evo belief true and get some money!!
http://www.us.net/life/
...but beware there is some science involved!!
As they say on the front page "The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal.."
Pay attention especially to the words "thermodynamic concepts"
:)
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 2, 2010 8:21 AM
PatricK @522,
So basically what you are saying is that you have absolutely no understanding of what the second law of thermodynamics is, but it obviously contradicts evolution because some other bloke, who has no clue about it either, says so.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 8:24 AM
"The scientific data, by definition, has to show that there is a natural explanation for what is seen. When it comes to origins, the natural explanation is not the only one."
And what scientific data would that be? (Notwithstanding this has nothing to do with evolution).
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 8:26 AM
OK, I am out of here to go bake some pain a l'ancienne to get the bad taste out of my mouth caused by these liars for Jesus.
Carry on, my pretties.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 8:26 AM
Fixed it for you stoopid ignorant delusional fool. As you keep showing yourself to be. Get an education.Posted by: Patrick | January 2, 2010 8:28 AM
DebinOz: it was an example, get over it. Rather than "I didn't come from no monkey", my view is that life did not originate in the way stated by the science textbooks, for reasons I have stated.
Michelle B: You've missed the point. Evolution assumes the origins. It is essentially based in abiogenesis, a philosophical issue. Creation and evolution are different interpretations of the same data, based on different philosopies. When it comes down to it, neither evolution nor creation can be considered "facts" (this is outside the realm of science), but they are frameworks for the interpretation of data based on different philosophies.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 8:28 AM
oh... and before I really leave,to the "Nerd of red head"
Only uni course Darwin completed was theology..
Oh and further to you stoooopid remarks sequencing actually proves nothing. We share 50% of DNA with banana. Can you elaborate how this fact proves the big E processsssss? He he he he ...
Posted by: Patrick | January 2, 2010 8:30 AM
DebinOz: it was an example, get over it. Rather than "I didn't come from no monkey", my view is that life did not originate in the way stated by the science textbooks, for reasons I have stated. This directly applies to the question of evolution.
Michelle B: You've missed the point. Evolution assumes the origins. It is essentially based in abiogenesis, a philosophical issue. Creation and evolution are different interpretations of the same data, based on different philosopies. When it comes down to it, neither evolution nor creation can be considered "facts" (this is outside the realm of science), but they are frameworks for the interpretation of data based on different philosophies.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 8:31 AM
Thanks for the laughs, Andre.
You are wrong, btw. And we are never going to let up on informing you of that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 2, 2010 8:34 AM
andre #504
Evolution has been tested and observed and is falsifiable. Google "Lenski e coli" for an example of evolution happening in the laboratory.
Why do you Liars for Jebus try to tell us stuff that we know is wrong? Do you think your lies, which I must emphasize are known to us as lies, will make us fall on our knees and worship your god. And don't tell us that you're not arguing goddism, we're not as stupid as you think we are.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 8:34 AM
Irrelevant.Sorry, it is up to you as the claimant to prove your idiocy. For my defense, try the peer reviewed scientific literature found in institutions of higher learning world-wide. Which you are obviously not familiar with. We are waiting for your evidence. And we will be waiting for years, as you have nothing but hot air, lies, and bullshitting for your imaginary deity.Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 8:35 AM
"DebinOz: it was an example, get over it."
See post #501.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 8:43 AM
Patrick: Evolution assumes the origins.
_______
Evolution does not assume anything. Common descent is a fact. Perhaps natural selection can be overturned (though there is no indication that it will) with a better explanation of speciation, but the actual fact of common descent will not ever be denied.
Abiogensis is hardly a philosophical issue. It is intimately related with scientific research via cosmology (a scientific field).
Your style of intellectual dishonesty differs from David's, but it is still chock-a-block with fallacies, sliminess, and stupidity. Your style is more vaque, more slippery than David's, but it contains the same nonsense, the same willful twisting of facts. And we will not be fooled by your more 'cerebral' approach. You are wrong also.
Posted by: Patrick | January 2, 2010 8:48 AM
Sorry for the multiple post.
Malcolm: no, I found an article which goes into more detail than I was going to. Answer 1 was essentially what I was half-way through writing, but I wasn't going to explain as I went along as that article does.
DebinOz: Scientific data, referring to the hard evidence which is interpreted in order to come to a conclusion. Textbook science isn't all "hard evidence", but has more to do with the conclusions drawn by the scientists from it. My point here is that we are working from different frameworks with our interpretation of data. From the materialist framework, evolution is the obvious conclusion; from the theist framework, creation is the obvious conclusion.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 8:49 AM
"We share 50% of DNA with banana. Can you elaborate how this fact proves the big E processsssss?"
Ummmmmmmmm, I'm thinking that it actually proves that humans and bananas have a common ancestor. You know, like a looooonnnnnngggggg time ago.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 2, 2010 8:52 AM
Probably an occupational math hazard:
I think the difference between Patrick's argument and andre's is that Patrick first passes the facts through a homomorphic transform with a kernel of anything which contradicts his worldview. A consistency with creationism is then claimed, not only on the codomain but on the initial domain.
The problem is that once a kernel of truth is injected you can't prove statements about creationism in the domain of reality.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 2, 2010 9:01 AM
Patrick,
You're right. Evolution and creotardism both look at evidence. Evolution looks at the real world and creotardism looks at a 2,500 year old myth.
Please stop lying and telling us that creotardism looks at things like DNA, fossils, and embryos. We're all aware (and "we" includes you) that you're trying to fit the Genesis myth into reality. Guess what, it doesn't work. Your average Hebrew priest of 2,500 years ago was not up on biochemistry and paleontology.* So they made up a story about how their god created the flat Earth and all the pretty lights in the sky. They were not trying to give a blow by blow description of some old fart with a white beard creating plants before creating the sun which plants need to survive.
*They weren't even up on basic mathematics, as shown by their belief that π is 3.
Posted by: Patrick | January 2, 2010 9:06 AM
Before I have to go,
DebinOz: I see. Note that I was an evolutionist previously, but not any more. The "I'm not descended from a monkey" argument is as absurd to me as it is to you, and it was not my intent to use it.
Michelle B: Thanks for the response. I promise I am not willfully twisting facts. As I have stated elsewhere, I have a different interpretation of those facts. I am not trying to fool anyone, only share my view.
Evolution must assume that there was a first organism which formed spontaneously. Have you heard of the term "philosophy of science"? It particularly deals with this, the effect of philosophical assumptions on the interpretation of data.
Common descent is not a "fact" in the way you are referring to it. Common descent can be established within species and groups of species, but not to a single ancestor.
Sorry I won't be able to respond further, but it is late, and I leaving tomorrow to go away for a week.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 2, 2010 9:15 AM
Something I've never quite understood. If abiogenesis happening ever is impossible, whence a creator?
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 9:16 AM
"DebinOz: Scientific data, referring to the hard evidence which is interpreted in order to come to a conclusion. Textbook science isn't all "hard evidence", but has more to do with the conclusions drawn by the scientists from it."
Again, what particular set of scientific data have you re-interpreted? Fossils? Amino acids? Geological strata? Or the whole shebang?
I am tipping that you changed your alleged atheist views to a born-again view, and decided to buy into the pseudoscience pedalled by the creationist websites.
Posted by: Lucia | January 2, 2010 9:18 AM
"Dr." Myers,
What a foul website! Is this your idea of rational arguement? "Dr." Dawkins and yourself seem to be frustrated, ugly, middle aged bullies that are fixated at adolescence. You both need someone to take you over their knee and teach you some manners!(and then wash you mouth out with soap). What are you hiding that makes you feel so guilty and angry? You all need to go do something productive. Why not volunteer at a good charity. Oh yeah, that might make you seem Christian.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 9:24 AM
"You both need someone to take you over their knee and teach you some manners!"
Are you offering? If not, piss off.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 2, 2010 9:29 AM
"Quotes" should be "used" in "places" where they "make sense". Don't "Lucia" and "Lucifer" have the same Latin root?
Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 9:29 AM
Actually, no it doesn't. For evolution to occur all you need is a replicating system. How it was formed is irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned and belongs to the domain of abiogenesis.
Please, go learn about what you're trying to argue against before coming here to make a fool of yourself.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 2, 2010 9:31 AM
Hahaha. I love when creobots put someone's title in quotes. Shows how worthless their opinion is.
HIding? A spanking? Guilty?
Talk about projection and fantasy. hehe.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 9:36 AM
Lucia: What a foul website
_____
As foul as believing everyone will burn in hell for not believing your crapola? Some Christians have no idea how foul they are. You have been protected in a deferential bubble of undeserved respect. Here you will be subjected to how narrow-minded and downright odd your viewpoints are because your ignorance demands honest confrontation with facts and reality.
There is no guilt being expressed here. Maybe you better take a remedial course in mind reading? Anger is a normal human emotion, and it is excellent to motivate people to effect change, like fighting the lies of Intelligent Design and YEC.
And you regard suggesting that the educated, kind, hard-working, giving-of-their-time-to-show- how-wrong-you-are folks at this site should be subject to corporeal punishment because you can't abide the fact that they are right and you are wrong? Your lying for Jesus is the reason why you focus on 'manners' and not substance of the argument, because you know what? You have no substance.
And Richard Dawkins is not middle-age, he is over 65.
Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 9:37 AM
Funny. This was posted just yesterday by PZ.
And why the fuck did you put Dr. in scare quotes?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 9:46 AM
Patrick: Thanks for the response. I promise I am not willfully twisting facts. As I have stated elsewhere, I have a different interpretation of those facts. I am not trying to fool anyone, only share my view.
____
Facts are not interpreted. Facts are what they are. And the earth is not young and common descent is a fact. You are wrong, we are right. There is no interpretation needed or required and to pretend that there is makes you a doofus and your promise hollow. You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 9:56 AM
Lucia: Oh yeah, that might make you seem Christian.
_____
Oh geesh, you are a moron. You have never heard of all the secular charities out there? You apparently think good works can't be done outside of a Christian mind set. Well, good works can be done easily without the prop of Christianity. Look at Europe, with their lower rates of all the social ills that plaque America. Europe is largely secular and sponsors much good work.
And with all the bad publicity that Christianity is reaping on itself, you really think that admonishing folks who do not want to seem Christian is a bad thing?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 9:56 AM
Fixed it for you. You are a delusional fool if you think that your interpretation is at all meaningful to us. Your interpretation requires that the facts be force fit to a book of mythology/fiction, so they get twisted out of any semblance of rationality. Your premise is wrong. If you consider the babble a book of fiction, and your deity imaginary, no twisting (interpretation) of the facts is required for what is now science.Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 10:05 AM
Oh, and Andre (if he's still around):
I seem to remember you saying something stupid up-thread about the evolution of the genetic code. Yes, the genetic code evolved. Do yourself a favor and read this comment attentively, will you? Go learn something for a change.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 10:12 AM
To correct the wonky meaning in #558: Not wanting to seem Christian is a positive act because Christianity is not exactly on the cutting edge of morality with all the horrendous bad publicity it has been receiving. So Lucia, we do not want to be perceived unethical that is why we have no desire to seem to be Christian. But our reluctance in that regard, does not mean we are not productive and caring.
I predict if Lucia hangs around, she will fart out the Fatwa envy fallacy full blast and in complete oblivion that she has stunk up the joint. Because don't you know, Christians being so gentle, so kind, so loving (we will at the moment not dwell on the rather hateful view that non-Christians are doomed to eternal torture) is the reason why they are criticized. No, you are criticized because any idea/belief can be. And when you are criticized, instead of providing substance for your views, you provide just righteous indignation and hot air.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 2, 2010 10:15 AM
You will know they are Christian by the fingerprints all over their pearls.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 10:18 AM
Dania: And why the fuck did you put Dr. in scare quotes? (addressed to Lucia)
_____
Because she is anti-intellectual and rejects uncommon sense, instead clinging to common sense, intuition, and her gut as if they were somehow virtuous aspects.
Posted by: RJ | January 2, 2010 11:31 AM
Andre@508
Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 2, 2010 11:46 AM
And in my #541, I meant to type Andre in bold face, not David.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:47 AM
I miss David from Canada. He at least seemed like you could have an honest conversation with him.
Posted by: Alpha Bitch | January 2, 2010 12:15 PM
[bold]Lucia:[/bold] What leads you to believe they are full of guilt? I'm curious about that statement.
"...that might make you seem Christian."
I'll completely put aside the point that many atheists are quite charitable (I, myself am on the board of two non-profits, volunteer with my therapy dogs, run a pet-food bank for local pet owners experiencing hard times, and a few other things), are you saying that ONLY Christians can be charitable? Does this rule out Jewish and other religions.
Or did you mean that only those guided by a religious dogma are charitable? Does that mean that Jewish people, Muslims, Scientologists, etc. can be charitable also?
[bold]Janine:[/bold] "I thought most people here realized that I am a smart ass. And no one loves a smart ass."
I'll be the dissenter. I love a smartass. They're/you're my favorite kind of people.
Posted by: Alpha Bitch | January 2, 2010 12:18 PM
Whoops. I suck.
Posted by: otrame
|
January 2, 2010 12:27 PM
David of Canada:
Though your initial post expressed concern about tone, did you notice that you were treated with (mostly) civility, especially when you attempted to answer questions honestly and showed you have a sense of humor? Did you notice that andre and Patrick are not so treated? They came here expressing hostility, used insults, and basically try to claim that they know more about biology than all the biologists in the world (though their own words show that they can spout jargon without understanding it). You expressed your honest beliefs, admitted some ignorance and generally behaved nicely.
Now as for your belief system. You seem like a really nice guy who has chosen to ignore anything that refutes the things you chose to believe about reality. That is not evil. We all do that to some degree. It's called cognitive dissonance, and it can make fools of us all. THAT, and all the other human foibles, is what the scientific method was designed to get around. It's not perfect and it takes time, but science works. Look around you. You know it does.
Here is my point, and I am paraphrasing Aronra (who has produced a wonderful series on Youtube on the "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" (by which he means YEC)). He said: It is one thing to believe in something that might be true, like the existence of God in general and Jesus in particular. It is something else to believe in something we know isn't true, like the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old.
His point and my point and Leigh's point is that you don't have to give up God to face reality. By simply realizing that the Bible is not inerrant, a whole new world--a world most Christians believe is the true grandeur of God--is open to you. You don't have to stay ignorant in order to maintain your beliefs. You can study all of creation, and see the wonder and glory of it. You do not have to let go of God to have this. You just have to let go of worshiping the Bible. Because that is what you are doing, worshiping a book.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 12:32 PM
Yea, what otrame said! FSM, I wish I could write as well.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 2, 2010 1:04 PM
Sigh...as has been pointed out many times here an ad hominem is of the form 'you are X, therefore you are wrong'. The fallacy occurs when property X is completely irrelevant to the argument and is merely being used for discredit the person (e.g, your views on health care is ridiculous, after all you did cheat on your wife).
If you say 'you are wrong for reason Y, what an X' or 'damn, you're an X' then this is merely insulting, not an ad hominem.
Creationists are so predictable I bet someone can write a simple commenting program, The Creationist Annihilator 3000, to respond to their unoriginal arguments. It would pick up key terms like 'second law of thermodynamics', 'evolutionism is a religion', 'Hitler' and 'ad hominem' and post the standard reply. There would also be a random insult generator and it would Google phrases that appear to be plagiarized. This program can very easily win a Molly.
Posted by: Falcarius | January 2, 2010 1:31 PM
andre: "a theory can be classified as scientific if is testable, observable and falsifiable. Evolutionism is none of those."
Testable:
Fossils of fish-like tetrapods are known from rocks of age X. Fossils of tetrapod-like fish are known from rocks of age Z. Team of researchers predict the existence of an intermediate in rocks of age Y, in the appropriate geographical location. Result: They discover Tiktaalik.
Observable:
Look up Richard Lenski or at least see the summary of his team's work on E. coli here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Falsifiable:
We still anxiously await discovery of rabbits in the Precambrian. ;)
More seriously, see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
In it, leading Christian biologist Ken Miller explains how recent observations of our chromosomes could potentially have falsified the concept of our common ancestry with chimpanzees - but didn't. Quite the opposite, in fact; in my opinion an honest reading of this data provides as convincing a proof* of evolution as anyone could ask for.
*Insert standard caveats about "proof" in science...
Posted by: Falcarius | January 2, 2010 2:16 PM
andre:"We share 50% of DNA with banana. Can you elaborate how this fact proves the big E processsssss?"
Easy: It demonstrates common ancestry.
Specifically, it fits into a hierarchy of DNA similarity that conforms to just what we would expect if evolutionary theory is correct. The more closely an organism is related to us, the less time has elapsed since our common ancestor and so fewer DNA differences have accrued. The common ancestor of plants and animals existed much further back in time than the common ancestor of the great apes, with whom we share the highest proportion of our DNA.
There are of course wrinkles in the concept, particularly the fact that different percentages might be found depending on what genes (or amino acid sequences) are compared. But the general picture is largely consistent.
This site goes into greater detail about this issue, and also includes a table of sequence comparison data for the protein cytochrome C:
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html
In this particular protein, maize is 67% similar to humans - even greater than your 50% banana example! However, this is consistent since it is more similar to us than is a protist like Euglena, but less similar than fish, still less similar than mammals like mice and horses, and even less similar than chimpanzees - whose cytochrome C sequence is identical to ours.
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 2:58 PM
"Actually, no it doesn't. For evolution to occur all you need is a replicating system. How it was formed is irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned and belongs to the domain of abiogenesis."
Leigh: Is this the point where you insert God into the story? What creative role does he have? Did he create the first organism or microbe? Or was he only involved in the Big Bang?
"Though your initial post expressed concern about tone, did you notice that you were treated with (mostly) civility"
True - Thanks. When your not devouring "fresh meat" you're a good bunch.
"You seem like a really nice guy who has chosen to ignore anything that refutes the things you chose to believe about reality."
I wouldn't call it ignoring - just put them on the shelf for a while. I don't change my my belief systems in a knee-jerk fashion. Like the time when everyone was saying that Gorbachev was the antichrist because he had a mark on his forehead - I was a slow adopter. :)
"You just have to let go of worshiping the Bible."
By "worshiping" do you mean believing in inspiration of Scripture? Cause I probably won't stop that.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 3:01 PM
Welcome back David
Posted by: David from Canada | January 2, 2010 3:07 PM
"The Creationist Annihilator 3000"
You could make it even simpler. I could just repeat the phrase: "You obviously don't know anything about science, idiot!" :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 3:08 PM
God doesn't exist, so there is no point inserting your imaginary deity into the story. Now, if you had some conclusive physical evidence for said deity, say an eternally burning bush, you might change some minds...Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 2, 2010 3:46 PM
"The Creationist Annihilator 3000"
"You could make it even simpler. I could just repeat the phrase: "You obviously don't know anything about science, idiot!" :)"
Wow. That's fucking amazing. You're not seriously conflating step by step explanations on each point, that are punctuated with "Yes, you don't understand science, but there's more to learn and we can teach you with" "You don't know anything about science, idiot", are you?
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 3:59 PM
Goooood Morning dear all evo people or by the same token as you call creationists evoretards.Evolutionism is a way of looking at the past so evoretards reflects the very nature of your beliefs better.
Ok Tis Him and Falarius if you think creationists twist facts and lie for Gpd consider evolutionary legends- frauds called "Pithecanthropus"-bones of a human and monkey skull painted to look old and joined together. I believe some doctoral degrees were obtained by some evo scientists based on that fraud.Another: Nebraska man a whole story of a alleged human ancestor invented on the basis of one tooth of a pig. The very pig was found alive an well in Sth America then fradulent drawings of Mr Haeckel on which he based his fantastic theory of recapitulation. I believe Haeckel is still in the biology textbooks today as a support for evolutionism.In reality at no stage human embrio's DNA is controlled by the DNA of a fish , reptile and so on as the theory suggests so sientifically it is absolute bullshit.
You can not test evolutionism on fossilis.Can you test the evolutionary belief that dinosaurs gave rise to birds some 150 millions years ago? Fossils unfortunately for evolutionists show so called stasis. By the way you evo people believe that 3 bones of jaw in reptiels moved in some kinda miracolous manner and reshaped themselves int 3 bones of inner ear in mammals. Name a fossili that shows this miraculous pilgrimage of the bones at any stage of it.
Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com
|
January 2, 2010 4:01 PM
André @ 449:
If you didn't read through the Wikipedia article (which, if I recall, was actually pretty technical), the nuts and bolts of it are that because the GPS clocks are high up, their clocks run at a different speeds. Since GPS using timing to calculate your location (distance = speed * time, and you figure your location by the distance to satellites based on signal delay between your local clock and the broadcast time), if their clocks are not hyper-accurate, your location is wrong.
Without GR, gravitational time dilation isn't taken into account. Thus, the clocks on the GPS tick at the wrong rate, and give you the wrong location. Further, since the *rate* is different, this is not a constant offset. The error increases constantly. As the story goes, when GPS satellites were sent up, they had GR disabled by default. The satellites were found to track by about ~1km/hr. They stabilized once GR was"turned on". There are other relativistic effects, but they are more minor(SR via the speed of orbit, GR via the Lens-Thirrring effect and geodetic precession, etc). For more on the Lens-Thirring effect, google "Gravity Probe B".
This was not even the first Earthbound test, but earlier tests were more technical, like frequency shifting in MASER fountains, etc.
Further tests include orbital decay of pulsars via gravitational radiation, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, etc.
I'm really not sure why you doubt relativity, but then again, it's as well proven as evolution an quantum mechanics so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
Also, read Falcarius @ 571/572 for testability of evolution. Denying the evidence of evolution does not refute it, nor does it make it absent. Also, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 4:03 PM
Andre, still the creobot loser. No citations to the peer reviewed scientific literature, which is the only way science is refuted. Ergo, you have nothing but blather. And we know it. Just another Liar for Jebus™. In other words, a boring idjit.
Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com
|
January 2, 2010 4:10 PM
André @ 578:
I actually wrote an article for the UC Museum of Vertebrate Paleontology (read, UC Berkeley) a few years back on precisely the mammalian middle ear. Go beauracracy for not having proceeded anywhere in about 18 months!
But, nevertheless, here is the article:
http://beta.revealedsingularity.net/article.php?art=mammal_ear
In particular, the first image addresses: "By the way you evo people believe that 3 bones of jaw in reptiels [sic] moved in some kinda miracolous [sic] manner and reshaped themselves int [sic] 3 bones of inner ear in mammals. Name a fossili [sic] that shows this miraculous pilgrimage of the bones at any stage of it."
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 4:12 PM
at Dania and Deb: apart from the fact that we share 50% of DNA with bananas we also share 99% of DNA with mice.
I guess the Darwinian evo tree of life is slowly withering...
below you can read about it and it is the "science",meaning evo site
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20home.htm
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 4:17 PM
Yawn, Andre is a creobot loser. Nothing to see here folks. Move along, just another Liar for Jebus™, without any scientific refutation of evolution...
Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 4:26 PM
So, that's the best you can do? A poorly constructed tu quoque?
*shakes head*
And just who do you think exposed those frauds, andre? (Hint: They weren't creationists.)
Transitional forms like Archeopterix and persuasive evidence from comparative anatomy show it.
Barefaced lie, as any scientifically literate person knows.
Posted by: Falcarius | January 2, 2010 4:32 PM
@582
Dude, did you even read that article?
The whole site goes to great lengths to explain why the mouse data supports evolution.
And if your argument is that the 99% figure for mice is too high or doesn't fit with the commonly cited chimpanzee figure, see this bit from the third link in the article:
"At the time of publication of the draft mouse genome, the headline writers in popular publications came up with sensational and unjustified claims such as "Mouse 99% same as Human" and other misleading statements. This is what was actually determined: 99% of mouse genes have homologues in man (the actual protein similarity is much less than 99%. See article on mouse proteins.)"
Either you didn't bother to read any of the article, or you don't know what "homologous" means. I'm guessing both.
I notice you ignored my response to your test/observe/falsify challenge, instead choosing to Gish gallop your way through an unrelated list of scientific frauds (which were, of course, exposed by scientists doing science) and an unsupported assertion that fossils can't provide evidence for evolution. Leaving aside the fact that said assertion is WRONG, it's irrelevant to my posts, which were mainly concerned with DNA evidence (particularly similarities in DNA - not the "embryo controlled by fish's DNA" nonsense you erected of straw). In fact, the one fossil I mentioned was an example of the theory being used to predict a fossil's existence (testability), not of fossils being used to support evolution (though they of course can be, amply).
Posted by: Mercurious | January 2, 2010 4:33 PM
Thanks for the link Andre, it is a good read. But I do love how you provide evidence against yourself all the time. A snippet from the very page you sent.
Once again the Liar for Jebus is an EPIC FAIL.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 4:36 PM
Andre it must be hard to walk around with all the holes you keep shooting in your own foot.
Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 4:39 PM
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I see a creationist using this as an argument against evolution. WTF? How is that anything but evidence for common descent?
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
January 2, 2010 4:42 PM
Why would God do such a thing if we are his speciallest [not a word] creation ever-ever-ever? I mean, the divine status of the banana has been thoroughly explained, but why would your god make us so similar biochemically to the humble mouse? Heck, why do we need all that tricky biochemistry anyway? If we were made by magic, why can't we just operate by magic, as well?Posted by: arrakis
|
January 2, 2010 5:00 PM
Does anyone else read "pond scum" as "New York Mets"?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 5:02 PM
hahahaPosted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 5:10 PM
David asked, first quoting someone else:
David, we don't have a solid theory of abiolgenesis yet, though very interesting work is being done that I feel confident will yield results in my lifetime. In other words, I don't believe that God had to "poof" the first organism into being.
What I do think is that God created the universe and the physical realities that govern how it works in such a way that life could result on this planet and (I hope) on many more.
I also believe God's intention was to bring forth intelligent life capable of apprehending the manifold wonders of creation. Carl Sagan, who was emphatically not our co-religionist, expressed a similar idea when he said "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 2, 2010 5:10 PM
andre the giant moron,
I can't find any evidence that Pithecanthropus was considered a fraud (outside creationist sources). Can you provide a citation? Or are you thinking of Piltdown man?
In any case, yes there were some fraudulent fossils. Science is a human enterprise and sometimes humans will lie and cheat to get ahead. However, it was the scientists who uncovered the fact that these fossils were frauds. None of our modern understanding of evolution depend on these fossils. There is no reason to mention it, unless you are trying to imply that many other fossils we have are also frauds and the scientists studying them are either incredibly incompetent or involved in a conspiracy, in which case you'll need to show evidence.
This is false. If you look at the fossils and group them based on similarities you will see a tree-like structure, as expected by evolution. In fact, the fossil of Tiktaalik was predicted by the theory of evolution. Creationism shows no predictive power whatsoever. It merely uses mental gymnastics to reconcile an old mythical book with the modern evidence. It does not matter that in the process you need to lie, ignore evidence or come up with elaborate, unparsimonious explanations that don't even work.
In any case, even if we didn't have fossils the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming based on genetics, embryology, and the geographical distribution of life.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 5:18 PM
Ah, Tiktaalik. A premier example of a prediction made based on the ToE (Theory of Evolution), subsequent search for the fossil, and stunning discovery bearing out the prediction. Hypothesis -> test -> conclusion: hypothesis supported.
Now that, my friends, is science in action.
And also a suitable place to plug Neil Shubin's excellent book Your Inner Fish, which I found very enjoyable and informative.
Posted by: andre | January 2, 2010 5:19 PM
i can not reply to Dawkins's type argument "why would God" we talking science here.Well below some more evolutionist's speculation abut human and kangaroo common ancestor. This time author says that the "large parts of genome were conserved". Ha ha ha "conserved" of course by the omnipotent chance for the future vision of upcoming humanity. Do not you people use brain at all? Do you suppose that mice was a common ancestor for all primates? Were primates contemporary to mice at the original ancestry time or were there only mice at the stage?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1315837/
speaking of terms of natural selection: it would not "conserve" anything, It would eliminate all unnecessary features in the legendary ancestor because keeping it for the future humanity would be huge energy consuming effort..
Geeez. Who you call retards?
Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 5:23 PM
Fuck. He did say Pithecanthropus, not Piltdown man. I read it wrong, sorry.Pithecanthropus is obviously not a fraud.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 2, 2010 5:26 PM
*reads andre's comment @#595*
Dude...English not your best language? Nothing wrong wih that, but the word "conserved" means something different than you seem to think.
On the off chance that you are more than just a stupid troll, at the time of the common ancestor of modern mice (in fact of all rodents) and all primates, there were neither mice nor primates yet. See how that works?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 5:27 PM
Dude?
Are you really this stupid?
Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 5:27 PM
*reads #595*
Huh. Is it just me or andre isn't making any sense? I don't even know where to begin...
Posted by: Lars
|
January 2, 2010 5:27 PM
You, andre, are the retard. A stupid, lying piece of shit retard. Why, thank you for asking.
Do you have anything to say that isn't both a lie and an insult to the intelligence of humanity?
I guess you don't. Well, go on trolling then. I can't deny you doing the one thing you know.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 5:28 PM
Yawn, Andre is still showing nothing remotely scientific. That would require actual information that doesn't bite him in the foot, which also requires that he understands the science he is incapable of understanding. Which is why he is wasting his time here. What an idjit, whose deity is imaginary, and babble is a work of fiction.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 2, 2010 5:36 PM
Ow....reading #595 actually hurt.
Posted by: frozen_midwest, Evil Overlord Local #25, Standards Committee
|
January 2, 2010 5:36 PM
re: latest reply from andre
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry about that one. Even I, a non-biologist, can spot the errors.
(and no, I will *not* list them; that is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Posted by: Mercurious | January 2, 2010 5:37 PM
Snippet from the Kangaroo paper....
Seriously andre, how do you function in life being so blinding ignorant, stupid and just plain dense.
Posted by: Dave2010 | January 2, 2010 5:48 PM
It made me laugh when David Nicholls compared creationist beliefs to belief in alien abuduction. Doesn't he realise that beleif in aliens (and alien abduction) are logical deductions from evolution theory, not creationism! Mr Nicholls doesn't even seem to understand the implications of his own beliefs LOL!
Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 5:48 PM
This is FSTDT material, IMO.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 5:58 PM
Andre, sweetie, you've totally jumped the shark here. Time to give up and go away, 'cause you're so far off in the weeds you're not even wrong anymore.
Just one example of how you're doing so far:
1) You asserted that evolution isn't science, citing Popper as your authority and then promptly shooting yourself in the foot by providing a link to Popper saying that evolution IS science.
2) I warned you not to make the claim again, since you yourself had refuted it.
3) A few posts later, you came back with the same claim, this time citing no one for support.
4) The kind folks here provided yet more evidence of how evolution is testable, observable, and falsifiable.
5) You "La-La-La'd" right past that hard evidence.
Man alive, you're down for the count due to self-inflicted wounds.
And for (what I'm sure won't be) the LAST TIME, none of us worship Charles Darwin. He was a scientist who articulated a critically important scientific breakthrough. We like him oh-so-much based on his work, but he was just a really smart man. Are you forgetting that I myself am a Christian, which means that I by definition worship God? How about my co-religionists Ken Miller and Francis Collins, who are world-renowned scientists who also worship God, and who also think that Charles Darwin was a swell guy?
Look, buddy, either quit lying or go away. We're willing to talk to you, but not if you won't deal honestly.
Let me remind you one more time that Lying for Jesus is blasphemy. If you don't have enough integrity to stop it on your own, at least consider the dishonor you're bringing onto the Name of Christ.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 5:59 PM
Then you're looking at it all long. There's nothing inevitable about biologists, it just happens that a couple of billion years of evolution made a biologist. Luckily we can see many of the steps along the way, in the fossil record, in the genetic code, and with life as it stands today. Thankfully there is a good diversity of primates, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, chordates, et al. that do show that the pathway to us is a reality.Posted by: Falcarius | January 2, 2010 5:59 PM
@595
Jebus...you're either the Poe to end all Poes or you have the reading comprehension skills of a common barnacle. (No offense intended to barnacles.)
It's obvious by now that you're not interested in the facts, presuming you could even understand them. The only reason to even continue the discussion is just to work off the rust. (I rarely post here and could use the easy practice.)
Anyway, in case there are less obtuse fence-sitters reading this, a couple points:
1) As others have already pointed out, mice and primates share a common ancestor tens of millions of years ago; neither is an ancestor of the other.
2) Conservation of the genome is exactly what the theory would predict. Natural selection works on the variations that give some individuals advantages over others. Features that are directly involved in the organism's response to its specific environment will be subject to evolutionary change. There are also large parts of the genome that are "junk", and are thus free to change without impact to the organism. (The junk DNA issue is more complex than that, but this will do for now.)
However, the parts of the genome that are basic to an organism's survival, such as body-forming or regulatory genes shared by all vertebrates or all mammals, should stay relatively static since any major mutations in those genes would result in the organism not surviving at all. The ones that keep the "tried-and-true" form of the gene, be they man, mouse, or marsupial, will survive and reproduce through the generations.
3) There's no such thing as "future vision for upcoming humanity". Natural selection does not progress towards a pre-ordained ideal. All that came before us were not just test-driving the Earth in preparation for our arrival. We're merely one leaf on the primate twig of the mammal branch of the animal bough of the tree of life.
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 2, 2010 6:03 PM
Patrick @542,
My mistake. You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, so you posted a link to a site written by someone who not only appears to not understand thermodynamics, but also basic biology.
I wrote comment 415 as advice to David, but you might want to read it too. Particularly the bit about not using arguments that you think sound good, but which has been debunked.
Finally, consider this: You were once a single cell. You grew into a person without violating any laws of physics. Can you explain that in light of your understanding of thermodynamics?
Posted by: Dania
|
January 2, 2010 6:04 PM
No, they are not logical deductions from the ToE. Alien abduction doesn't necessarily follow from the theory.
Do you guys have to fail at everything? Both science and logic? Sheesh.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 2, 2010 6:09 PM
Dave2010,
.....I'm sorry, someone else is going to have refute this. I just spent Christmas with my insane relatives (many of them creationists) and I can't tolerate a thread with this many kooks just yet.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 6:11 PM
David, if you're still around, I'd like to recommend a couple of books for you. Actually, reading even one of them would probably be enough:
Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution -- Karl W. Giberson
Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul -- Kenneth R. Miller
One or both of these, plus a little research into theology beyond what you know from your self-described fundamentalist upbringing, could be enough to get you over what may seem to you an insurmountable philosophical mountain, with only a crippled faith on the other side.
I promise you, the land over the YEC mountain is wide and fair, and contains both a deeper, richer faith and a joyful and more wondrous appreciation of God's creation that you can yet imagine.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 2, 2010 6:12 PM
Come over baby
Whole lotta stupid goin on
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 6:21 PM
Notice the creationist tactic? All he can do is doubt natural selection. Not provide any testable mechanism or a hypothesis of his own. His logic is akin to saying "If all cars are not red, they must be blue". So much time and effort basically trying to argue down evolution to being on an equal footing with his position - that's all he's doing. Meanwhile while scientists have observed natural selection, observed sexual selection, observed mutations, allele shifts in populations, the emergence of novel traits, speciation, and have 15000 years of artificial selection to look at - andre like all creationists spend their entire time trying to cast doubt on it.
Maybe he's unaware that he exists, so given he's arguing on the topic, he's being wilfully ignorant. But maybe not, I'm betting that he does know that these experiments exist and what they signify, and he's trying to dismiss them. Because after all, this is not about evolution. It's about protecting a cherished belief. Hence why I liken it to the race between Achilles and the tortoise, the argument that it is impossible for Achilles (evolution) to overtake the tortoise (creation) even though the race has been run and Achilles is well over the finish like and the Tortoise has barely moved. Creationism really is these days looking for a paradox that will invalidate all that supports evolution. Because they've got nothing else. The evidence clearly points to common descent.
Meanwhile, creationists will refuse to make a testable hypothesis of their own. They'll throw around words like "information" and "mutation" as if they mean something, all the while the best they can do is infer God did it through the accessories that bacteria use to cause us greater harm... No testable hypotheses, no mechanism of action - just Goddidit in the form of "well natural selection cannot account for it". Meanwhile 200 years ago, the same argument could be made that Goddidit because "well Lamarkian inheritance cannot account for it". Get it? You've actually got to make a testable hypothesis that explains all the evidence that we see, make predictions that modern evolutionary theory does not, and then collect some data to this effect...
...Otherwise you're just another kook with a theory of everything.
Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com
|
January 2, 2010 6:24 PM
Andre @ 595:
From what intelligible bits I could extract, I want to point out that rodents are the closest living relatives to extant primates, sharing the euarchontoglires node:
http://phylogeny.revealedsingularity.net/search.php?permalink=Euarchontoglires
(Benton 2003).
Google search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=euarchontoglires+phylogeny&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires
I mean, really? You couldn't even look it up?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 6:36 PM
All I can say is...What the fuck?
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 2, 2010 6:37 PM
For his next trick, andre will stop believing in fusion because Fleischmann and Pons didn't actually achieve cold fusion. Expect the sun to go out soon because of the power of the belief that somehow it is related.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 6:39 PM
I think andre was going for the "ewww, we're related to mice" reaction. One of the unfortunate realities of evolution is that while it would be nicer to be more closely related to mice than creationists, reality dictates it can't be the case. Oh well, this is what happens when you constrict your beliefs by evidence instead of using beliefs to determine which evidence you choose to accept or ignore. i.e. just because I think of creationists as slime, it doesn't mean that they branched off some 800 million years ago while the rest of us evolved a brain.Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 6:40 PM
David, please also re-read Kel's post #409, Michelle B's #411, and Malcolm's #415. These folks have gone to considerable effort to offer you some worthwhile points, which I think you'd profit greatly from considering.
You came here in good faith and have offered plain dealing, which I think you can see has caused you to be treated with respect and what passes in this rough-and-tumble intellectual mosh pit for gentleness. In fact, my compatriots here have showed remarkable forbearance on some of my posts, too, so that you and I could converse in our shared theistic language. (Thanks, fellow minions, for this kindness.)
My own motivation is this: You seem to be both young and very intelligent. YEC doctrine can be dangerous for someone like you; it's both eisegesis (bad Biblical interpretation) and incongruent with reality. As you learn more about science, the difference between the theology you've been taught and the reality that science shows you may cause you to question your faith. Baby being thrown out with bathwater does result, for some people.
That needn't be the case, though it may be as you walk your own path. One thing you MUST do, however: you must find a way to maintain your intellectual integrity. A faith built on denying plain facts that sit, all demonstrable and testable, right in front of your nose WILL BE FRAGILE -- because God respects and rewards integrity.
You can still back away from science, but oh, I do hope you won't. I don't think you can yet imagine how much intellectual joy can be found in learning about God's universe.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 2, 2010 6:55 PM
Is Andre the dumbest creationist we've seen? The combination of ignorance, lack of capacity for analysis and critical thought and constant own-foot-shooting is like no other I've seen.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 7:00 PM
He's up there on the list for sure.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 2, 2010 7:00 PM
Andre is the likely next winner of the Loebner Prize (http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html).
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 2, 2010 7:02 PM
Wowbagger,
I think andre is going from an award for the best example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 2, 2010 7:09 PM
Is Andre like some sort of frankencreationist made from the parts of lesser creationists?
He has the attention span of Gish, the intellect of Lion IRC, the incoherence of M*bus, and the shooting-self-in-footiness of an Alan Clarke.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 2, 2010 7:15 PM
Why are we angry?
That's explained in comments 387, 483, 502, 568, and 615.
Some people out there seem to believe that scientists undergo the full kolinahr as part of their training; they are incorrect. Scientists know the feelings of frustration and boredom. Bigtime.
To be fair, Robert T. Bakker doesn't lead anything much, though he has been a great popularizer. But all that is beside the point.
You mean the tired old "if the Adam & Eve story isn't true, there's no original sin, so we don't need a Savior" argument?
If that argument held water, why are there still Catholics?
Because the Catholic counterargument is that, because our bodies are descended from "mere animals", we have a Sinful Nature™ and therefore too need a Savior.
Seems to me like Christianity has no need for a story to be true that is based on a Sumerian myth about the creation of a goddess that revolves around a Sumerian pun (both "life" and "rib" were pronounced ti).
So you laugh at the Bible? :-)
"Unlikely"? That's quite the understatement. Petroleum contains things like chlorophyll decay products.
Of course it is.
Better yet: gene duplication with subsequent mutation of one of the copies... what's that? Huh?
There is no pushing and no run. There's just mutation and selection – diversification.
Gene duplication with subsequent mutation introduces new genes into a genome.
Selection acts on individuals, not on genes... those individuals who can have a greater number of fertile offspring in a particular environment will have more fertile offspring in that environment; that's called "they're being selected for". Whether they can have a greater number of fertile offspring depends on their genes, but genes come as packages – individual organisms – to natural selection.
Correct. Stellar "evolution", as the astronomers unfortunately call it, is more like what biologists call "development" or "ontogeny" – a deterministic process that happens to an individual. It's a misnomer, just like Pokemon "evolution".
Evolution is descent with heritable modification.
Newtonian physics is what existed before the theory of relativity, you incredible moron.
If the Earth stood still and the rest of the universe rotated around it, most of it would do so faster than the speed of light, and that is not possible, even though you have managed to sleep through it ever since 1905. Have you no shame?
Oh, and... what exactly does a philosopher have to say about physics? ~:-|
No.
You don't get to redefine a technical term.
Evolution = descent with heritable modification.
Only a complete and utter moron would ever try to apply a theory of physics to morality.
Einstein actually wondered if he should have called it "Theory of Invariance" because its most important part is the constancy of the speed of light for all observers...
<puts left arm around andre's shoulders>
>pats andre's head with right hand>
There is no such thing as a "scientific proof". Science cannot prove, only disprove.
Suppose we discover the truth. How can we found out that what we've discovered is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which we don't have?
Science can disprove: whichever idea contradicts reality is wrong. But beyond that, only the principle of parsimony is available (look it up).
Oh boy. You have a lot to learn.
That's sexual selection instead.
Didn't you even notice that that's three times the same thing?
Besides, I have observed evolution by mutation and selection in a petri dish in the second (of 8) compulsory lab courses for molecular biology undergrads at the University of Vienna. It's really trivial.
Come ooooon. Darwin made plenty of mistakes. For instance, have you ever heard about his theory of inheritance? No? That's because it's so wrong as to be ridiculous, not only in hindsight, but even in his time it was rather outdated – it was an 18th-century-style Lamarckist theory.
(Funnily enough, Mendel's theory of inheritance works much better with Darwin's theory of evolution, except that Mendel neglected the possibility of mutations.)
Dude, I'm a graduate student of paleontology. Aren't you embarrassed to talk about things you so obviously don't understand?
Index fossils are used for relative dating – the same fossils are likely to have the same age, especially when it's entire ecosystems rather than single species; fossils that are younger than other fossils in one place are likely to be so in others, too. Fossils aren't and cannot be used for absolute dating. Absolute dating is done radiometrically.
Another method of relative dating is magnetostratigraphy, which has nothing to do with evolution or living beings. Look it up.
You can date them relatively as just explained; if there's the slightest bit of volcanic material in them, you can date them absolutely (radiometrically), too.
In principle yes. But how probable is that?
I've published a paper on (among other things) how complete the fossil record of a group of animals with a notoriously poor fossil record is. Tell me your e-mail address, and I'll send you the pdf. If you don't want to disclose your address in public, find me in Google Scholar and drop me an e-mail.
Hey, look, a German keyboard!
Unlike you, I'm one of those myself... :-| Taken at face value, the Lewontin quote you cite is pretty stupid, which would be bad for Lewontin, not for the theory of evolution (really, what, if anything, makes you think Lewontin speaks for anyone else!?!), but I bet there's a lot of context missing around it. For instance, do you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? If not, look it up.
What scale? What do you mean by spontaneously? We're talking about stepwise processes that took tens or hundreds of millions of years.
How, BTW, did you manage to grow? Why aren't you still a spherical zygote?
Doubly wrong. Evolution starts once the first self-replicator exists – how it came into existence doesn't matter in the slightest. Remember? Descent with heritable modification.
Abiogenesis is by no means a philosophical issue. It's a scientific issue. It can be tested in laboratories and (to some degree) by looking at old rocks.
Evolution is a fact. I've seen it with my own eyes, see above.
The theory of evolution by mutation, selection, and drift is the theory that explains that fact.
Creation... where's the theory? "Goddunit" isn't falsifiable.
Do you even know what DNA is? Chemically and functionally, I mean?
There's no reason – other than common descent – to expect that humans and bananas should share any DNA. In fact, there's not even a reason – other than common descent – to expect they should both have DNA in the first place. DNA with A, C, G, and T is by no means the only possible material of heredity. Why not DNA with C, G, iso-C, and iso-G? Why not RNA, TNA, PNA? Why not a protein? And so on and so forth. Look the abbreviations up.
What does the principle of parsimony say about this...?
Evidence, please.
Comment 578 is a Gish Gallop, so I'll just deal with this part of it. Here goes:
Cynognathus, Chiniquodon, Probainognathus, Kayentatherium, Haramiyavia, Pachygenelus, Megazostrodon, Yanoconodon. And that's just off the top of my head.
Even the very concept of "pilgrimage" is wrong-headed. The bones in question acquired their function in hearing before they stopped losing their function in the jaw joint. I'd like to send pdfs of the papers on the jaw joints & middle ears of Chiniquodon and Yanoconodon your way. Your eyes would pop out.
Of course not. Neither do I. Care to explain?
Not quite. Rodents and lagomorphs (rabbits, hares, pikas) are each other's closest relatives, forming Glires; and primates, scandentians (tree "shrews"), and dermopterans ("flying" "lemurs" – they glide) are each other's closest relatives, forming Euarchonta. These two groups, finally, are each other's closest relatives and form Euarchontoglires = Supraprimates = "Glimates".
LOL! That would explain his incapability of reading the sites he quotes for understanding! :-D
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 7:16 PM
I'll concur with the Rev. BDC. He is definitely near the top of the list. Also on the list for shooting himself in the foot. It is a wonder he doesn't require a wheel chair to get around in.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 7:21 PM
Wow, that is a bit of a shock. A theist recommending another theist read an atheist's post on how to reconcile the bible with the universe. The problem I have with most theologians (who I have heard) is that they don't try to do that. They want inerrancy, just not a literal interpretation. That there's a "higher truth" in there, and I just don't buy that. It belittles all other mythologies who have similar documents. All those are meant to be made up by man, but the one derived from the Babylonians is the inspired word of God? Come off it.The only way it makes sense to me is that if the book is a socially constructed, human edited volume - that it's humanity's way of understanding the world in terms of God. This way it counts as neither evidence for nor against God's existence, that it's an interpretation of events being put into a divine context. This is not to say that a God was or was not involved in any events talked about, just that it's the work of man - as it should be.
Posted by: Josh
|
January 2, 2010 7:26 PM
Apparently you've never heard of Uranium-series dating of fluvial carbonates, eh?
A shame, that. It's good stuff.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 7:35 PM
Amen brother...Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com
|
January 2, 2010 7:51 PM
David Marjanović @626:
Nitpick: Arguably, evolution ONLY works on genes, with the influence on the individual as a byproduct.
Acknowledged counter-nitpick: I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up scandentians and dermopterans. If you neglect them, however (and most lay people would consider them "rodenty" anyway), then glires is indeed closest to primates, with glires including rodentia and lagomorpha. I was sloppy and I apologize, but I thought in this context, it was better to get the point rather than the technicality across (the citation was also sloppy, but at the bottom of the link there's a large list of citations). You'll note at the first link, though, I do have all the mentioned clades in their proper places ;-)
I'd be interested in taking a peek at the article you refer to, incidentally -- what's the DOI?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 7:57 PM
What about epigenetics?Posted by: Dentroman | January 2, 2010 8:07 PM
My apologies. I should have been more stringent with my wording. My original intent was far more dismissive... DPosted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 8:16 PM
(amusement) Why not, Kel? It was a sensible explication of the problem! In fact, it's a clearly-stated elaboration of something my husband, Mr. Science, said to me twenty years ago: "God is not a liar; therefore, evolution is true."
Not really; that only applies to Evangelicals and fundamentalists. The Catholics, we Methodists, and all the other mainline denominations reject the doctrine of inerrancy and regard it as pernicious influence leading to eisegesis.
I quite agree, as do most liberal Christians. Usually you'll hear us say that the Bible is not the Word of God (which is Jesus and creation), but a Word about God. The way we officially state it is this:
We Methodists believe in ongoing relevation; we are expected to bring our reason and our understanding of what is just and right to the text. We are also expected to bring the spiritual gift of discernment to our reading of the Bible; that means that we must consider the text within it historical framework and rightly divide that which was of its time and that which is for all time.For us, the Bible is the story of God's interaction with humankind as told by human beings; and while authoritative in matters of our faith and practice, we do not expect that the authors of the Bible left their human limitations behind as they wrote, any more than we can avoid bringing ourselves to the text.
Nor do we necessarily believe that the Bible is God's only story of interaction with humankind. We do not speculate on the way He may have revealed Himself to others, but trust that He will reconcile all the world to Himself.
In all things we seek to follow Micah 6:8 --
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 8:23 PM
Leigh, what is this with your deity being a He? :)
Does it have a penis? Y chromosomes? Are there female deities it reproduces with?
(Sorry, but it irks me when females buy into the Abrahamic legacy of privileging males.)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 8:24 PM
It's actually from many Catholic theologians that I've heard the notion that I was describing above. It's not literalism, but it does seem to be a form of inerrancy - just that one has to find a different meaning than a historical one.Posted by: Vortmax | January 2, 2010 8:31 PM
@631
Strangely enough, I just read elsewhere on Scienceblogs that you don't even need genes (or technically even life) to get evolution by mutation and natural selection.
I'd love to see how the creotards (and also David) react to this.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 8:35 PM
Kel, I don't know as much about the Catholics; while they don't subscribe to the doctrine of inerrancy, perhaps they have some nuanced version of it unique to them. Historically the Catholic church has held the Church to be the ultimate authority, above even the scriptures; that's a big part of what the Reformation was about.
John, God is of course not male or female, but both. In other forums, I alternate the gendered pronouns because I'm uncomfortable using "It" for a sentient being; but I'd rather not freak David out altogether here. That's kind of an advanced concept and quite offputting to traditional Christians.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 2, 2010 8:36 PM
And you don't need fossils to prove evolution, either.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 8:39 PM
And you know this how?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 8:47 PM
Gee, Rev, because He's not a corporeal being -- and because we're made in His image, male and female. So I think it's accurate to say He's both.
Or maybe neither, or all: I think that "image" thing is about intelligence, not bipedality or some such. If we run across sentient cephalopods, they'll be made in His image too. Likewise sentient fungi that reproduce by parthogenesis and are really "its".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 8:49 PM
Well which is it? You seemed to be pretty certain when you said
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 2, 2010 8:54 PM
Perhaps, though it's hard to tell at times where Papal infallibility ends and personal opinion begins. I'm sure there are many Catholics who believe in evolution and still a literal Adam & Eve and a literal Fall. I'm sure there are still creationist Catholics out there who are hoping that there's an endorsement of ID. Catholics who believe in a literal flood, and a literal Tower of Babel, and a literal Sodom, and a literal Exodus plagues and all.Maybe it's just the bias of those who speak out on the issues happening to believing that the bible is God's word, or that very liberal interpretations unsurprisingly don't resonate too well in the general population. Maybe I'm just selective in what I remember, or what I'm exposed to as well. But there are over 1 billion Catholics, which to me means there are over 1 billion variations on a very general party line one must tow.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 9:06 PM
Kel, I feel sure you're right about having a wide swathe of different opinions coming from the Catholics. Likewise, when I talk about "us Methodists" I'm being pretty presumptuous; I don't speak for the denomination, and while I think I'm reasonably mainstream, for all I know I'm a fringe nutter.
Rev, I don't really give a rat's ass about God's gender, other than being sure that he's not just an old white guy. Not too fond of the patriarchy, I'm not . . .
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 2, 2010 9:10 PM
Leigh seems to merit that somewhat or maybe even usually intelligent descriptor I offered on the Deeeeeepaaaaak! thread.
Reread your posts Leigh and see if you can spot the claims to magical thinking woo.
God is a hermaphrodite... yeah, that's just brilliant. Perhaps He can go fuck himself and leave the virgins made of his/her image alone next time.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 9:13 PM
Kel,
Just speaking from my experience, I went to catholic school for 12 years in Australia during the 60s and 70s. I was certainly taught evolution as fact (by nuns no less). The actual origin of life was not mentioned, and I guess none of us was smart enough to ask the question. Biblical tales, from grade one onwards, were always taught as allegories or parables, in religion classes.
That said, I do know that there are fundamentalist catholics, especially in the US.
What I have seen lately, which is really scarey, is that state primary schools have optional religion classes, run by protestants, and kids are taught OT bible stories as fact. Yeeesh.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 9:18 PM
That's fine and dandy, I'm not either, but you made the assertion above and then backed off. How would you know what gender or not gender a deity would be? Whether you care or not about the gender status of your god has nothing to do with what gender or not it is. I'm assuming that there is something in the bible that points you to your conclusion, whatever that is (still trying to figure that out with your conflicting comments above).
I just become curious when theists make proclamations about things but don't back them up with anything or dodge when questioned.
You and the Mormons have something in common. How do you verify your ongoing revelation is actually a revelation and not just something you are creating in your mind?
Posted by: Dentroman | January 2, 2010 9:42 PM
Leigh Williams,
Starting from the assumption that you actually didn't mean to be so assertive earlier, I would like to ask a quick question. You say that you don't think God is (exclusively) male. Why? You cited that both men and women were created in god's image, but I find that verse ambiguous at best.
Do you find it superior for some theological reason? Does it just seem like the more reasonable thing? I admire your distaste for patriarchy, but I think you may be putting the cart before the horse here. Is this distaste grounded in theology, or is your theology a result of your distaste of patriarchy?
I'm sincerely curious about this, as I've had little chance to discuss with Christians like yourself.
Dentro
Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com
|
January 2, 2010 9:53 PM
@Kel, 632:
I'd argue epigenetics is still, indirectly, a manifestation of the genes. Genes that permit inter-cell chemical signaling giving rise to developmental features such as cellular differentiation are selected for , and thus, cellular differentiation is the result of selection on genes enabling chemical signaling influencing the development of adjacent cells (or its own selective expression).
Anyway, I said it was arguable, not even the most useful construct to look at selection. But, in a very basic sense, all selection does act on genes. It may be quite obscure, but it is really the basis for selection.
@IaMOL: Leigh is generally quite helpful, kind, and nonevangelistic. While she does have some inconsistencies, I think to the extent possible we should be kind and tolerant to those 80% of the way toward our viewpoint.
@Leigh, I must ask: what is the functional difference between our universe with a deity (your god or otherwise), and one without it, as you understand your god? From what I can tell, the only thing your god does is essentially fail parsimony. If you didn't mention your deity, I really would have guessed you to be an atheist. (It's an honest question as much as a vehicle for you to probe yourself).
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 10:15 PM
Rev, I told you, quoting from Genesis, why I said both. Did you not recognize the passage? Really, it's not worth obsessing over; as you go on to point out, there are much more serious problems with my faith than that.
Synchronicity amazes me sometimes. I've just spent considerable time at ExMormon.org, literally simultaneously with participating in this thread, reading up on LDS theology and the numerous problems with it and Mormon scripture.
The honest answer is, it's impossible to know for sure. You try to keep a foot firmly planted in reality; think about fairness and justice, and not judging other people, how first to do no harm; and remember that "walk humbly" part all the time.
Yes, there are flashes of insight sometimes, times that I'm very aware of God's presence. I'm familiar with the neuroscience; I know that such moments may be a product of my own brain. May be; then again, maybe not. I choose to believe.
I believe strongly that separation of church and state is healthiest for both.
In any case, my religion is largely a private matter. I tend to agree with Winston Churchill:
I "come out" in forums like this because I am unwilling to concede the name of Christ to YECs and bigots . . . and because some of the younger ones may not know that their choices are NOT limited to atheism and Young Earth Creationism.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 10:30 PM
Leigh
In my family we were raised Wisc Synod Evan Luth. Very strict/literal. While I've pretty much become a weak atheist my brother (after leaving that church) is considering becoming a Methodist. He considers them 'lazy catholics' ;)
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 10:43 PM
I've got a question. If mice/kangaroo/banana are have x% in common with our genes, what is the simplest way to explain to a layman why we look so different?
Obviously I understand that having 99% in common in the gene doesn't necessarily lead to us looking approximately 99% identical, BUT, it's easy to see why a layman (like myself) has to wrestle with that. I've tried to follow some of the links and I'm sure I'll eventually understand well enough for myself but I know I could never explain it to another layman in simple terms.
Any canned 50 word answers?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 10:49 PM
I'm no biologist or geneticist but the way I look at genes are as building blocks with specific characteristics. You can use building blocks to build all manner of things that don't look similar.
Now that is very simplistic and probably wrong. Hopefully it's close enough and if not I'm 100% sure it will be corrected.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 2, 2010 10:50 PM
Most cellular proteins are the same, but growth factors and timing of those factors differ for different shapes.My two cents.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 10:52 PM
Lego Blocks that are 99% identical but use one set to build a dinosaur and one set to build a tiger.
I like it.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 10:53 PM
Dentroman asked me:
I don't find it ambiguous; I find it surprising. As you no doubt know, it's very likely that the Hebrews originally had both a god and a goddess, generally described as wedded to each other. They also recognized other gods belonging to surrounding cultures. Later, when the synthesis to monotheism occurred, the goddess was redacted, but plural references to God persisted. What I find surprising is that the Elohim narrative in Genesis retained the "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" clause.
So I do find it significant for us now. Not until Jesus included women in his retinue, and Paul set women in place as apostles and leaders of churches, do we see that degree of egalitarianism in the Bible. Alas, that state of affairs didn't continue past the 1st century as the Church fathers retreated from Jesus and Paul's radicalism.
So yes, I do find the notion that God is both male and female theologically superior. Egalitarianism is superior as a practical matter, too. It makes no sense to waste half our human capital and thereby perpetuate a system so prone to abuse and misery.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 10:55 PM
No I recognized it and I'm not really obsessing over this particular point as much as that you can claim any knowledge of the nature of your god as fact when all you truly have to rely on is the bible and "ongoing revelation". Neither of which seeming to be a very reliable source.
Ok that's fine. I just find it hard to understand why someone would chose the option that flies in the face of everything we know about reality.
And that's great. I hope I in no way gave you the impression that I did not think you should be giving your opinion here.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 2, 2010 10:59 PM
...And then you mash the lion and the tiger blocks together and make some sort of mutant that has lasers that come out of its head and..
Sorry, I loved Legos.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:13 PM
I suspect this will point out a fatal flaw in my lego analogy but here goes.
With exactly the same set of logo's, I can build different things. This would seem to say that different creatures could have 100% identical genes/ building blocks.
HELP???
Posted by: DebinOz | January 2, 2010 11:16 PM
"And that's great. I hope I in no way gave you the impression that I did not think you should be giving your opinion here."
I second that. Although I am atheist, it is the anti-science stance of believers that bothers me (no, it actually makes me really mad), not faith itself.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 11:17 PM
I'm totally talking out of my ass here but that's never stopped me before...
I believe the sequence of the genes matter and when it is said we share 95% of genes with something that is not just the genes but the sequence as well.
/asstalking
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 2, 2010 11:18 PM
yeah, genes ain't nothing like building blocks; sorry. Think more like "recipe" or "hierarchical network of interdependent recipes." Hope this helps.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 2, 2010 11:18 PM
"With exactly the same set of logo's, I can build different things. This would seem to say that different creatures could have 100% identical genes/ building blocks.
HELP???"
It's pretty much all done with the same ATCG. The trick is that they're arranged differently.
Note: Every single thing you do on your computer ultimately comes down to 1s and 0s. Science is more amazing then religion, really.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:19 PM
I understand what your saying Rev but that still leads me to assert that two completely different critters can have exactly the same genes (just arranged differently).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 2, 2010 11:22 PM
With that i'll just shut my fat mouth. Trust Sven and not me in this area. My attempt to make a simplistic and layman's version failed horribly.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:23 PM
Rutee, Are the ATCG for humans the same as the ATCG for mice, kangaroo, banana's?
Are there 'different' sets (some are ATCG, some are xyz)?
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:25 PM
Crap, I liked the LEGO analogy.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips | January 2, 2010 11:27 PM
Yes, an A is an A is an A, from E. coli to Echidnas. It's the order in which these molecules are arranged on the DNA strand that gives the gene (and the protein it encodes) its specific identity.
Posted by: Eric | January 2, 2010 11:27 PM
rmp:
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the way that I understand it is that a gene is a gene is a gene; therefor two different species can have the same gene more or less, i.e., the same sequence of codons that expresses more or less the same trait. I'm thinking about Hox genes as a very specific example, but I think that you can use it more generally.
And the percentages, as I remember, deal with codons a little more than genes. We share 98% of the same codons in the same sequence without errors (mutations) as chimpanzees.
This is all off the top of my head and done quickly with no reference, so please tell me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:29 PM
I'm looking over Nucleobase in Wikipedia. If not for the wine and a short attention span I'm sure I'll get through it eventually BUT not well enough to explain simply.
I'm sorry but while I'm sure it's accurate,
"hierarchical network of interdependent recipes." doesn't exactly flow off the tongue.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 2, 2010 11:31 PM
I'm actually terrible at Bio, but the answer to THIS one is an emphatic yes.
Still, I'd take Sven's explanation over mine, seriously.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:32 PM
Any comments on Wikipedia's "Introduction to genetics"?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 11:34 PM
Tigerhawkvok asked me:
In this respect I am a fairly traditional Christian. I believe I have a relationship with God that will continue after my bodily death. (By the way, I believe you do too although it's one-way now, and that you will be pleasantly surprised when you die.)
I know that sounds ridiculous to you. I know it very well, because I was for the majority of my life a strong atheist. I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church and rejected the entire ball of wax as ridiculous. They preached inerrancy, which is obviously false; I thought the doctrine of penal substitution (blood atonement) was barbaric and furthermore made God look like a fritterhead; and I was appalled by the racial bigotry I found in the congregation. Most of all, I was aware that there's no evidence that there is a God at all. I went to church (under protest) until I graduated from high school, and promptly quit as soon as I left home.
I don't talk about my history much here. I know that some here refuse to believe that an atheist can have an epiphany and become a theist.
You're quite right in assuming that, if I hadn't mentioned my faith, you'd think I was pure rationalist. I doubt my views on the big majority of issues differ from yours. I am as horrified by the activities of the Religious Right as you are; maybe more so, since I know a whole bunch of them up close and personal. I DON'T believe that organized religion is a force for good in the world.
Which is okay, I guess, since I'm a Methodist and we're not too damn organized. Lazy Catholics, remember! Except not so much; we're way more warm and fuzzy than that, we're nothing but the mushy middle. Which is exactly how I like it; I abhor fanaticism.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips | January 2, 2010 11:38 PM
rmp, try this link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013104633.htm
To my professional biologists eye, it seems pretty accessible to the layperson, and may help you understand the 'how can such similar ingredients produce such wild variety of different products?' question a bit.
Gene regulation is a key concept here, i.e. it's not just the materials themselves that make the man (or the chimp, or the cephalopod), it's how, and where and when and how much you use them.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 11:39 PM
DebinOz:
Thanks, Rev and Deb. It's the anti-science stuff that infuriates me, too.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 11:40 PM
Leigh, that's a nice post, but it didn't answer the question asked. It was an evasion.
Q: what is the functional difference between our universe with a deity (your god or otherwise), and one without it, as you understand your god?
A: I believe I have a relationship with God that will continue after my bodily death.
Tsk.
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:43 PM
Thanks Jennifer! I may even download it to my kindle for easy review.
Leigh, you don't know my nor do I know you so please understand that I won't be offended if you don't answer this. When my brother decided he needed to move away for a literal/yec church to something more
in the 'mushy middle' I asked him if he considered Unitarianism. He felt that it was still important to him to have a Trinity. What are your thoughts (if you're inclined to answer).
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 2, 2010 11:44 PM
actually, that does sound like an answer to your question. without her god, there's no afterlife. with her god, there is one. basically, her god uploads our brain patterns into the great computer in the sky :-p
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 2, 2010 11:45 PM
No matter how much you'll deny it, you were never an atheist from a logical or rational standpoint.
Posted by: Dentroman | January 2, 2010 11:45 PM
Amen. Even as an atheist, I can whole heartedly agree, and I only wish more Christians would stand up and do the same. The reason I find this ambiguous: You'll notice that there are two similar but distinct clauses, first the "in the image of God created he him", which clearly only applies to Adam, then "male and female created he them". While I agree this can be interpreted to mean that BOTH were created in the image of the Christian god, the fact that the two are separated out, implies to me that this isn't so. As such, I think the verse is ambiguous at best. Sadly I cannot agree that Paul was so revolutionary, and certainly not to a point where that I can call him egalitarian. I wish he was.1 Corinthians
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Women are not considered equals in the bible, and while things do improve slightly in the NT, the views expressed are hardly egalitarian.
Second half I agree with once again. I still don't see the first sentence though. I must admit, this is a bit of a sensitive issue for me. One of the reasons I became an atheist is because of the way that religion consistently devalues women (this became a focus of investigation for me). What you observe happening following the 1st century is hardly unusual. In the end, I came to the conclusion that modern advances in the treatment of women resulted in the softening of doctrines on the matter not the other way around.D
Posted by: exnihilo | January 2, 2010 11:49 PM
I wonder how it can be that the people with the scientific evidence can't have the confidence to shoot down the creationists? Embarass them once and for all. I thought the case for evolution was proven. Perhaps it's not such a shut and closed case if the leaders of the atheistic religion are scared of a few minority creationists. Makes me wonder...
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 2, 2010 11:51 PM
Lovely. You've outlined what you believe to be pejorative and the Middle Ground fallacy is what you offer instead. Your bias is showing - your logic isn't.Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:52 PM
Looks like fresh meat came to the party!!
I'm probably going to bed soon but thanks to all for helping educate me. As I always say, ignorance it temporary, stupid is forever!!
Posted by: rmp | January 2, 2010 11:55 PM
Man I've got to scan better for the typos!! Damn this red wine!
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 2, 2010 11:56 PM
Sorry, John, I thought I was making that clear. The world functions as God set it up to function; I don't think he tinkers with it constantly, and I'm not on the lookout for miracles. So . . . no difference.
Other than the whole afterlife and immortality thing, of course.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 2, 2010 11:56 PM
No, it is often the case that most creationist say the same thing over and over. They'll sprinkle a few science sounding stuff here and there but it's poorly supported. It's for those reason why debates are pointless.
And atheist isn't a religion it's the lack of religion. Also, Atheism =/= evolution, which is a topic we brought up long ago. Nice concern trolling there.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 2, 2010 11:56 PM
Jadehawk,
Please re-read the question (of which I quoted the salient part).
PS it was not my question.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 2, 2010 11:57 PM
gah.
I just tried 3 times to type out a reasonably concise summary of molecular biology and got mired in detail every time.
Genes code for proteins; proteins can be structural (collagen, actin, keratin), can be enzymes (therefore underlying all biochemistry), can be transporters or carriers of other molecules, can be immunoglobulins (antibodies), can be motors, can be hormones or neurotransmitters, AND can also be transcription factors that affect the expression of other genes which can in turn be transcription fators... yikes it gets crazy. But the genome as a giant recipe for the production and maintenance of an organism is a pretty good metaphor, I think. And then there are various interactive yet hierarchical levels of subrecipes or subroutines.
aaaaa too drunk
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips | January 2, 2010 11:58 PM
Oh, they've been embarrassed plenty, exnihilo. They're just too ignorant/arrogant to realize it.Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:02 AM
exnihilo, to the extent that you really want an answer, it is impossible to embarrass them for once and for all. They put their fingers in their ears, go la la la and then start all over again.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 3, 2010 12:03 AM
Leigh, thanks.
That is a good answer (no difference).
Of course. :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 3, 2010 12:03 AM
Scientifically, the ignorant creobots have been shot down for 150 years, as evolution has the evidence. But, the "debate" winner is one with the better rhetoric, not the better evidence. So "debates" change no minds, and legitimize creobots. If anything, there should be mock trials where evidence must be introduced, and if the evidence doesn't have sufficient rigor, like say the existence of a deity, then it cannot be introduced. That way, the scientific evidence could win. Or, a true scientific debate could be started anytime in the peer reviewed scientific literature. But then, the creationists would have to obey the rules of science, and they have no positive evidence to support their theory, and they know it. So they avoid that option like it is the plague.Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 12:05 AM
Huh? Why perjorative? Well, I don't have a very good opinion of YECism, but atheism is fine.
Some people don't want to give up their faith. Most people of faith don't have a problem with science. Why isn't that a good thing to tell them?
Posted by: Dentroman | January 3, 2010 12:07 AM
Let's say a worm challenges you to a duel. You've got better things to do. In addition, even if you smash the worm into the sidewalk, it'll claim victory, and use your status as a "higher" animal to amass it's "credibility" as a fighter.
This is the case creationists present to serious academics. If your Shepard wanted an intellectual debate, he could come here. It doesn't take a PhD in biology to smash a Creotard into the ground.
D
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 12:10 AM
Told you so. It's always amusing to see an atheist trot out "No True Scotsman".
Posted by: Dentroman | January 3, 2010 12:10 AM
My bad. Shepard should be shepherd. My spell check messed me up.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:11 AM
Who was it that said that debating a creationist is liking playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and then fly home and say they won.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 3, 2010 12:12 AM
Dentroman, to be fair, those passages are disputed. It is quite likely that they have not been written by Paul at all, but inserted later. Consider that they directly contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5, and also that it's a complete non sequitur in a passage that talks at length about prophesying and speaking in tongues, both right before and right afterwards.
there's a lot of weirdness and suckitude in paul's writings, but I have to say that that particular passage is probably someone else's suckitude.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 3, 2010 12:12 AM
PS Leigh, perhaps a hundred thousand million billion trillion quintillion quintillion sextillion septillion octillion nonillion decillion undecillion duodecillion tredecillion <pant> quattuordecillion quindecillion sexdecillion <too tired to continue> years hence (i.e., at the very beginning of eternity), when you're with the Seraphs who continually cry "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory", you might be more aggrieved than I in my eternal torments.
I'm easily bored — hope you're not. :)
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 12:13 AM
Because, due to insufficient evidence for deities or any supernatural phenomena, it most likely isn't true.Posted by: Dentroman | January 3, 2010 12:14 AM
I'll second that. IaMoL, you're one to be complaining about logical fallacies. DentromanPosted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 3, 2010 12:16 AM
ok, so it isn't your question. anyway, i got from that answer that the only difference is an afterlife, i.e. no difference otherwise. how does that not answer the question?Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 12:16 AM
Latest troll @681,
Liar!
It doesn't make you wonder. You've already assumed the answer, which is why you have completely ignored the various post showing why you are wrong. You and your ilk are immune to evidence, as shown by the fact that after almost 700 comments on this post alone, you still post such fatuous crap as this.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
January 3, 2010 12:19 AM
Jadehawk reads Bart Ehrman. :)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | January 3, 2010 12:20 AM
yes she does :-pPosted by: Dentroman | January 3, 2010 12:21 AM
Fair enough. I still don't find the content of NT nearly convincing enough to reverse the OT.
D
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:22 AM
I think that when a creationist logs a comment they should have to check a box that would let us know if they are really interested in a discussion. That way we could have a real back and forth with people like David from Canada and simply ignore (or taunt) people like exnihilo/andre/patrick/
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 12:26 AM
It is not a No true Scotsman fallacy. She may have thought herself an atheist but not for the reasons I cited.logical: reasoned thought or argument, as distinguished from irrationality
Your Christian beliefs now are based on faith.
Faith:strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.
Again I state you may have believed in God but were never an atheist from a logical or rational standpoint.
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 12:26 AM
Reading your stupid comments especially by the evoretards barking from behind the nick names,one can understand why evolutionists lost and will be losing any scientific debates in the future. You simply can not provide any scientific evidence for evolutionism. Blind faith confessions is what I have seen so far.Occasional abuse of the opponents in dominant style of the major prophets and apostles of your faith...
In case you did not know there was another fraud perpetrated by the evo zealots.It is called betularia the peppered moth. In it Darwinians,to trenghten their scientific case for evolutionism glued some white moths on the dark bark of the trees to show that white ones were more easily visible by the birds and eaten. The problem with betularia is that during the day it sleeps under the leaves and does not come out at all.
Hahahahahaha!!! Sorry. Nevertheless betularia stayed on the textbooks for some time. Just like Haeckel. No wonder some of you zealots perceives informed taxpayers laymen as dangerous. One day they may ask for concrete scientific results of the money they provide you with..
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 12:28 AM
rmp@707
I think we need some kind of alert on the front page showing which threads the good troll stomps are currently happening on.
I find that I often miss them entirely, which leaves my with a very non-sniny coat.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:28 AM
I vote that andre isn't worthy of any bandwidth. But that's just my opinion.
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 12:30 AM
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 12:32 AM
Apparently my ability to type is also detrimentally effected. (shakes fist in general direction of a certain holy large unintelligent primate)
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 12:33 AM
We did. You didn't bother to read them, and that's your own stupid creotard issue.
We have transitional fossils. We have bacteria evolving resistance to medications. We have species diverging due to geographical isolation. All you have a book and a bunch of whiney tedious trolls.
Prophets? Wow you are really crazy to think that we'd blindly believe anyone.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:33 AM
IaMoL, at least I'm not the only one wrestling with typos!! I'm blaming the wine (communal).
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 3, 2010 12:39 AM
andre, you're pathetic.
Posted by: Dentroman | January 3, 2010 12:40 AM
I'm blaming the whine....esp on the part of andre.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 12:41 AM
Boring troll is boring. Plenty has been brought up discussing the evidence. Either you have a comprehension problem or an honesty one.
Public debates are never about being scientifically correct. The place for the discussion of science is in peer review. Notice that creationists are unwilling to engage in the peer review process, and instead prefer public spectacles. Nope, you can't prove in science. Only disprove. Creation has been disproved in a multitude of fashions time and time again. Again note the divergence between what is fought between intellectuals in the academic arena and what is believed by the ignorant in the general public. Again, Evolution is not atheism. Evolution is a scientific theory about the process of life, atheism is the philosophical position that gods do not exist. Category error, but again this is expected.Why is it that creationists are unwilling to engage evolution for what it is? Why don't they have the honesty to understand what evolution is as scientists understand it and from there argue against it? We seldom (if ever) get that. Instead the same straw man arguments come out over and over again. Get an education before opening your mouth again!
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 3, 2010 12:43 AM
Malcolm, you're in luck!
There's one here now, the sub-troll andre. Hardly worth any XP, but you can play spot-the-fallacy and/or creationist bingo with it.
Stomp away. :)
Posted by: Falcarius | January 3, 2010 12:45 AM
Hell, he provided links to the evidence himself on at least three separate occasions.
It's as if Kirk Cameron got a copy of Jonathan Wells' "Icons" book, smacked himself in the head with it about 400 times, and then came here to post arguments from it.
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 12:48 AM
rmp:I have no one to blame but myself.
(hypothetically)My point is that I can call myself a vegan because I eat no meat products. My reason may be philosophically based - say animal rights (ethical concerns), or it may be health based or even taste based - it doesn't matter because by all appearances I am a vegan. If I start eating meat again - become an omnivore no matter how many years I spent as a vegan - it is obvious my reasons were not truly based on animal rights ethics or if they were, it was not a strong reasoned attachment to that ideology.
Even if I claimed to be a strong vegan once upon a time, it is superfluous, it carries no ethical or rational weight once I resumed eating meat.
Posted by: Bert | January 3, 2010 12:53 AM
I always get the impression with creationists that evolution itself is not really the problem. The problem is the time needed for it to play out and the age of the earth.
Their problem with the time needed always seems to me to be egotistical, that if the earth took so long to get to this stage then they have to accept they are insignificant and can't possibly be the special little rainbow they think they are.
This is what, essentially, they take umbrage with. The rest is fluff.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 12:53 AM
Dentroman:
Oh, I entirely see what you mean. I despised the old misogynist for years.
Until I discovered that the crap from Corinthians you quote is considered to be later interpolations by many Biblical scholars.
When you look at the entirety of his oeuvre, it becomes pretty clear that in the early church was indeed egalitarian, and the later interpolations make no sense. For example, women were preaching and prophesying in Paul's churches (1 Cor 11:4) -- albeit with a scarf on their heads, as all respectable matrons in the Roman empire were expected to wear for decency's sake. Men and women worshipped together, a very radical departure from Jewish and Roman practice.
1 Cor 14:34-36 is a direct contradiction to 1 Cor 11:4, and is furthermore contradicted by the fact that Paul writes elsewhere to women who are heading churches: one of whom, Junia, he calls an apostle. Thus we see that the two highest ranks in the early church, apostle and prophet, were both open to women. We conclude that 1 Cor 14:34-35 are a later interpolation; indeed, if you read the whole passage in plaintext (without verse markings) that's obvious even in English translations.
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 12:54 AM
....and yes! I was thinking of the Piltdown Man fraud and wrote Pithecanthropus. Well Pithecanthropus was a fraud as well...It was a skullcap and tooth of a monkey joined with human femur unearthed some 12 metres away in different strata.This fraud was perpetrated by guy called Dubois. Recent "scientific proof" for the evo faith was called Ardipithecus Kadabba and it balances on the verge of the fraud as well.The ramains of the alleged ancestor of humanity the father Kadabba were collected on the arc about 14 km long in 4 different places.The alleged ancestry of the human race in the case of the father Ardipithecus Kadabba was established on the looks of one of its toes. Not as curved as in chimps and not as straight as in humans. The problem was that the toe was found some 18 km form the rest of the bones of alleged father Kadabba. Kadabba was put together and given much of publicity in the Nature.Another artifact of evolutionary faith..
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 12:55 AM
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 12:58 AM
John,
The problem is that this one is absolutely pathetic.
Although it did get one thing right. We haven't produced any evidence for evolutionism.
Evidence for evolution, on the other hand, has been produced by a number of posters and subsequently ignored.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 3, 2010 12:58 AM
Here's a fun thing to do.
Read Andre's posts aloud, but in the voice of Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau.
Now pretend to be Borat.
Barbara Walters
Dr. Evil
I have been giggling for hours.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 3, 2010 1:01 AM
"I always get the impression with creationists that evolution itself is not really the problem. The problem is the time needed for it to play out and the age of the earth."
Bert, yes I would agree with that, and add that they are horrified to think that they 'used to be a poo-flinging monkey' (sic).
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 1:02 AM
John Morales said:
Don't be silly, John, you're not going to be in eternal torment. Or if you are, I'll be right there with you.
Do you for one moment suppose I'll consent to worship a malevolent deity who could do such a thing?
And if all He gives us to do is sing, that will indeed be a hell!
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 1:03 AM
andre,
How many fossils do you thing have been found?
Just a ballpark figure.
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 1:04 AM
Yeah, yeah, Andre. All of evolution rests on your examples.
You're an idiot. What you don't know could fill libraries. I'm too tired to read your infantile prattling from AiG.
You are TSTKYS
(Too stupid to know your stupid)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 1:05 AM
I've never personally got that impression, anything over a hundred years is pretty much incomprehensible to us anyway. When you talk about millions or even billion of years, it means nothing.The problem as I see it is that people are natural born teleologists. We look for design, we are wired for such pattern recognition. It takes a lot of training to break from that, and even then it's still a pervasive influence on our thinking. We're essentially repressing folk biology with learning, just as we do folk physics and folk psychology. They are good enough for the basics, but they get in the way when trying to understand the natural reality of things. Just think of the mind-fuck of Einsteinian relativity, where Aristotelian physics makes sense. That Einsteinian relativity matches more closely to observations is its only saving grace really ;)
But really, to get back to your point, I don't ever think I've come across a creationist who understands the principles of evolution even on a basic level. Agency begets design, it's how our minds work. That design can come from a process with no knowledge of how it works? Well that's a strange inversion of reasoning. And to my mind, creationists are people who just can't get that.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 1:07 AM
Piltdown man? Bingo! Yet another point for my creationist argument card. Except this argument is rather lame.
look up:
Homo Neanderthalensis
Homo Egaster
Homo Erectus
The Australopithecines
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 1:07 AM
Perhaps my subconscious is aware that andre doesn't think. Either that, or I just suck at typing.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:08 AM
Bert and DebinOz, I disagree. As a person that was raised a YEC, I wasn't ok with evolution at all. Not simply the time frame.
Posted by: Dentroman | January 3, 2010 1:15 AM
Leigh,
Having read through 1 Cor 11 again, I think I feel secure admitting that the passages I cited could indeed be an insertion. I guess this brings me to another thing I'd like to ask about.
Earlier you referenced that the Hebrews initially had a very different religion than that traditionally attributed to them. I also assume that you are aware of the similarities between many biblical stories, and earlier texts. From my impressions of you, you believe in a god not so different from that expressed in the modern bible with all it's insertions, inconsistency ect. Do you think that there is some true core to all this? How do you differentiate? How do you justify believing in the more or less modern interpretation of god over the old one? In your view, why does the history (and I daresay evolution) of Christianity look so...human?
Feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented anything, and if you want to stay on the previous subject, just say so: I don't want to seem like I'm changing the subject, it's just that this is the first productive discussion I've had with a Christian for some time, and I have a lot of questions.
Sincerely
Dentroman
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 1:16 AM
typos typos typos. ugh. I'm bound for the sheets
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:18 AM
TSTKYS, I'm going to use that.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 3, 2010 1:23 AM
Something Stupid This Way Comes
The Once And Stupid King
On The Origin Of Stupid
Stupid Is The Night
Mutiny On The Stupid
The Left Hand Of Stupid
Posted by: Bert | January 3, 2010 1:25 AM
A time frame of 6000 or 10,000 years is comfortable. Perhaps we can't envision it, but it's not outside the realms of comprehension.
Creationists often use the term "millions of years" mockingly and knowingly incorrectly when they refer to the billions of years of Earth's history. Billions doesn't really have to be invoked because millions on its own creates the idea of a silly amount of time. Why is it a silly amount of time? Because it's a stupendously longer time than you'll ever spend alive and it already goes beyond all recorded human history. Hundreds of thousands of years are enough to bruise the human ego.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 1:27 AM
rmp asked me:
This is something I've thought about a lot. Perhaps your brother just feels more comfortable with a more-familiar ecclesiastical vocabulary and an easily accessible cultural milieu.
Unitarianism is attractive to me, particularly Unitarian Universalism, since obviously I'm a big believer in universal salvation. And nobody can claim that the Trinity is a perfectly clear doctrine; there's a reason everybody admits that it's a mystery.
For a long time I really thought I was sticking to Christianity for purely cultural reasons. I looked into becoming a Ba'hai, but decided it would freak my poor relatives out even more than my atheism had, and besides, I had no intention of giving up Christmas.
I finally realized that I have an emotional connection to the incarnation, the Emmanuel God-with-us thing. The idea that God's love is expressed so concretely and the intimate language of family really appeals to me.
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 1:27 AM
well epiphanes, do not flatten yourself: i reply to your posts and do something else at the same time. By the way, Borat is appropriate for all evolutionists' statements of faith and disputations.The merit disputations of the evolutionists remain me of those of medieval monks as to how many devils would fit on the tip of a pin. There is one thing you can be sure of: today's evo scientists speculations will be replaced by tomorrow evo scientists speculations.2 evo scientists-3 different opinions!! I have been around long enough to experience it myself..
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:31 AM
Bert, I'm not going to argue the point that human mind doesn't conceptualize large values. Millions, billions, let's not quibble about who shot who.
I'm just saying that from a John Doe YEC, that wasn't my issue (at least early in life).
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 1:32 AM
and to sober you up dear Darwinians,something one of yours said:
"It seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory ... akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. ..."
Ruse
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 1:32 AM
Because as science progress old theories are modified or replaced. That's generally how science work. Not like creationism, who purports to always have been. (Which is a lie, since creation story evolve and change too. Look up who Lilith is.)
andre isn't worth bandwith, or his own sense of selfesteem for that matter.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:33 AM
Does anyone else hear that annoying buzzing sound?
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:35 AM
Leigh, for what it's worth, on odd days of the month I'm a pantheist ;) I think that our consciousness is a teeny tiny blend of dark energy and dark matter. I know it's wishful thinking but it gives me some comfort.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 1:37 AM
"There is one thing you can be sure of: today's evo scientists speculations will be replaced by tomorrow evo scientists speculations."
Finally, something you get right, Andre! (Other than calling scientific conclusions "speculation", which is just moronic.)
This is indeed how science works. You never get to the end; tomorrow's knowledge builds on, and sometimes even supercedes, today's.
But you say that like it's a BAD thing. What's the matter with you, are you not in favor of scientific progress?
You've become tiresome, Andre. Where did we put that can of Troll-Be-Gone, folks?
Posted by: Bert | January 3, 2010 1:40 AM
Meh. I'm just a blue collar Science fanboi. Just my impression ;)
Posted by: Eric | January 3, 2010 1:41 AM
I get the feeling that everytime andre reads a post refuting his claims, he runs off to a Creationist reference book, looks up every argument he can, and then rushes back here to regurgitate it. I noticed this after everyone told him his links kept shooting him in the foot. Maybe he wised up (if that's possible)?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 3, 2010 1:44 AM
Of course that's a bad thing; that's why Christianity is so much better - there's only one possible interpretation of scripture and that's why there's never, ever been anything like a dispute or a schism amongst believ - hang on...
Posted by: llewelly
|
January 3, 2010 1:46 AM
hm. My opinion of that idea is about the same as my opinion of the idea that quantum computing is a fundamental part of our consciousness. It would be really cool if it were true, but it seems highly unlikely - and either way I'm totally baffled as to why anyone would find either the weirdness of quantum mechanics or the total unknown of dark matter (let alone dark energy) comforting in any way.Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:48 AM
llewelly, I'm just being light hearted and saying that it would be cool to think we are the energy of the universe. As I said, light hearted wishful thinking.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
January 3, 2010 1:49 AM
andre
Who's "we"? You got a banana in your pocket?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 1:51 AM
*insert phallic joke here*
Posted by: llewelly
|
January 3, 2010 1:52 AM
I should add I think the known computing abilities of neurons are sufficient to explain consciousness; I don't think any extra special bit such as quantum computing, dark matter, dark energy, or tachyon wormholes is necessary.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 3, 2010 1:57 AM
Come on, andre has bananaman in his pocket. Gyeong, do you really want to see Ray Comfort as a phallic object?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 3, 2010 1:57 AM
Well, I would say that many do have a problem with this. However, I also think part of the problem is that creationists have trouble understanding how the diversity of life came to be without an intentional agent behind it. They always go about "random chance" producing humans. It's hard for them to picture blind, mechanical processes producing anything. This is by no means unique to creationists. Many societies have viewed volcanoes or the sun as gods. It's easier to picture than geophysical or nuclear processes. Hell, I remember when I was first learning science it often troubled me how an electron "knows" how to move or how a system "wants" to be in equilibrium. It took a while to get used to the idea that sometimes things were a result of blind, mechanical laws rather than an intentional agent pulling the strings.
This search for intentionality is good when you are hunting or trying to figure out others in your society (and that's probably why it's deeply ingrained in us), but it's cumbersome when you are learning science.
Posted by: Dentroman | January 3, 2010 1:59 AM
I'm going to bed. See everyone tomorrow.
D
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 2:00 AM
hwa : think again. Darwinism is just another creation story. It just excludes God...
You should repeat reading K. Popper's definition of scientific theory.Besides,you are victim of the propaganda of Darwinists. If you are hoping for any understanding of what is going on you must distinguish between operational science and evolutionism.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 3, 2010 2:02 AM
Quote mining?! They are so predictable.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 2:07 AM
Could you stop arguing from authority? Not only is it dishonest that you're quotemining these people, but it's getting tiresome. Why not address the evidence being brought up instead of engaging in a metaphorical war of attrition? Would a religion surrounding gravity or atomic theory impact on the truth or veracity of such claims about reality? No. Even Christianity is not made false by being a religion. Whether something is religion is external to the truth of its claims.Again, this is the dishonesty that has come to be expected of creationists. It's like they think if they point out this, that we'll see the error of our ways. Too bad they miss the point of why people support evolutionary theory, and they'll never reach those who actually care about where the evidence points. So andre, instead of saying there's no evidence, why don't stop insulting the intelligence of people here and actually address the evidence that is not only presented in this thread, but the examples that scientists say actually support evolution. You're not doing that, you're just pretending that they don't exist or that we don't know they don't exist. Why not talk about the fossil record of the horse, or fishapods, or dinobirds, or apemen? The ones that scientists say support evolution, of course. What about the vestigial organs? Dead genes? retroviral markers? geographic proximity of certain kinds of life (e.g. the lack of non-introduced placental mammals in Australia, coupled with an over-abundance of marsupials and the last of the monotremes)? Fused ape chromosome? Genetic similarities that match the tree of life derived from other methods? Observations of natural selection, observations of artificial selection, observations of speciation, etc. And that's just to start with.
So andre, quit pretending that we're just blind followers without knowing anything about what evidence actually supports evolution. Your assertion that there is no evidence is either ignorance or deceit on your part. I should hope it ignorance, the kind that could be remedied with a read of books like "Evolution" by Donald Prothero or "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne. Maybe an afternoon on wikipedia would enlighten you, look up the transitional whale fossils while you are there.
In any case, please drop the pretence that you're the smartest man in the room and go look up "Dunning Kruger"
Posted by: Bert | January 3, 2010 2:08 AM
Janine, the thing is with people indoctrinated into this type of stuff, they have no other frame of reference. Everything for them since their birth is something new and has never happened before.
They have no concept of history because it is unnecessary to know to complete the mission they have and therefore it is meaningless.
Nothing that important happened before their birth because they have a mission to perform now in their lifetime, and it is of the utmost importance. It involves the entire fate of mankind!
They start from scratch with every generation.
Posted by: Bert | January 3, 2010 2:11 AM
Pretend I edited that last post to put in the right spacing and such n' such.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 2:13 AM
repeat reading? what?
Right, because every day I walk by giant billboards with depiction of Darwinist sayings and the glory of Darwinism (my drive to school usually involve large christian billboard demanding I give my life to christ.)
Operational science? I guess you're not a fan of medicine, since there are many aspect of it that depends on evolution. It clearly isn't "operational science."
How very condescending of you to try and lecture me, especially since you've got so many thing on science wrong thus far.
And was Gyeong and Pak too hard to right or was a copy paste fail?
Comfort+Phallus=puke. (Although I've meet some really cute creationist guys before.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 2:15 AM
Andre, doing his best to climb the list.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 2:15 AM
And in terms of human fossils, the least you could do is talk about the relevant fossils: the australopithecines, ardipithicus, homo erectus, homo habilis, homo neanderthalis, etc. No-one has given a shit about Piltdown man for over half a century!
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 2:16 AM
You try typing and doing biceps exercise at the same time. *Grumbles
Posted by: DebinOz | January 3, 2010 2:19 AM
Andre,
Care to give us the link re Popper? You know, the same one you gave yesterday? That was hilarious.
Here, I found it for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html
Posted by: llewelly
|
January 3, 2010 2:34 AM
andre | January 3, 2010 12:54 AM:
All modern scientists agree the femur is from a modern human, and has nothing to do with the skull cap. You're whining about an error that was corrected many decades ago - and would not in case be evidence against evolution. Likewise, the tooth was long ago identified to be from an orangutan. The skullcap, however, is far too large to belong to any modern non-human ape; it has a volume of 940 cc, and too small to belong to any modern human. It is similar to other Homo erectus skulls.
You are using a long discredited argument; so much so that even Carl Weiland has argued that creationists should stop using it. If you had followed the links I gave earlier, you would know this. But it seems you prefer to look like an idiot.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
January 3, 2010 3:28 AM
Janine
Mutiny On The Stupid
The Left Hand Of Stupid
[Waugh]
Officer and Stupid
The Stupid One
Stupid at Arms
[/Waugh]
12 Angry Stupid
A Farewell to Stupid
The Great Stupid
Much Ado About Stupid
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
January 3, 2010 3:30 AM
Damn, blockquote fail.
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 4:09 AM
hwa phat phuc: could you elaborate what part of medicine depends on evolution? Did you ever see a "department of evolution" in,or close to any hospital.If you did let me know.
And Deb, unfortunately I can not give you the yesterday's link to the Popper.Below is what came up on Google. I understand that you would like to know something about falsifiability of the scientific theory. Judging by the stage of the brainwash you and other young zealots of Darwin here are, you would not be able to apply even a thought of falsifiability to evolutionism...:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
But..if you read once more POpper's definition of scientific theory and understand it, you may be able to get a grip on the idea what science is..:
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
January 3, 2010 4:12 AM
I can't be the only person who's bored of the creatioinist argument "Many fossils are faked" formulated to invalidate evolution.
The scientific theory is responsible for exposing fake fossils for the bunk they are. This reinforces the power of the scientific theory. The theory of evolution stands up to the scientific theory as well, even without the few bunk fossils that have been exposed.
Either the scientific theory works or it doesn't. If it can accurately deem fossils fake, it can also accurately test the validity of the theory of evolution. You can't have it both ways.
Also, PZ, pardon my tattling, but can you please send andre to the dungeon or something? He's embarrassing himself and it's not particularly funny to watch. I feel kind of sorry for him.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 3, 2010 4:18 AM
Rachel, you have a point.
andre was amusing at first, but its limited repertoire of caperings are well and truly exhausted and it has become boringly repetitive.
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 4:18 AM
well I can see a lot of comments about the Pithecanthropus but not many about Betularia fraud. Anybody wish to comment on it?
And please:restrain yourselves from comments on your personal sexual preferences.Especially the phat phuc. Please. I am not interested and above all, this is the highly scientific blog under well known evo guy name. Have some respect!!!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 4:19 AM
The notion that winter is caused by a goddess sucking heat from the surface of the earth is falsifiable, but in no way is it scientific. Evolution on the other hand is both falsifiable and science, and if you had any honesty about you, you'd stop your war of attrition and focus on the evidence. And there is plenty of evidence there Zeno, you're not going to logically prove that motion is impossible so please focus on observations of motion as opposed to trying to invalidate how it is you can move your hand to type on a keyboard!
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
January 3, 2010 4:21 AM
Dude. Evolution is the basis of modern biology. Medicine is a discipline that falls under modern biology.
Seriously, what do you think goes on in the histology department of the hospital? What do you think the basis of their experimentation is? What theories do you think they use to hypothesise? Make vaccines? The basic premise of finishing one's regimen of antibiotics reinforces evolutionary theory!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 4:22 AM
A New Way To Explain Explanation
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 4:25 AM
AIDS resistance? Only a theory...
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
January 3, 2010 4:26 AM
@John Morales,
His incredible arrogance and absolute lack of examination doesn't help.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 3, 2010 4:33 AM
And oh noes! Someone, somewhere, did something fraudulent maybe. Tomorrow I will fake an experiment about gravity -- it will be cool to be able to fly when gravity ceases working. I hope Australia doesn't fall off the the earth.
On the medicine? How about the new gene therapies for treating adrenoleukodystrophy? Some details for us laypersons at http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-sci-gene-therapy6-2009nov06,0,1848965.story
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 3, 2010 4:33 AM
<andre>
Works of course mean the faith and accepts the axiom number one as fundamental to avoid debates because theist intellectually fulfillment of not exist.I will be waiting for evo people their peer revieved works of "inteligentsia proving impossibly know professor, there is nonexistent and you have somehow the evo people often say that, came to be out of an explanation and of course mean the evo faith could understand therefore life.
No wonder, you provided below Mr Meyers proves that, came to be out of an atheist intellectually fulfillment of an atheist inteligents are so simple that they avoid debates because to creationist's argumention and propaganda.
This is as i understand how can you possible...For uninitiated in the evolution chemistry and energy of that only initiated in the famous @intellectually fulfilled" authors oozes hatred of that only initiated (he he he, sophisticated) that enables sponse their arguments are so sophisticated by Dawkins.
No wonder, you possible...For uninitiated in the evo people have to be out of nothing.As your beliefs, does not exist.I will be so angry with God , who according to you people that ,came to be out of information and evolutionism is no known law of course another evo for the matter and energy.
</andre>
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 4:40 AM
Dentroman asked me:
Oh, no, that's not the impression I'd want you to take away, not at all -- if you mean by that, ALL of the Bible. I'm no fan of the tribal war god Yahweh as imagined by his bloodthirsty followers.
Yes, I do. A core not unique to Judaism and Christianity, either.
Pretty much the same way I view the Constitution, along with over two hundred years of case law, as together instantiating the highest law of the United States. The Constitution was a pretty good document for its time, but viewing it from 2010 some very big flaws can be seen. I don't hesitate to judge the Constitution of 1789 far inferior to the current version. We're not done yet, either: we still have a long way to go in ensuring civil rights for all.
Nor do I have any qualms about finding John the Apostle's version of the faith far superior to that of the priests who constructed Leviticus. Remember, too, that Christianity has continued to be constructed over the centuries; that process by no means stopped when the canon was closed. Here, too, I think we still have a long way to go.
Truth may prove to be eternal, but our apprehension of it is painfully slow.
Well, let's not call it evolution, since I made a big deal upthread of saying that on Pharyngula, evolution means biology -- so let's call it the development of Christianity.
It looks that way because it's a human construct, as are all religions. This is true even for those who cleave to Biblical inerrancy; they just lack the self-awareness to recognize how much of themselves they're bringing to the text.
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 4:48 AM
Enough of this crap Andre!
Explain the distribution of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in primates in terms of creationism, or STFU.
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 5:03 AM
Kel
why do not you stop insulting my intelligence with your touching stories and actually respond to the questions i asked before:
1.explain the origin of life.
2.explain origin of information in genomes
3.explain process of evolution which is constant building from simplest to complex forms,in terms of laws of thermodynamics especially the second one which states that any systems left for itself will go from order to disorder,then we can start talking real science.
To clarify i am not associated with any church or creationist organization. I am just informed layman.Actually I believe the Earth to be in central position in the Universe as the Scripture says.Some creationists accept Copernicus.If you did not know the Copernican system is still a theory just as evolutionism is. For your education: find on the net De Labore Solis by van der Kamp and read it.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 5:27 AM
In science, theory does not mean what you think it means, “informed layman”.
And the ToE (Theory of Evolution) is not about the origin of life.
Also, Life on Earth is not an isolated system, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply; the necessary preconditions are not met. There's this massive thermonuclear reactor c.93 million miles away, called the Sun, which is providing energy.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 5:42 AM
“Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian” is one commonly-cited example of evidence that would cause major problems for the ToE (Theory of Evolution).
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 3, 2010 5:49 AM
First appearance of questions referenced in #786 in this thread:
1. explain the origin of life (FA: 786)
2. explain origin of information in genomes (FA: 306, then answered at 309, 310, 312, 315, answer misunderstood at 454)
3. explain process of evolution blah blah blah thermodynamics blah blah disorder (FA: 786, unless you count a brief mention at 454 or mentions by Patrick with an answer at 610)
Pretending you've been waiting for answers probably comes naturally to someone used to pretending they've received Answers.
Posted by: Josh
|
January 3, 2010 5:50 AM
You've already had it explained to you, in this very thread, why this question isn't relevant. It's you throwing mud. And I suspect you know that.
Go back and read #462 again. Did you follow up by going and hunting down any of the references that were cited in #315? If not, then why not?
Yeah, let's "start talking real science." How about we start with you explaining (not asserting without evidence) how the Earth is a closed system, eh?
And from an earlier comment of yours:
Well, that's perhaps technically accurate, since I don't know what the hell evolutionism is, but if you're asserting that there is no scientific evidence for evolution, then I guess you can dispute the evidence that has been offered. Yeah? You can explain to us mere evilutionists how our evidence isn't evidence? That sounds like fun. I'm in. How about we start with something kinda simple, eh? How about you explain (not assert without evidence) how the wishbone is not a transitional feature between dinosaurs and birds. How about you explain it better than the ToE can explain it.
http://gally.sandwich.net/paleo/Nesbitt%20et%20al%202009%20furcula.pdf
You can start with this article. Ready? Go.
Oh, and while I've got you here, can you perhaps explain to me how you're okay with behaving as a hypocrite? Or perhaps you can explain to me how decrying evolution while simultaneously using the benefits of our understanding of the theory (e.g., petroleum) doesn't make you a hypocrite?
Posted by: Josh
|
January 3, 2010 5:53 AM
Still a theory as opposed to what? Why else would you have it be? The theory is the best case within science. It doesn't get better than theory. What else do you want?
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
January 3, 2010 6:10 AM
He's already said creationism is more legitimate because it's easy to understand (goddidit), unlike evolution.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 6:12 AM
Okay, how about you answer the questions with scientific answers. After all, you're demanding it off me so surely it means you have a means to explain them all scientifically. Irrelevant to the question of evolution, like asking how did the planet form to disprove plate tectonics. In terms of where the science is at, white smokers seem to be the most likely candidate and many of the steps have been worked out. I explained this above: randomness + selection = information. The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with evolution, it is the physics of heat. Order to disorder is a misapplication of entropy. As for how to get ordeer from disorder? SELECTION!!! How many times do you need it spelled out to you? I don't care if you're the head of AiG or some wacko who rants on a street corner, you might be a layman but you are by no means informed. Again, google "Dunning Kruger" So you admit you discard modern (by modern I mean everything in the last 400 years - you're really behind the times)Copernicus was wrong. Science has long since moved on. You say you're informed? Please google "Dunning Kruger" So is gravity, so please stop believing in it and float the fuck away. If you knew what the word theory meant, then you wouldn't need to google "Dunning Kruger", but again this is the problem of someone describing themselves as an "informed layman" when they don't adhere to the accumulated knowledge in a particular discipline. You talk absolute fucking nonsense and you are none-the-wiser about just how nonsensical you are. Fucking hell I've come across fungus more informed than you. Seriously Andre, if you think you are informed then surely it wouldn't hurt to pick up Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne and Evolution by Donald Prothero and see what each of them has to say about the evidence on the subject.But no, you're self-professed "informed" which means in all probability you're a braindead moron who has read a whole bunch of creationist screeds and therefore thinks he can take down the cornerstone of modern biology. Anyone who brings up Piltdown Man is a total moron hack, ergo you're a total moron hack. And before you cry ad hominem, just remember that I refuted you're argument and from that concluded you're a moron instead of calling you a moron in place of taking down your inane vacuous ill-informed misleading creationist screed piece of bullshit trash that my wife's cat puked up.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 3, 2010 6:14 AM
As opposed to "proven". The notion that science can "prove" things is one reason why as a mathematician I don't call myself a scientist or claim that mathematics is science. "Proof" in a technical sense requires at minimum:
1) Accepted axioms
2) Accepted rules of inference
Science has #2, but explicitly disavows #1. Since the religionists would pillory science for embracing axiomatic truth, it's disingenuous to insist on "proof". At best, science provides reasonable certainty that a given hypothesis fits the observations made.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 3, 2010 6:21 AM
Andre asserts:
"Actually I believe the Earth to be in central position in the Universe as the Scripture says."
I could almost call Poe on this. "The Scripture"?
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
January 3, 2010 6:30 AM
Seriously, PZ, he's "refuting" heliocentrism. Do something. I bet our friend David from Canada wouldn't say something so absurd.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 6:40 AM
Upon consultation with my wife, I realised my last comment was rude and misdirected. It was wrong for me to compare what a cat throws up with what andre pointed out. No matter how frustrated I get in the face of vacuous crap, it's no reason to compare what a cat throws up to such utter rubbish. Compared to what andre said, what the cat threw up was a treasure, it was pure gold, a wonderful expression of intelligence and profound insight into the world.
I let my anti-cat biases get the better of me. But the important thing is I recognised the hurt I caused to cat puke and lovers of cats (and implicitly lovers of cat puke) everywhere by putting such imagery on the par with the shit that andre typed. Apologies to all.
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 6:44 AM
Andre,
If you are an "informed layman", then you must know something about ERVs.
Now put up, or shut up.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
January 3, 2010 6:56 AM
Thank you, Kel. My cats and I were profoundly hurt.
Posted by: Dania
|
January 3, 2010 7:02 AM
Followed by:
Please, please, pretty please be a Poe. Please?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 3, 2010 7:24 AM
I can say without any exaggeration that my product of my last bowel movement was more perceptive and insightful than Andre the woo-soaked wonder retard.
Posted by: Dania
|
January 3, 2010 7:30 AM
On the off chance that you're not a Poe...
Make up your mind. You either want to argue against evolution or you want to talk about the fascinating field that is prebiotic chemistry. Or one at a time. But, please, keep in mind that "we don't yet know how life began therefore evolution isn't true" is not a valid argument, as has already been pointed out.
Posted by: DebinOz | January 3, 2010 7:32 AM
Kel,
As the servant to two felines, your apology is accepted. Realistically, if you analyse cat puke, it would have more information in it than Andre has given us.
Is there are term for a 'worse than a Poe', other than deranged?
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 3, 2010 7:42 AM
'A deranged' is already an anagram of 'egad, andre'
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 3, 2010 8:00 AM
Andre,
Please explain what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. I should warn you that there are PhD physicists commenting on this thread, so your explanation had better be precise.
Posted by: maureen brian | January 3, 2010 8:06 AM
Andre,
In the interest of world sanity please quote the bit where scripture, as you claim, says that the earth is the centre of the universe - with the appropriate book, chapter, verse.
Oh, and do it in both the version you usually read and in the original Hebrew or Greek or whatever so that those of us with the necessary knowledge - not me - can compare the two versions and comment on whether or not it means what you think it means.
Thank you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 3, 2010 8:12 AM
I'm still waiting for Andre to supply conclusive physical evidence for his imaginary deity, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural origin. Then he must provide solid physical evidence that his babble is not a work of myth/fiction. So far, he is not showing any positive evidence for his inane beliefs, and instead is trying the stoopid "if I cause doubt about evolution, creationism is right". The problem here, is that he is not refuting the science, which requires publication in a peer reviewed journal. We are waiting for his citations. What a waste of bandwidth. Pure insipidity.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 8:29 AM
Though there are other motivations in addition to efforts to teach intellectually dishonest people like Andre (like using them as fodder to teach others who are receptive to learning), I will refresh the point which has been made frequently in this thread and others.
Dipshits like Andre are unteachable. Because of their arrogant ignorance and astounding intellectual dishonesty, they do not merit free-loading on the efforts of hard-working, sharply focused, intellectually honest folks who have made it possible for them to enjoy the fruits of scientific labor.
Andre is not only disgusting to us, but would be also to his god in which he believes, because Andre refuses to use the mind that his god belief insists that has been so graciously bestowed on him.
All Andre has shown in this thread is intellectual dishonesty, nothing else. No substance at all. Very disgusting.
I recall that some scientist who is a YECer (maybe someone here will remember his name) stated that the evidence is clearly in the opposition's camp making it is harmful to the cause of literal, biblical interpretation to insist otherwise. He states that the only approach which YECers can use without being intellectually dishonest is to admit that their beliefs are completely faith-based (like David from Canada) has done in this thread.
Though this scientist and David are not violating intellectual honesty in this stance, they still set off alarm bells because of their extreme gullibility.
(Let's see if Andre can temporarily restrain his intellectual dishonesty just a tiny bit and refrain from insisting that his argument is not religious)
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 8:50 AM
Rachel: I feel kind of sorry for him.
_____
I feel sorry for the intellectually honest folks who have to drag on their backs through life arrogant ignorant dipshits like Andre. But I have way more admiration than sorrow for those courageous and tough people who have contributed to the progression of society despite having to waste precious mental energy on deadbeats like Andre in their often herculean effort to improve the lot of all.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 8:56 AM
I normally come across as a concern troll regarding the tone and civility but holy fsm, andre is painful to read. I'm quite certain my IQ went down a couple of points.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 9:03 AM
Posted by: andre | January 3, 2010 1:32 AM
Andre: ...and to sober you up dear Darwinians, ...
______
Andre, you are the one who has drunk deep from cask-strength stupidity and is now staggering around in a brain-dead stupor.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 9:09 AM
John Morales: andre, you're pathetic.
___
Not to mention wrong.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 9:16 AM
No, he's not even wrong.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 9:26 AM
Andre: I guess the Darwinian evo tree of life is slowly withering...
______
Wrong. It is blooming.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 9:31 AM
Ok, thanks, blf, will use not even wrong for dipshits like Andre when they blather in their arrogant ignorance.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 9:41 AM
Falcarius: The whole site goes to great lengths to explain why the mouse data supports evolution.
___
There is much indigestion to be found in the creotard banquet of logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty, and not even being wrong, but the 'special sauce' that makes me salivate is when they offer an argument that actually supports evolution! With friends like these, we don't need any enemies.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 10:26 AM
Kel doesn't need to insult your intelligence. You do a good job of that already on your own.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
January 3, 2010 10:34 AM
Andre the giant disingenuous troll gives a homework assignment to the real scientists:
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 10:37 AM
Also, I do believe you gave me the name Hwa Phat Phuc earlier. It's always interesting to see people like you can't distinguish Vietnamese from Chinese from Korean. Nice way to make yourself look like a complete douche. Also since you brought up the idea of falsifiable, when has your god ever been falsifiable?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 10:37 AM
Next thing you know andre will be asserting that the human heart beats for a lifetime with no external energy source
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 3, 2010 10:38 AM
Amino acids have been found in interstellar comets, FFS
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
January 3, 2010 10:46 AM
Rorschah,
I'm aware of the amino acid signals. They've even found amino acid signals from nebulae! I have co-worker down the hall who repeats this sort of stuff in the lab--irradiating ices (H2O, CH4, N2...) with proton and electron beams that approximate interplanetary plasmas. As I said, it's a promising field of active research.
What I wonder is how the goalposts will move once we actually succeed at creating life from simple chemicals. The problem with the god of the gaps is that the gaps keep getting smaller.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 10:50 AM
OK, I am finally caught up in this thread (good discussion with Leigh).
exnihilo @ 681: Makes me wonder...
____
Another dipshit, breathless in its elliptical deepity.
rmp, David from Canada, reminds me of Tolkein's character, Treebeard (Whose motto is: Don't be hasty) . A bit off-putting (especially when there are dangerous, anti-science fires to be put out, and he is too slow going to understand fast enough how threatening this problem is to him if he stays rooted in his spot) and comforting (as he can't be described flighty) at the same time!
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 11:00 AM
Michelle B, be patient with David from Canada. It took me years to break free from my church upbringing. It's a hard process.
Posted by: Dave2010 | January 3, 2010 11:54 AM
If you atheists are so sure of your position why don't you just accept the invitation to the debate with CMI and whack the creationists in full public view? As it stands it just looks like your'e all running scared. You've just handed the moral high ground to CMI - they will always be able to say to the whole world that they invited you and you refused to come. What are you afraid of? Actualy I saw a debate of this kind a few years ago and it was held by most who saw it that the atheists/skeptics lost, so perhaps you're better off staying in your own conference where there's no one to challenge you.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 11:58 AM
Whenever there is a debate with creationist, they never present evidence. And again, you're wrong to assume all supporters of evolution are atheist. Gesh so fucking tedious
My skeptic's hat tells me that you probably made that up. Like all creationist.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:09 PM
Dave2010, I'm sure you'd find many (possibly even PZ) willing to have an honest debate. However format is everything. Since the debate 'you' want wouldn't require evidence, there is no point.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 12:11 PM
Dave2010, atheism is not about evolutionary theory, nor is evolutionary theory about atheism. They are unrelated. So what it you want to debate? Atheism or evolution? Pick one.
In answer to the question about debating evolution, Pee Zed already answered that (as part of this very post on which are you commenting), saying, in part (the emphasis is in Pee Zed's original):
We see this again with andre's comments to this post. Lie after lie after lie, no attempt to provide evidence, and no attempt to explain or reason; just evidence-free dogmatic assertions et al.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 12:12 PM
Creationists don't debate, they filibuster.
Look up the Gish gallop.
Besides when you debate creationists you create an illusion that the creationism is on par with actual science.
It is not, has never been not and never will be.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 3, 2010 12:13 PM
If you are so sure your idjit ideas are scientific, why don't you publish in the peer reviewed scientific journals, where evidence rules? Instead, you want to play rhetorical tricks and ignore the evidence. After all, all you have is bullshit, and you are afraid to face the facts. You can't even show conclusive physical evidence your imaginary deity exists and your babble isn't a work of fiction. Real losers who shouldn't be given any forum.Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:13 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak, I think Dave2010 might be telling the truth about the debate he saw. It's certainly possible that he saw a debate where one side used rhetorical tricks and one side used boring data. Rhetorical tricks can win in that format.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 12:15 PM
wow
let me retype that
It is not, has never been and never will be.
sheesh
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 3, 2010 12:17 PM
This surprises me not a bit; I do not doubt its veracity for a second. Who stages such "debates"? Who is motivated to attend such "debates"? Such events are always about organized confirmation bias and never about honest exchange of information.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 3, 2010 12:17 PM
hmm, you are right rmb. I retract that statement.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 12:23 PM
rmp, I agree, however it is hard to be patient with someone who is no longer posting!
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:27 PM
Michelle, I agree.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 12:28 PM
The reason for not debating creationists is two-fold:
1) It gives them a totally spurious reflected sheen of academic respectability which that haven't earned.
2) We can't teach the science in sound-bytes; we spend years learning this stuff, and it doesn't reduce to cretin-sized mouthfuls. They, on the other hand, can wheel out a few Bible verses and two or three snappy (and totally false!) sciency-sounding sound-bytes and easily deceive the ignorant and gullible.
An additional reason is this: creationists like Carl Wieland are professional con-men. Naturally they've got their "sell" down pat; it's how they pull in the shekels without having to do any honest work. They're naturally going to lard up their part of the "debate" with dog-whistles for the faithful. An honest scientist, even the rare one who has experience communicating with non-technical audiences, has little ability to prevail over that kind of intense and unethical manipulation.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 12:33 PM
Exactly right on all points Leigh.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 12:35 PM
Dave2010, would your side agree to a jury style format which is evidence driven? Of course not!
Posted by: Dania
|
January 3, 2010 12:38 PM
Oh, really? You may have noticed that Kel(@159) and Rorschach(@134) offered to debate Carl Wieland. Why didn't he accept? Why does it have to be PZ? Any special reason...?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 12:42 PM
OKAY, NOW I'M VERY VERY PISSED, PZ! I didn't realize that this piece of crap Andre stooped to address my fellow minion
Gyeong Hwa Pak
as
hwa phat phuc
!!!!eleventy1!!!
To the dungeon with this piece of racist garbage!
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 12:45 PM
@Dave2010
iIf you atheists are so sure of your position why don't you just accept the invitation to the debate with CMI and whack the creationists in full public view?
Been there, done that. And we found out that your side consistently LIES. Why don't you ask the Christian evangelist and evolutionary biologist, Francis Collins (since evolution stands alone from atheism) to debate with you liars? What are you afraid of?
As it stands it just looks like your'e all running scared. You've just handed the moral high ground to CMI - they will always be able to say to the whole world that they invited you and you refused to come. What are you afraid of?
_________
Our side looked running scared when we whupped your side at the Dover Trial? Not. We fight when it makes sense to fight like in a court of law, not in a debate set up where your side will LIE.
Actualy I saw a debate of this kind a few years ago and it was held by most who saw it that the atheists/skeptics lost, so perhaps you're better off staying in your own conference where there's no one to challenge you.
_____
Our side gets published in peer review science publications while your side does not. Winning in public debates is a joke and counts for nothing. The only thing that your statement shows is the dismal gullibility of yourself and your fellow/sister dummies in Jebus. And LIARS do not hold the high moral ground.
And dipshit Dave, the next time you immoral, lying goons have a church meeting, invite some atheists. What would you possibly be afraid of?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 12:50 PM
Oh dipshit Dave, why don't you liars have a debate on other facts, like gravity?
Posted by: Darryl | January 3, 2010 12:54 PM
"This is at present a promising area of research, and there is no credible alternative scientific hypothesis."
That's funny. How you can't see the irony in that statement amazes me - well actually, no it doesn't.
It's a typical argument on a blog of this nature. As usual, the best defense an evolutionist believer has is a) profane insults (*yawn*) b) it's below us c) pretend that you represent science and creation doesn't (*another yawn*).
I should think that Galileo would have jumped at the chance to debate those who insisted everything revolved around the earth. Since we creationists are the latter in your minds, why not jump at the chance? The video of you thumping us squarely could be hosted all over the Internet on evolution video streaming websites. Creationists would have to admit defeat and retreat with their tails between their legs. I mean after all, evolution is *such* a slam dunk is it not?
And I'm sure if you contacted Dr Carl Wieland directly, he'd be happy to conduct the debate. I've only seen evolutionists avoid debates at all costs. Funny that.
Just remember, eternity is a long time to be wrong. ;-) Ciao.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 12:59 PM
Sorry if I'm being incredibility dense here, but other than Hwa Phat Phuc not being Gyeong Hwa Pak's name, why does it seem to be raising people's hackles? My best guess is it's something like the n— word for blacks, but Generalissimo Google™ doesn't offer any explanations at all?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
January 3, 2010 1:00 PM
So is two millennia.Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:00 PM
All right, who had Galileo for Bingo.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 1:01 PM
Creationism does not represent science. It really is that simple. It is antithetical to the scientific method. As soon as you posit an unknowable untestable force (god) as a reason for things happening you have just stepped of the scientific method train at the stop for irrationalityville.
Just remember Pascal's wager is just as stupid an argument now as it was then.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:03 PM
DarrylJ,
So you're saying that we have to pretend to believe something that reason doesn't lead to because we'll burn in hell for all eternity?
Reminds me of one of my favorite Martin Luther quotes,
Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God
Posted by: Dania
|
January 3, 2010 1:05 PM
I can't see the irony either. Care to explain?
And while you're at it, explain how creationism is science. Is it falsifiable? Can you use it to make predictions? Be specific.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:09 PM
Please excuse me if I'm distracted the next few hours. Football time and I pray god is on my side.
Posted by: Darryl | January 3, 2010 1:12 PM
Michelle B:
"Our side gets published in peer review science publications while your side does not."
Erm, d'ugh. That's like saying you only find Coke in Coke machines, and not Pepsi, so that proves that Coke is the best.
"And dipshit Dave, the next time you immoral, lying goons have a church meeting, invite some atheists. What would you possibly be afraid of?"
Actually, don't know about Dave, but I invite atheist friends of mine all the time, and quite a few have 'seen the light'.
P.S. I looked up Francis Collins Wikipedia entry because I wasn't aware who he was and how he had lied. Quite an inspiring testimony. Nothing about lying so I suspect that's just a product of your fanciful imagination. Thanks for the heads up but I think I'll respect the view of the Director of the NIH over somebody like you with your objectionable vocabulary. But you go ahead and help yourself.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 1:16 PM
Um no, it's like saying that people who can actually support and defend their work get recognized for it. Something creationists are unable to do to this point. If they can, please feel free to point me to some creationist research that fits the bill.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 1:17 PM
Start with Miki Z@789's summary of the responses to the andre's claims and questions. Whilst some of the responses may contain insults, they also contain evidence, references, explanations, and—and this is important—logic.
I'm uncertain what you are claiming here; and it doesn't help that the sentence is ambiguous. Could you please elucidate? Specifically, who is saying what is beneath whom?
Sorry, creationism is not science by any known measure. It lacks evidence. It lacks logic. It lacks falsifiability (refutability). For creationism to be even partially correct, significant and interconnected parts of physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, history, and simple logic would have to be seriously (significantly) mistaken. That's quite a mountain to climb, and no credible attempt has been made since the 19thC to deal with problems creationism introduces (that is, to climb the mountain).
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:17 PM
Darryl, what if you're right? What if there is god who demands total obedience or you go to hell for an eternity writhing in pain? What if that god isn't the one you worship?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 3, 2010 1:19 PM
I have to admit, Darryl just did something I have not seen before; he compared not having research in scientific journals to vending machines carrying one brand of soda. Too bad it is just as stupid as anything andre has said.
Also, Darryl, no one said that Collins was a liar. He is an evangelical christian who would have the same disadvantage debating YEC as your average atheist biologist.
Posted by: The MadPanda | January 3, 2010 1:21 PM
I love the smell of trollish projection in the morning!
Darryl, Darryl, Darryl...you're not even wrong. You are not even in the same stadium as the goalposts you'd be moving if you caught up enough to understand that your arguments (such as they are) provide the illustrating exhibit under the four letters RATT.
You, sirrah, ain't worth the 845 XP.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 3, 2010 1:21 PM
And here is a proper forum for the scientific debate. Submission information for Science and Nature. Of course, Mr. Wieland will be scared shitless to actually have to supply some evidence, say for his imaginary deity, and will refuse to do so, the craven intellectual coward he is...Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 1:26 PM
Darrell:
Well, you think wrong, then. He did get to have a little chat about it with the creationists of his day at a soiree they held for him. They called their little event a Trial for Heresy; the hosts were named the Inquisition.
People who aren't educated enough to hear and understand the truth, and who are both devout and arrogant, have no trouble choosing the wrong side in any debate.
Only Galileo's eminence saved his life. He was convicted of heresy and condemned to house arrest; and at that, he got off lucky. Never underestimate the malevolence of religious fanatics who think their cherished delusions are under attack.
Posted by: Darryl | January 3, 2010 1:31 PM
"And while you're at it, explain how creationism is science."
Science should be observable and repeatable. Evolution can claim neither of those. So no, creationism at the end of the day is 'religion' as there is an element of 'faith', or 'belief'. But then, so is evolution.
I don't expect to convince anybody on this blog of my viewpoint, so no surprises with the responses. But it would be nice to be able to converse with a certain level of decorum. I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: wodenforce
|
January 3, 2010 1:32 PM
Here is a version of a letter I sent PZ:
I hope you encourage your atheist friends not to go to Melbourne next spring, at least those friends from outside of the Melbourne area.
I think the atheist community needs to make a stand against unnecessary air travel, and should boycott flying except for family emergencies.
Most Atheists, I think, agree that A. global warming is the single biggest crisis facing the world (besides religion or even including religion), a significant part of which is caused by jets.
I hope that you will put a post on your website, encouraging people not to attend and bringing up the issue of a public boycott of all air travel. There are people like David Suzuki who have already made a public declaration.
Offsets, from what I have read, are more of a public guilt appeasement scheme, than a real counter to AGW.
Atmosfair.de caculates a flight from New York to Melbourne generates 13,000 lbs CO2 PER PERSON each way. The carbon offset price would be about $375 per person each way. So if they do go, please have them remember to pay the $750 offset.
Thanks
J.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:40 PM
Darryl
"Science should be observable and repeatable. Evolution can claim neither of those. "
It can. Epic Fail.
Posted by: wodenforce
|
January 3, 2010 1:40 PM
correction: I don't read German. Perhaps the 14000Lb $375 figure is Roundtrip and NOT each direction.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 3, 2010 1:40 PM
But it would be nice to be able to converse with a certain level of decorum.
So few posts, so much stupid. On top of everything else, old fuckface is a tone troll.
Darryl, look up "Richard Lenski" and "e coli". There is observable evolution under controlled circumstance. Don't let your ignorance be your guide. You have already shown that you know shit about the subject.
Also, fuckface, my using of swear words does not negate the truth of what I am saying. As for decorum, you are the asshole who informed us that we will suffer for eternity. Such a sweet fucking message.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 1:43 PM
Darrell:
What on earth do you mean by that? Of course evolution is observable; we observe it both in the lab and in the wild. We also observe the results of experiments.
Do you somehow have the impression that those experiments are not repeatable? Of course they are.
This is an outlandish claim. I'll really like to know what you meant by it.
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 1:45 PM
I believe that when we die we enter an orgiastic world of orgasmic waves punctuated by dips in a cosmic ice cold stream because it appeals to me emotionally. never mind that the monotony becomes hellish within the first week or that it has no foundation in logic or scripture. It's my belief and I'm sticking to it.
Oh, and dickless trolls like Andre are in charge of mopping up and supplying the heated robes.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:46 PM
Janine, Darryl
I love Janine's reference to suffering for eternity. Darryl, that screwed me up a LOT when I was a teenager. Darryl, please explain to me why that isn't child abuse.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 1:48 PM
No, experiments should be transparent (observable) and repeatable. Science (or more accurately, hypothesis (this includes theories)) must be falsifiable (refutable).
Not even wrong. Again, start with Miki Z@789's summary of the responses to the andre's claims and questions.
Creationism is all belief and no substance. No evidence, no logic, and contradictory to other areas, such as chemistry, geology, history, and simple logic.
Also not even wrong. Considerable evidence exists; again, start with @789. Others here can fill in the details, to probably any level you desire, including references and evidence, and using logic.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:51 PM
IaMoL, great, now I've got to get that image out of my head.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 3, 2010 1:52 PM
For the same reason I don't fight children*...its a lose-lose proposition.
* I get my share of challenges. I point behind them, saying "Goats on fire", and when they turn their backs I hightail it outta there.I have dealt with creationists the same way.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 3, 2010 1:52 PM
Darryl, either provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, or shut the fuck up. That is what honest men do. Only con artists like creobots can't put up, but can't shut up. You are a con artist. Prove me otherwise...
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 3, 2010 1:55 PM
And Darrell, speaking of tone, you just inserted yourself into a community where you are a guest, and then informed your hosts that they are going to hell.
Really, that goes far beyond a nasty swearword. You've just merrily revealed that
1) You're evil enough to WORSHIP a psychopath
2) You LIKE it that these people are going to hell
You've just flung poo, little monkey, so you shouldn't be surprised they flung it back.
p.s. There is no hell. It's not Biblical. It's a human invention that appeals to tiny and malevolent minds. If you're going to spout theology, at least learn enough about the Bible to rise above nasty superstitions.
p.p.s And if you do believe there is a hell, obviously taunting these folks about it is no way to save them from it. What do you suppose Jesus will say to you about that? Man, I'd be worrying about my own fate if I were you.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 1:58 PM
Goodness gracious, Darryl Dipshit thought I was calling Francis Collins a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My point was why demand that atheists debate the fact of evolution (do facts require debating?) with you lying immoral goons, why not choose a Christian evangelical like Francis Collins who is an evolutionary biologist? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
As for inviting atheists to your church, does that mean you let them take the stand and encourage them to lie to all the members? Because that would be more equivalent to the IDiots' demand for a debate at an atheist conference (on a topic that has nothing to do with atheism, except that most atheists accept the fact of evolution and that the IDiots have shown time and time again that they LIE).
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 1:59 PM
Any side bets if we hear from Darryl again?
Posted by: Dania
|
January 3, 2010 2:00 PM
You know what would be nice? Not see you all repeat each other's already refuted claims time and time again. That would be nice.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 2:04 PM
That is not an answer to how creationism is science.
Try again.
How is creationism science?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 2:06 PM
Darryl: Creationists would have to admit defeat and retreat with their tails between their legs.
______
IDiots for the most part will never admit defeat. Their bizarre denying of the fact of evolution shows that reality. We do not give a hoot about you creeps in general, we want to make sure that science education remains science education and that you liars will not sabotage it. Other than that, we don't give a fuck about you creeps. You can blather and foam about your inane insanity for your short brief lives and it is fine with me. You are just a bunch of freeloaders which we have to carry on our backs.
Posted by: Dania
|
January 3, 2010 2:07 PM
I blame the person who posted right after my post. ;)
Posted by: The MadPanda | January 3, 2010 2:07 PM
rmp #874
I suspect that the time has come to do the Cuttlefish thing in Darryl's general direction.
(ahem)
(tunes lute)
When reason raised it's awesome head
Sir Darryl turned his tail and fled
Valiantly he turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat...
(string breaks)
Hmmm. Needs work. Plus the Pythons would sue my furry rump for copyright infringement.
Besides, even when he's here, he's absent so we can't really accuse him of cowardice. Rashness, perhaps.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Darryl | January 3, 2010 2:09 PM
blf: Firstly, thank you for a measured response. Most of the other responses are perhaps proof of devolution - man returning to ape.
"Creationism is all belief and no substance."
I see. But considering it's the only widely held alternative view to evolution, then why not squash it once and for all with a public debate? Why a debate? Easy. There's nowhere to hide. Why do you think citizens in democratic countries like to see debates between the various candidates before an election?
"No evidence, no logic, and contradictory to other areas, such as chemistry, geology, history, and simple logic."
Actually, you can take evolution right out of the textbooks and most of chemistry, geology, history and simple logic are just fine. Hydrogen will still bond with oxygen to form water, Hitler will still be dead and 1 + 1 will still be 2. And as for evidence, there's a guy who lived ~2000 years ago, who was either a brilliant con artist or he was the Messiah, and yet nobody has been able to refute him.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 2:16 PM
Darryl, what part of the whole public debate responses don't you understand? Will you agree to a debate that requires evidence? NO YOU WON'T! Quit ignoring the issue or go away.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 2:18 PM
Debates are not the place where science is settled. Peer review is. If you creationists (why do I feel like I have to say this every time?) want to be taken seriously, come up with the science.
So far you have not.
Except that there are is massive evidence in all of those fields that supports evolution. That was the point that was being made. Evolution is supported across scientific fields. It all interconnects.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 3, 2010 2:19 PM
And no one has been able to refute Mohammad or Shiva. Big fucking deal.
So, fuckface, you would be happy to just ignore facts. Just remove evolution from the textbooks. Look up "Richard Lenski" and "e coli". There is a reason why Andy Schafly tried to sue to get (and bury) his decades long research.
Now, fuckface, please try to make a presentation that hes not been used a hundred times before. (Counting just this blog.) And your ridiculous vending machine example does not count, it does not work as an analogy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 3, 2010 2:20 PM
There is no alternative scientific view to evolution. There is a religious alternative view. But you can't even supply conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, or that your babble isn't a work of fiction. That is all presupposed. But, what if your presuppositions are wrong? Science is always doing reality checks. Religion, never.Posted by: Darryl | January 3, 2010 2:24 PM
Whooweee! So many heated responses, so little time.
rmp: Re the debate that requires evidence. Absolutely! You bring me evidence that just prior to the big bang matter arose from *nothing*, and then I'll show you God. How about that?
And with that I'll retreat with my tail between my legs. I didn't bring my rabies vaccine with me this time.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 2:25 PM
Darryl: Erm, d'ugh. That's like saying you only find Coke in Coke machines, and not Pepsi, so that proves that Coke is the best.
____
No, dipshit, it is more like that soda dispensing machines are peer viewed scientific journals and they can contain Coke (Chemistry research) or Pepsi (Physics research) or even Dr. Pepper (Biology research). But like your generic run of soda dispensing machines, they don't contain foaming crapola (which is what Creationism/Intelligent Design is)
Posted by: Dania
|
January 3, 2010 2:28 PM
And as for evidence, there's a guy who lived ~2000 years ago, who was either a brilliant con artist or he was the Messiah, and yet nobody has been able to refute him.
You have no fucking clue what the word "evidence" means, do you?
Posted by: reyfox
|
January 3, 2010 2:28 PM
As we see time and time again, it has nothing to do with being right, and everything to do with public theater. The creationists would be clamoring for a fight with evolutionists in a gladiator arena if they thought it could dazzle enough rubes.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 2:29 PM
Darryl
FSM, what an idiot!
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 2:30 PM
Darryl: And with that I'll retreat with my tail between my legs.
_____
Don't let the door hit you on your lying, unethical arse, freeloader.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 3, 2010 2:30 PM
Sorry idjit, your a a lying piece of shit until you show your conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. After all, no deity, no creator, no babble, your religion is bogus. Your response is the typical evasion by the godbots who know they have nothing, and must not show that they have nothing. After all, if you had something, there would be absolutely no problem showing it. Welcome to real science.Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
January 3, 2010 2:31 PM
A Mr. Garrison (from South Park) response if ever there was one. Show how those evilutionists fling shit like monkeys, Darryl, show us.
As I said, you've been wrong for around 2,000 years and that is a long time to be wrong. However, there are more options than "brilliant con artist" and "messiah" just as disproving a scientific theory would not make Christianity in any way true.Posted by: E.V.
|
January 3, 2010 2:34 PM
In Darryl's world all knowledge is dogmatic and opinions are valid if they're popular enough. He has no grasp of empirical evidence and scientific method. Whut his preecher, mammy & daddy telled him is enuff.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 2:38 PM
Darryl: But it would be nice to be able to converse with a certain level of decorum.
_____
And it would be nice if you were not a liar. Calling evolution a religion is a lie as there is not a single bit of faith involved with the fact and scientific theory of evolution just overwhelming evidence.
Posted by: reyfox
|
January 3, 2010 2:45 PM
"And as for evidence, there's a guy who lived ~2000 years ago, who was either a brilliant con artist or he was the Messiah, and yet nobody has been able to refute him."
And that guy's name was...Osiris. Well, okay, so it was a bit more than 2,000 years ago, but still, same story.
Posted by: llewelly
|
January 3, 2010 2:46 PM
Robert Price, in his great book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man explains that there is no reliable evidence Jesus ever existed.Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 2:48 PM
Darryl: Actually, you can take evolution right out of the textbooks and most of chemistry, geology, history and simple logic are just fine.
_______
Wow, just wow. If a scientific theory and fact which is what evolution is, is taken out of all the textbooks, then you will never be able to trust that science is science ever again. It will become pseudoscience if such evidence which supports the fact and scientific theory of evolution is ignored. Science will no longer be science as science is a method besides being a body of knowledge. You can't deny evidence, if you do, you are no longer using the scientific method.
What an intellectually dishonest, disgusting, lazy freeloader you are, Darryl Dipshit!
Posted by: reyfox
|
January 3, 2010 2:53 PM
You're still talking about evolution? Come on, Darryl has already moved on to the Big Bang! You gotta be more alert than that if you're gonna play Chase the Goalposts with him.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 2:55 PM
And par for the course the creationist follows the script.
starts off showing his idiocy by making the same oft debunked creationist claims can not provide any science supporting these creationist claims when asked Can only make the false assertion that evolution is not science but is unable to demonstrate why in the face of the other commenters proving plenty of links showing why evolution fits the scientific model just fine. claims evolution takes as much faith as his god which makes everyone wonder why he would want to use his position as the base of an insult refuses to answer questions about creationist "science" including peer review claims debates are perfectly fine for settling science runs offPosted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 2:56 PM
And to think I used to think you folks were to harsh. When it follow it through from the beginning, these folks get what they deserve.
BTW Darryl, how about that jury format debate?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 2:56 PM
Darryl: Why do you think citizens in democratic countries like to see debates between the various candidates before an election?
____
Facts are not debated. They are accepted. What you are requesting is equivalent to if after Obama got elected, a debate discussing whether or not he got elected would be scheduled.
You are full of weasel 'wisdom'.
Posted by: rmp | January 3, 2010 3:05 PM
Darryl
Posted by: Josh
|
January 3, 2010 3:05 PM
And what have we here? Oh yes. Someone else blithering on about geology despite apparently not having the slightest clue about the subject.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 3:09 PM
Darryl: Thanks for the heads up but I think I'll respect the view of the Director of the NIH ...
_______
Really? Then welcome to our side, the acceptors of the scientific theory and fact of evolution, because the Christian evangelical heading the NIH, that is, the evolutionary biologist, Francis Collins, ACCEPTS EVOLUTION.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 3:12 PM
No, I'm applying the three chances rule: Unless the other side starts flinging poo first, they have three-ish changes to give a jury of peers reason to believe they are not full of shite.
No, it's quite trivial to hide in a debate. A favourite tactic of creationists and other woo-sellers is the Gish Gallop. And when I had to debate an unsupportable position in class, the technique I used I called “Appeal to the majority” (I don't know the formal name); the trick is to claim since lots of people agree with the position, it must be true.
As I said in @828 (and others have made the same point):
And rmp@839 asks a very good question;
That question wasn't addressed directly to you by rmp. However, I am asking it of you.
No. First there very probably would not be any life on Earth. So there wouldn't be any history in the sense meant; nor anything to apply logic. The planet's atmosphere would be very different—essentially all of the Oxygen is breathed out by animals. The geology would be different; you'd lack both the reducing atmosphere (no Oxygen to react with the rocks et al.), and the various stuffs contributed by dead plants and animals wouldn't exist.
Finally, there's not a shred of evidence for the specific individual who was allegedly nailed to a tree c.2000 years ago. Even if there was, it wouldn't change the overwhelming reasons to conclude evolution exists. Nor would it provide the slightest reason to think creationism is any more than a Bronze Age (possibly earlier) myth.
Posted by: Falcarius | January 3, 2010 3:14 PM
Perhaps not the most effective example, as it wouldn't be surprising if the intellectual giants we're dealing with here buy into the "Birther" nonsense too.
As to Darryl's pleas for "decorum," I have a question. What is the difference in the truth value of the following two statements*:
"The moon orbits the Earth."
"The moon orbits the Earth, asshole."
If you said "Nothing," congratulations! You just might have a few logic circuits firing up there! If there is any difference between the two statements, it's that the latter becomes a more likely response after the un-embellished version fails to penetrate thick skull after thick skull no matter how many times, and with how much evidence, it is offered.
*I would've used "The Earth orbits the Sun," but we already have at least one heliocentrism-denying wingnut in this thread, and I didn't want to cloud the issue.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 3:14 PM
Goats on fire, Darryl's reading comprehension is way below average. And he trusts that he is reading the bible correctly?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 3:17 PM
Yeah, Falcarius, point taken.
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 3:23 PM
Oh, sorry, I forgot: Darryl, you haven't answered my question in @854:
And I note rmp@900 has now also asked you “[W]ould your side agree to a jury style format which is evidence driven?”
Posted by: iamjadehawk
|
January 3, 2010 3:24 PM
that would be a good, old-fashioned argumentum ad populum :-)Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 3:28 PM
Wait, what? Good that you admit that creation is unscientific, so all you can ever do is bring evolution down to a par with your beliefs. Of course evolution is scientific, the discovery of Tiktaalik had everything to do with the predictive power of evolutionary theory. A few scientists travel to the middle of nowhere to dig in 380 million year old rock, and find a form that is predicted by evolutionary theory? Sounds like a pretty solid theory to me.Are you one of those who thinks a murder is unsolvable if there are no witnesses about? You don't think it's worth looking at a crime scene and digging around in the victim's affairs because it's unsolvable? Why not chalk up all non-witnessed murders to acts of divine providence? Because that's exactly what you're doing with the question of life.
Okay, one other predictive story. Humans have 23 Chromosome pairs while all other great apes have 24 chromosome pairs. So when the human and chimpanzee genomes are sequences, there needs to be something in one of the genomes showing either a split of one human chromosome pair or the fusing of two chimpanzee chromosome pairs. And guess what? We find a fused chromosome pair that directly correspond to two chimpanzee pairs. Just as evolution predicted.
But I know you'll find a way to rationalise that away, just as you'll rationalise away the glut of feathered dinosaurs that have recently been dug out of the ground, just as you'll rationalise away the retroviral markers that sit in exactly the same place on the genome, just as you'll rationalise away every other piece of evidence in order to maintain your position that evolution is a faith. Is it really that hard to acknowledge that evolution is a science, even if you don't believe in it? Do you think we need a flu shot every year because God is keeping us on our toes?
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 3:29 PM
Yep! That's it. Thanks! What astonished and disgusted me then (and now) is how well it worked.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 3:34 PM
Now this is making a big presumption, that there was a before the big bang. Now it could be this way, but given that the big bang theory is the creation of space-time it is not wise to talk about before the big bang any more than it is to ask what is north of the north pole?As for matter? Don't you remember high school physics? e=mc². Matter comes from energy, and if your next question is where did the energy come from? Well that came from an offset by the gravitattion, the total energy in the universe is 0. In effect, the universe we live in is one that can come from nothing.
Okay, great. Now show God...
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 3:43 PM
So basically you're making the dichotomy that either Jesus was a liar, or he violated natural law and rose from the grave? Those options seem a bit thin really. You can't think of any other possibilities other than Jesus being a liar or that a miracle occurred? None at all?The irony of all this being that you're more than willing to believe reporting on the impossible as evidence for God, but you're unwilling to believe that evidence that has accumulated in many different disciplines over the last 150 years can possibly be evidence for evolution. Why such a low threshold of evidence for the miraculous but such a high threshold of evidence for the mundane?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 3:52 PM
@Rev #899, great summary, however protesting against the lack of decorum needs to be somewhere in your list.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 3:54 PM
good point
Posted by: rmp
|
January 3, 2010 3:59 PM
my team won. Thank you god!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 4:03 PM
Who?
Posted by: rmp
|
January 3, 2010 4:05 PM
Vikings. Thanks Odin!
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 3, 2010 4:06 PM
You have a very petty micro managing big sky daddy, rmp.
'snicker'
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 4:08 PM
Whilst I have no idea of the sport or teams, I was praying to all the gods rmp's team would lose.
Since they didn't, the gods must not exist.
Q.E.D.
(The above argument contains more logic than most—possibly all—cretinist arguments. But unlike certinist arguments, the conclusion also happens to be, very probably, true.)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 4:08 PM
It's amazing how often the discussion of "evolution is a faith" turns into "Explain life, the universe, and everything". Evolution is a process that is limited to replicating life. It has nothing to say on the origin of life, it has nothing to say on the origin of the planet, nor does it have anything to say on the origin of the universe. Yet the same people who want to call evolution a faith don't discuss the evidence for evolution - they discuss what evolution does not explain. Then have the veracity to proclaim that evolution is refuted. That we're all members of a religious cult worshipping a false god...
It would be really nice to see an honest creationist, one who even if they rejected evolution understood what the theory explains and what evidence there is for it. Instead we get people who think that evolution is a substitute for God, so try to fit evolution into a God-shaped hole. Why is it that the ones who are supposedly moral are the ones who care nothing for intellectual honesty?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 3, 2010 4:08 PM
Damn that wasn't just a win. Ouch.
"My" Panthers won.... for whatever that's worth at this point. At least going into next season delhomme's nine billion ints won't be haning over their heads.
/thread derail off
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 3, 2010 4:17 PM
Farve Hates Us All!
Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 4:21 PM
Kel, my admittedly incomplete knowledge is that back in the 19thC (both(?) before and after Origins) you did get some intellectually honest creationists. Some of them even did (thought) experiments, such as as the gentlemen who tried to calculate the size and other properties of Mr Noah's ship (not that that has anything to do with creationism or evolution per se, but at the time, the age of the Earth and the idea of catastrophes as the only(?) agent of change was still(?) in-vogue, so it was a strongly-related idea.) Needless to say, they got nowhere, and—key point—admitted it (or at least didn't deny it).
Apologies for the lack of references and names and so on; blame it on the vin and it being yonks since I last read/studied the subject…
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 4:27 PM
I meant the ones I see online, and the professional creationists around today.Posted by: blf
|
January 3, 2010 4:40 PM
I realise that. I just went a bit pedantic in response to “It would be really nice to see an honest creationist, one who even if they rejected evolution understood what the theory explains and what evidence there is for it.” They, as far as I can recall, did exist at one time. But, apparently like you, I'm unawares of there being any around nowadays…
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 4:55 PM
Kel: Then have the veracity to proclaim that evolution is refuted.
______
Veracity?
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
January 3, 2010 4:58 PM
Why do the creationists have to be so arrogant and insulting? It makes perfect sense that we get our backs up and become defensive when they come 'round here. Creotards like andre and Darryl come here, tell us we have no evidence for our "belief" and that we're going to hell, call us names and then try to school us on manners. What the fuck?
Firstly, that's not very christ-like behaviour, so shame on you. No, the fact we pushed back does not make it OK. "Turn the other cheek", remember? Secondly, if you want to play dirty, don't expect us to cater to you. Stop being so fucking hypocritical. If you come here showing no respect, you're not going to get any. You don't get to complain about the mean atheists who swear either because it's your petty taunting that illicits the responses. Fuck you.
Seriously, at least dummies like David from Canada listened (sort of.)
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 5:02 PM
There is at least one young earther to which I have referred to in an earlier comment. However, I can't recall his name. I was hoping that someone here could identify him. He is a scientist who advises his fellow young earthers not to be so daft as to deny the evidence for evolution, but instead to stick to the faith spiel when presenting their (non) case.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 5:32 PM
Kel: Why is it that the ones who are supposedly moral are the ones who care nothing for intellectual honesty?
________
Because they are not really moral? You can be intellectually honest (for the most part) like Leigh and still be profoundly faith-bound by maintaining an ethical base. Morality and religious belief do not need to be mutually exclusive, but in Darryl, Patrick, Dave, Andre, Lucia, they are.
It is great for the above YRCers to come here and do their unethical presentations. It clearly shows how awful non-evidential faith can be; how it can turned you into blithering, intellectually dishonest, lying hypocrites. Rather than courting their bizarre concern that the world would look aghast upon their not being invited to debate their lies at an atheist conference (as if the whole world is watching something so minor an event), they should be way more concerned about the egregious image they present.
In addition, as some have pointed out, the god they believe in, would puke them up right out of its mouth. Preventing themselves from winding up in hell they believe exists should be their top priority. They are failing on so many counts and yet the quality of their lives will be buoyed up by the very science that they choose to cherry pick until it is no longer science. They are truly despicable free loaders.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 3, 2010 5:35 PM
It's known in economics as the tragedy of the comments.
Posted by: Patch
|
January 3, 2010 5:57 PM
I liken the creationist claim that "since you didn't see it, you can't prove it happened" as an even wasn't observable, to the following:
You are a mother with a small child in the kitchen of your home. There is no one else in the house. On the table is a slice of chocolate cake. The phone in the other room rings, so you step out for few minutes. When you return, the chocolate cake is gone, the child has chocolate icing on his hands and face, and his teeth are covered with chocolate icing and cake crumbs. When you ask the child if he ate the cake, he says, "No." Do you punish the child?
In the creationist's world, the mom will sit back and wonder just how the cake could possibly have disappeared. In the scientist's world, the child is punished.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 6:06 PM
Miki Z @932 , very clever, just spit up whatever liquid I am drinking (oh, yes herbal tea).
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 6:12 PM
Yeah, that wasn't the right word. hubris? nerve? audacity? Audacity is probably right. "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Stephen Weinberg"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Are these people honestly ones who can't recognise the difference between right and wrong? I think not. They like almost all other people know that it's wrong to be dishonest. And if they didn't in their gut feel that being dishonest is a lie, they have a book containing a moral doctrine explicitly laying out the wrongness of lying. If I had to guess, I bet they don't see themselves as lying, only adhering to a "higher truth".
Which of course would bring me back to my point, why can't they argue against evolution as it is understood by scientists? They might think what they are arguing against is what scientists think of as evolution, in which case an intellectually honest person would spend the time trying to understand the arguments. Or it might be that they understand the arguments already, and don't argue against them on the off-chance that we don't understand them. Or it might be something else entirely.
In any case, they have the chance to inform themselves and show that they understand what is being talked about. That they could approach this debate honestly and not create eleborate straw men arguments, and actually address the evidence presented. They have the chance to be honest, they have been given recommendations and resources to help them be honest. Let's see if any of them choose to actually inform themselves...
...I wonder if Andre has googled "Dunning Kruger" yet.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 3, 2010 6:15 PM
Just got from some errands and I see things have pretty much died down. I was still hoping to see from a creationist some acknowledgement of the desire to have an evidence based debate. Anyone, anyone, Bueler ...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 3, 2010 6:17 PM
Your story would be even more apt (and hilarious) if the cake-smeared child answered 'No - God came down and ate it.'
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 3, 2010 6:17 PM
Why the hell does this debate need to be public? Present your evidence right here. Here the confinement of time won't allow anyone to Gish Gallop, you'll have experts from a variety of field to answer your points, you can provide citations to back up your claims, rhetorical theatrics will be mostly ineffective.....oh, I see.
Posted by: tresmal
|
January 3, 2010 6:26 PM
Michelle B.: @ 930 Could you be thinking of Todd Wood?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 3, 2010 6:27 PM
<Roy Scheider>You're going to need a bigger
boatthread</Roy Scheider>Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 3, 2010 6:28 PM
+1 to Miki Z
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 6:31 PM
Kel: If I had to guess, I bet they don't see themselves as lying, only adhering to a "higher truth".
_____
Then they are deluded. And when deluded, morality becomes a moot issue. So they are either unethical or deluded.
However, if they are so deluded as to be unable to discern that they are violating their own religion, then they are not to be trusted (just like you would not trust an unethical and non-deluded person). Hence, they are functionally unethical.
They have the chance to be honest,...
_______
Exactly. And that chance remains. They can always leave behind their dishonesty. It is their choice. Most of us here would not deny them that opportunity.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 6:43 PM
Todd Wood, that the guy! Thanks tresmal
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 6:54 PM
Patch: In the scientist's world, the child is punished.
______
More like the child's face would be carefully cleaned, carefully removing the invaluable evidence with the child being gently scolded for being so careless.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 3, 2010 7:15 PM
C.S. Lewis's trilemma has been reduced to two choices. But then Lewis was a better thinker than Darryl (not that such a thing is particularly hard).
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 3, 2010 7:16 PM
That's the problem though, they are unable to recognise their own incompetency, such is the Dunning-Kruger effect. They really don't have the choice because they really don't see that there's a problem to begin with. They can't recognise actual competence in the field. Of course the remedy to such a problem is more education, but again that would require them first recognising that there's a problem with their knowledge in the first place. Which is of course not going to happen because of the Dunning Kruger effect ;)This is why I try to reframe the question of understanding the science as scientists understand it. Which surely isn't too much to ask for. If I were to come out and say the gospels were an invention of the 20th century, that they were written by hippies in the 1960s on an LSD trip and called it a global conspiracy among believers to protect their faith, would I expect any believer to treat my views as equal to those who are learned in the field? I should hope not. I should hope that they would tell me to go read up on the history of the early church and the development of the gospels. So even if I deny a historical Jesus, at least I can get my historical facts correct...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 3, 2010 7:38 PM
In the Doomed thread a Christian expressed surprise that Owlmirror and I were able to quote the Bible. Apparently they think we're as ignorant about religion as they are about science.
That's one of the things that I find amazing about creationists. They're ignorant about, for instance, the 2nd law of thermodynamics and they assume we're equally as ignorant on the subject. They never seem to think that biologists and biochemists do actually know something about thermodynamics. Instead the creationists believe they have a novel insight into thermodynamics which has eluded scientists for decades.
They come by their beliefs through faith. Their projection is that we have faith in evolution. They're not arguing religion versus science, they're arguing dogma against dogma. They see themselves as refuting our theology with their theology. Since theology is purely a matter of opinion and faith, facts do not enter into the equation. It's a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 3, 2010 7:42 PM
Just wait until you quote the Bible in a way that causes cognitive dissonance. Then you'll get "even the devil can quote the Bible". Or maybe that's just me.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 3, 2010 7:43 PM
Sadly - for them - their 'dad' is a roughly human-shaped pile of dog-turds with eyes painted on and our dad is, well, a real person.
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 8:02 PM
I think that darryl's recent , if somewhat brief, appearance demonstrates rather well the futility of the whole debating creationists exercise.
After about 900 comments showing why they are wrong, he turned up with the same arguments use by the trolls at the start of the thread. Then, having completely failed to address any of the points put to him, he has run off to proclaim victory.
No doubt, another brain-dead loon will be alone soon with exactly the same arguments and attitude.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and clean the pigeon shit off my chess set.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 3, 2010 8:16 PM
Malcom, I realize that 9 out of 10 creationists follow the same pattern. Perhaps it's the Polly Anna in me that we keeping trying to find the David From Canada's. I realize that it's still unlikely that David changes his position but perhaps over time.
Like I said, I'm a Polly Anna.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 3, 2010 8:24 PM
I guess what I'm saying is that the basic 3 Post Rule is a good guideline.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 3, 2010 8:41 PM
Kel: That's the problem though, they are unable to recognise their own incompetency, such is the Dunning-Kruger effect. They really don't have the choice because they really don't see that there's a problem to begin with.
_______
The D-K effect is a useful handle in getting grips with how difficult it is to get through to an ignorant person. However, some ignorant people do start that process, of leaving their ignorance behind. It may take loads of time like it did for rmp. Or in my case, it took decades for me to leave alternative medicine behind. I recall though, that there was always an internal protest to the garbage that I was embracing. Eventually, I gave up on using alt medicine because it did not make me well (nor did mainstream medicine). Only recently, with the advent of several excellent science-based medical blogs, was I able to understand the depth of my ignorance.
What we need is to be able to identify the ones that truly will never make it through their ignorance, even if they went through several re-incarnations (teehee) so we can direct our mental energies are those who are somewhat receptive. There is no dependable way to do this, hence a mix of tactics are used, some like rmp, some like yours, some like mine, maybe something will hit its mark and will show us that there is something to work with or not.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 3, 2010 8:46 PM
BONUS POINTS
Posted by: Malcolm
|
January 3, 2010 9:09 PM
rmp,
Don't get me wrong, when I mentioned debating creationists, I meant it in the context of the staged debates, a la the original post. I completely agree with you about the whole David from Canada thing.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 3, 2010 9:28 PM
Personally I don't have much of an issue with theist evolutionists. I 'suspect' they're wrong but I'm not sure.
However with YEC types I can't help but think about my screwed up childhood. While I wrestled with the obvious science issues (earth approx 8000 years old), I was always able to rationalize that with the fact that if you can 'create the world out of nothing' then it's not a big leap to think that the physical inconsistencies regarding age are possibly the by-product of such a miraculous creation.
What finally helped me cross over wasn't the scientific flaws but rather the theological/logical flaws. I was taught that 'by faith alone' are you saved. And that you only had to let the holy ghost into your life to get that required faith. Well as a teenager I'd go to bed praying/crying for the holy ghost to give me the faith to deal with the things that didn't make sense to me. Eventually I decided that the holy ghost evidently isn't perfect. Hence, ...
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 3, 2010 10:31 PM
Damn, rmp, my heart aches for the teenager you once were. That's one of the things I hate most about fundamentalism; the brightest kids are usually the most damaged by it. They're put through the most horrible kind of cognitive dissonance while they're still so young, and often when they do break free the family relationships which should most sustain them are also damaged.
I was fortunate because I just chucked the whole thing right from the beginning, and my mother (of blessed memory) was herself enough of a freethinker to let me find my own way.
There are many creationists in my extended family, and most of them are so terribly ignorant about science that they're incapable of evaluating evidence -- not just scientific evidence, but any kind at all. They are absolutely credulous in every field of human endeavor. The people who remain in fundamentalist and evangelical church tend to be authoritarian personalities, and they sop up whatever nonsense comes out of the pulpit or out of Focus on the Family without any qualms. The inability to think critically about any proposition that comes from a Christian authority figure makes them sitting ducks for Ponzi schemes, political and culture-war shenanigans, and any kind of fleece-the-pews foolishness that comes down the pike.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 3, 2010 10:43 PM
Thanks Leigh,
I just can't help but think of those that didn't come through the process ok. If I could be king for a day, a "you'l burn in hell for all eternity" upraising should be considered child abuse.
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 3, 2010 11:17 PM
I agree with you and Professor Dawkins that it is child abuse. In fact, I think it's people abuse; I know some adults who fret over it, too.
Worse still, those who are okay with it never seem to realize they worship a deeply evil, malevolent version of Deity. I just don't understand how they're okay with behavior from God that, from their neighbor, would result in a fast call to Child Protective Services.
I could be wrong about the existence of Hell, I suppose. If so, better Hell with Gandhi and George Carlin than Heaven with friggin' Jerry Falwell and Torquemada.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
January 5, 2010 12:23 AM
It took me the better part of my free time of the last two days to catch up and now it seems that the thread may have run out of steam. Then again, I guess it looked like that about a month ago as well.
I would say that Andre and Darryl are the most arrogant, ignorant, and insipid trolls we've had hereabouts for a while (M*bus excluded, of course), but that would be an understatement of massive proportions and more appropriate adjectives fail me at the moment. Willful ignorance in all it's gloating, imbecilic, irrational glory.
Please, for the good of humanity, don't breed. And limit your contact with school-age children. You have every right to your stupidity and are free to revel in your lack of knowledge. Have at it. But exposing impressionable youth to the disease that is your delusion is irresponsible, unconscionable, and clearly child abuse.
Retard yourselves all you want and cower from reality as much as you can, but don't hamstring the progress of the next generation or blind them to the wonders of the universe that these brief sparks that are our lives are able to illuminate.
Posted by: jethroconsultants
|
January 5, 2010 12:24 AM
atheists - a challenge - please explain morality to me in terms of an naturalistic evolution of man from whatever to now.
in other words - how can morality of any form exist in a chemical / naturalistic sense?
why would any of you even care? - thres no reason... hmm theres a word - reason - - can you explain that?
I am looking forward to an answer using logic and reasoning that by definition of naturalistic evolution have no meaning anyway - do your best!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 5, 2010 12:43 AM
jethroconsultants,
Easy: we evolved the behaviours you refer to as morality and our brains work via chemistry.
But I've got a better question - numerous animal species demonstrate behaviours we would consider 'morality'; which gods, exactly, do they believe in?
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 5, 2010 12:48 AM
Well, gosh, jethroconsultants, that's an easy one. Cooperative social organizations are built on justice, fair play, and a willingness to sacrifice for the group. Human beings have over time codified rules for managing and promoting those behaviors, but we have good new evidence that they're not unique to humans. Animals also demonstrate altruism and a sense of fair play. These social behaviors have been selected for in all higher mammals that live in social groups.
You can read about altruism here, and about fairness here.
In other words, social behaviors that are the root of the Golden Rule are adaptations that confer a survival benefit, so natural selection has done its thing, and voila, moral behavior is born.
I'm not an atheist, by the way, I'm a Methodist.
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 5, 2010 12:58 AM
Oh, I noticed that you also asked for an explanation of reason. That one's easy too: we're got these big ol' wetware reasoning machines inside our skulls. They're organic computers, except many orders of magnitude more sophisticated than any silicon-based computer.
We're not hanging out on this planet unique in this respect, either. Our fellow apes, whales, dolphins, dogs, cats, many kinds of birds, pigs, and many cephalopods (just to name a few) have nicely-functioning brains too.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
January 5, 2010 1:01 AM
@ jethroconsultants:
Humans are social animals. Certain behaviors benefit the community, and thus benefit the individuals. Altruism, compassion, cooperation, sacrifice... all have been observed in other species. Have you heard of the Google?
And if YHWH is necessary for morality (yes, I know that's where you're going), would you care to explain the Code of Hammurabi, or Code of Ur-Nammu?
Also, could you, unlike your
brethrenilk, please refrain from conflating atheism and evolution? kthanxbye!Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 1:20 AM
The best way to explain this is with game theory. Sometimes cooperation between individuals can bring about greater reward than doing something on ones own. Think of pack animals, how if one animal were to hunt it would be a lot more unsuccessful, but in a group one gets less of a reward as it has to be shared around. But getting less more often might be better odds than going at it alone so working in groups.Thus given that there are advantages in working together (resource gathering, protection, etc.), it means that those who are willing to be cooperative will gain an advantage. Of course, blind cooperativity means that those who don't cooperate would take advantage of the work of others and the system would break down. So enter reciprocal altruism, or in game theory the "tit-for-tat" strategy. It's the most dominant and stable survival strategy as it gives the rewards of cooperation with others who cooperate, and doesn't lose out except to those who defect. So a stable strategy of working together emerges.
This kind of strategy can be seen in vampire bats, where bats that are unsuccessful in finding blood are given blood by those who were successful. This kind of act is "reciprocated" later on. Those who take but never give back are shunned and they eventually starve to death.
So how is it we evolved morality? Well firstly we are mammals and have mammory glands. By virtue of our genes, we are wired to sacrifice for children through which parents have a role beyond birth. By virtue of our genes too, we can understand kin selection. That we would have concern for those immediately around us because they would have similar genes that do the same. Our brains have evolved to be tribalistic, to live in groups of about 150 people. Modern day society poses a challenge, but this is where cultural evolution takes over.
Quite easily. Social creatures with big brains getting on with each other because there are benefits in numbers.Though I freely admit this has nothing to do with atheism, but where current science research is pointing. If you want a good account for how morality works, read The Science Of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer. I've heard Moral Minds by Marc Hauser is also a good account, but I have yet to read it. But either of those two books (plus others including The God Delusion) give an account of morality without needing to appeal to the supernatural.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 5, 2010 1:33 AM
@Kel:
Have you read What the Tortoise Said to Achilles?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 5, 2010 1:42 AM
Evolutionary epistomology. If we were not able to understand the reality of our world well enough to navigate around in it, in its many varying conditions, we would have died.
This also explains human failures of reason: those things that are true but counter-intuitive are not usually necessary to our immediate survival to be understood.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 2:42 AM
I have, yes. I have come across it before, and coincidentally again last night as I was reading Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid and came across the dialogue again in there. Though I've got to say I prefer Hofstadter's first dialogue.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 2:58 AM
Because I'm humanYes. Part of being evolved is surviving to pass on your genes to the next generations. Being able to operate within the environment you reside in gives an advantage. So we can explain not only how one gets an eye, but how a brain is able to process such images. Get a species that starts to gain advantage from complex hunting techniques and the use of tools, and from there is the grounds for more flexible brains that would be able to exploit the environment for whatever advantage that survives.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 4:39 AM
I wonder when all these questions that are put forth for us to explain are themselves going to be answered by those asking the questions. Do they actually have answers, I bet not. This is further confirmation that God is a substitute for human ignorance. How did we get morality? Turns out God did it. Don't need to ask anything more than that, do we? Which when you think about it for more than a nanosecond realises that "God did it" explains just as much as not answering at all.
Ignoring the fact that it's an argument from ignorance, just because there's no naturalistic way that we yet know, it doesn't mean that there's no naturalistic way to make it. It's a negative proof fallacy, or in other words an argument from ignorance. To highlight such ignorance, consider the following. 300 years ago when Newton wrote his laws of motion, he argued that natural laws couldn't account for the formation of solar systems. Therefore the motion describes the perfect system the Lord hath made. 300 years later, we have a pretty good idea how stars and planets form and that doesn't require a creator.
That is the problem of not actually coming up with a explanatory means of how things happen, you are never arguing for "God did it", you're always just arguing against whatever you feel contradicts "God did it". This is one reason why I find theism a vacuous enterprise, it pretends to explain everything and in reality explains nothing. Not satisfying at all...
So please, if you're going to ask "how do you explain X", please be sure to come up with a potential answer for yourself. Because if we can't explain, it doesn't revert to "God did it", it reverts to "we don't know". And no matter how long you spend arguing against naturalistic causes, you'll never prove the supernatural until you can actually demonstrate that the supernatural first exists and make meaningful predictions from that.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 5, 2010 4:44 AM
I'm thinking the reinstatement of registration has choked off the stream of Wieland-fan stragglers.
I doubt many will bide long enough to post here during the next easing.
One more thing: I suspect none of the W-fans bothered to read the comment thread before inserting their boilerplate concern into it.
Posted by: johnhei
|
January 5, 2010 6:21 AM
As someone who has facilitated public debates between noted Christian apologists and atheists, and leading creationists and evolutionists, I know all the signs and symptoms of someone who is fearful of engaging in such debates. And the high sounding rhetoric they employ to cover their tracks. P J Myers and Dawkins have all these symptoms, and more. They remind me of an atheist contender who made similar condescending remarks about his opponents, and had to be literally dragged into the debating arena, being physically sick prior to the debate, only to later declare how pleased he was that someone had finally agreed to debate him. Myers and Dawkins make a lot of noise, but I would suggest it’s all hot air. Sorry, someone had to say it!
Posted by: Josh
|
January 5, 2010 6:30 AM
Name three and list the events.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 5, 2010 6:36 AM
johnhei, your opinion is noted and laughed at.
Your stupid conflation of atheism and evolutionary science is also noted with due amusement.
PS Who is this P J Myers? :)
PPS you haven't read the comments on this post, have you?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 5, 2010 6:39 AM
Who?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 7:06 AM
johnhei, the only place to debate science is the peer reviewed scientific literature. It is open to those who use science and evidence. It is not open to those who require their imaginary deity to be responsible for everything, unless they provide conclusive physical evidence for said deity. Your side, the delusional fools, is the side lacking evidence. You cannot have a true scientific debate with facts and evidence, so you must resort to rhetorical tricks like the Gish Gallop in order to score points. You are scared and afraid to actually have to present real evidence to back up your inane religious based opinions. There is no need to debate idjits like yourself since you have nothing to debate. You are all empty blather, without substance. You could show some substance here and actually present your ideas with evidence to convince us you are worthwhile. Get to work.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 7:16 AM
Johnhei, as has been asked many times on this thread, why don't you want to have an evidence based debate?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2010 7:23 AM
Fixed
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 7:57 AM
J Morales: Your stupid conflation of atheism and evolutionary science is also noted with due amusement.
______
Since Johnhei equates evolution acceptance with atheism, does that mean that evangelical Christian and geneticist, Francis Collins, who accepts evolution as fact and solid scientific theory is really an atheist and does not know it?
Is Todd Wood, scientist and YECer, who does not deny the evidence for evolution and pleads/begs/implores his fellow YECers to stop insisting that the evidence is lacking for evolution is not really a YECer?
If you want to insist that your non-evidential beliefs are more important than evidence, than why not be intellectually honest and do so! But to lie and contort reality by stating that evolution is not backed with enormous evidence over many scientific fields is unethical.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 8:09 AM
Johnhei: As someone who has facilitated public debates between noted Christian apologists and atheists, and leading creationists and evolutionists, I know all the signs and symptoms of someone who is fearful of engaging in such debates.
______
Name those debates, please. If those atheists are so noted why don't you note them and give us their names?
And the high sounding rhetoric they employ to cover their tracks. P J Myers and Dawkins have all these symptoms, and more.
_______
Define rhetoric and then show quotes from Myers and Dawkins which would match this definition please.
They remind me of an atheist contender who made similar condescending remarks about his opponents, and had to be literally dragged into the debating arena, being physically sick prior to the debate, only to later declare how pleased he was that someone had finally agreed to debate him. Myers and Dawkins make a lot of noise, but I would suggest it’s all hot air.
_____
Please name this atheist contender. Until you do you are the one full of hot air.
Sorry, someone had to say it!
______
You are apologizing for something that you think is the truth? Why. I never apologize when I say the truth.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 8:23 AM
jethroconsultants: do your best!
_____
Why do you think we need encouragement to our best?
And fellow minions you did do your best. Well done (esp Kel)
The implication in jethroconsultants little phrase is that we can't do our best no matter how hard we try because we have no best. Instead of an encouragement, it is a taunt, plain and simple. Do these so-called ethical people have any idea how awful they come off?
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 8:28 AM
Johnhei: P J Myers and Dawkins have all these symptoms, and more.
______
I think you should make this into an elliptical deepity to capture its breathlessness as in:
P J Myers and Dawkins have all these symptoms, and more...
I hate when doofuses fail to fulfill their full doofusehood.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 8:38 AM
I am now caught up in this tread.
It is obvious that because these YECers are motivated by fear to believe in their garbage, they think that fear also plays a big part in our lives or that we would be embarrassed if we did feel fear. Breaking news, Yec dipshits, neither is true so your slimy approach slips on its own goo and goes nowhere.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 5, 2010 8:39 AM
If jethroconsultants is the jethroconsultants of jethroconsultants.com, then his best comes to:
IF jethroconsultants is instead the jethroconsultants of jethroconsulting.com, then his best comes to:
I'm guessing it's the first of these, but the second seems to focus on how churches can bill the government for providing counseling, so that's a possibility.
(Quite possibly, though, 'jethroconsultants' is a crank with no association to either company.)
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
January 5, 2010 10:12 AM
jethroconsultants@961 asks about the evolution of morality and reason.
I think what you really mean to ask about is the evolution of altruistic behavior. After all, if a behavior is moral, but brings personal benefit to us can easily be explained. It is behavior that benefits others at our expense--altruistic behavior--that poses a challenge for a mechanism in which passing individual genetic inheritance is the sole criterion for success.
Nonetheless, Darwin himself provided insight into the problem with regard to altruistic behavior in social insects. As long as the population is highly interrelated (as social insects are), altruistic behavioe will result in more of ones genetics being passed along if it is sufficiently beneficial to the population even if it means that the individual dies or otherwise fails to reproduce. William Hamilton subsequently worked out the math, and this is now a principle enshrined in biology. It has even been confirmed for some mammals (naked mole rats) that live in highly interrelated communities.
Now we face the question of why there is altruistic behavior among individuals who are not related. Here we need to remember that humans are social animals--our survival depends on our ability to cooperate with each other. Game theory studies with repeated trials of the Prisoner's dilemma (in which individuals get a reward for betraying the group but are subsequently punished by the group when the opportunity arises OR cooperate with the group and are rewarded with cooperation) reveal that altruistic behavior is a winning strategy that enhances both group and individual survival prospects. Given this understanding, you would expect similar behavior in other social animals such as other apes, dogs, etc.--and in fact we do find it.
Reasoning ability is merely a slightly more abstract version of the problem solving ability we can see in mammals and even reptiles. I wish people would exhibit it more.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:32 AM
I can only assume that johnhei got PZ Myers confused with PJ Soles.
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 5, 2010 12:22 PM
johnhei, your contention that we "evolutionists" don't argue from evidence is amply refuted by this thread itself.
Scan the almost 1000 posts in the thread, looking for links to scientific articles and books. Note both in-line explanations and the links posted to support them. You'll quickly see that we provide links to peer-reviewed scientific literature, or to popularizations that themselves contain links to primary sources. I myself have contributed more than 10, I believe.
Do the same for the YECs who have posted here.
Then come back and tell us again that we're afraid of evidence . . . if you're a big enough liar to risk it.
And let me point out once again, as several of my compatriots here have already done, that scientific debate takes place in the peer-reviewed literature, not in churches or lecture halls.
If you want educated people to take Young Earth Creationism seriously, you're going to have to DO the science and get in published in a peer-reviewed journal. Alas for you, the very few degreed scientists on your side have abandoned its practice and now engage entirely in public relations. Could it be they've recognized something you haven't: to wit, no science is ever going to confirm the creation myth of bronze-age goatherds?
Posted by: Dr. Jeff
|
January 5, 2010 1:20 PM
Of course the Atheists refuse to debate. Color it any way they choose, with high-sounding rhetoric, pseudo pedantry or any other device, but the truth is that they are as intellectually bankrupt as they are morally bankrupt. Posting an image like they have is proof positive of their sophomoric, philistine and cretinous mentality. They also bray about Young-Earth Creationists not publishing their work more often. When the blind and biased rule the journals and the grants, we see the type of medieval scholasticism shouting down any dissent in a fashion not unlike that involved with the propagation of the politically correct, but scientifically incorrect doctrine of Global Warming. Dissenting opinions are disallowed. Then the high-priests of the 'faith' point out, via clumsy circular-reasoning, that the opposing view is not represented in the literature. Of course not. It is not permitted by acclamation then that lack is trumpeted as 'proof' of the weakness of the opposite view.
If the Atheists are so smart, then let us hear in simple terms and with cogent details a general outline of pre-biotic evolution. RNA-World blithering and other such nonsense does not even come close to an explanation of the rise of life from non-living substance. There are plenty of other things that they cannot even begin to explain in any sort of substantiated detail, so they resort to stone-throwing, name-calling and other such juvenile tactics. I agree with one thing, it is indeed better that they don't debate with the Creationists. They lack the intellect and the honesty to engage in any sort of civilized debate to begin with, and don't need any more outlets for their nonsensical mythologies.
Let them keep their ball and play with themselves. Ultimately, they will be seen as the irrelevant ostriches that they are.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 1:27 PM
Jeff, methinks that your title of "Dr." is meant to be ironic.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
January 5, 2010 1:33 PM
Just chemistry, professor.
Can we quotemine this one, purrrleeeze?Posted by: DaveL
|
January 5, 2010 1:35 PM
This simply isn't so. Even when creationists set up their own journals, their actual scientific output is pathetically meagre. For example, here's a journal for ID set up by William Dembski - no activity since Nov 2005!
As for grants, there's no way the creationist movement can plead poverty. Its proponents set up their own museums. They charge for speaking engagements all across the country. They mount widespread political, legal, and media propaganda campaigns. They are not, in any sense, impoverished- they simply choose not to spend that money on doing science.
Posted by: Josh
|
January 5, 2010 1:37 PM
Okay, perhaps you should read this comment:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php#comment-2175680
If you have evidence that YEC research is being rejected for reasons that aren't valid (e.g., prejudice), then by all means, put it up. Journals which do this should be shamed. So, show us the journals which have done this.
And of course you have these numerous examples to show us, right?
Citations to papers falsifying AGW?
Examples?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 5, 2010 1:52 PM
For fucks sake, you idiot. Pre-biotic evolution occurred 3,500,000,000 years ago. That's so long ago that there is almost no physical evidence (e.g. rocks) left from back then. The end result was cellular life, the most complex phenomenon there is. And you want "simple terms and cogent details?" Yet you go on to dismiss current hypotheses on the subject as "blithering and nonsense"?
Science does not have the answer to every fucking question! In fact, the questions are multiplying much faster than the answers! Therefore "the Atheists" are "intellectually bankrupt"?
You suck. Fuck off.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 1:53 PM
Dr. (sure) Jeff, you are just another evidenceless blowhard. Funny how the blowhards complain about our attitude and prejudice, but when the time comes to actually present the evidence to back up their baseless accusations, they become MIA. They must know they are dishonest, but they can't bring themselves to acknowledge it. And it all starts with believing in an imaginary deity. Lie to yourself there, and it makes it very difficult to determine reality from fiction. Time for Dr. Jeff to put up or shut up. Welcome to science.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 5, 2010 2:02 PM
Jeff, allegedly a "Dr.":
Your hypocrisy and dishonesty are noted.
Everything you wrote about science was a lie.
Everything you wrote about YECs was a lie.
Therefore, you, like all Creationists, are a liar.
No.
It is not the case that YECs don't publish their work "more often", hatever that might mean. There are plenty of YEC webjournals and YEC websites, YEC books, and YEC "journals".
None of them count.
They don't count because they are not science.
They are not science because they are ideology-driven to reject science.
They proclaim their ideology in their webjournals and websites and books and "journals": If empirical evidence contradicts the Bible, then the empirical evidence is to be rejected and ignored.
The peer-reviewed scientific literature requires that all papers meet the standard of being based on empirical evidence.
No YEC writing meets this standard.
Therefore any YEC submission to a peer-reviewed science journal would be correctly rejected as not being based on empirical evidence.
Noting that YECs have nothing published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is not circular reasoning; it is noting that YEC does not meet the standard of conforming to empirical evidence.
Your hypocrisy is noted, liar.
LOL. Your projection is noted. One day, YECs will be as significant a minority as believers in a Flat Earth.
In the scientific world, they already are -- because science is not decided by any majority of mindless morons who reject that science from ideological bias, or by those mindless morons blathering and regurgitating nonsense and lies in "debate", but by the empirical evidence that YECs reject.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 2:30 PM
Dr Jeff
Personally, from the YEC's I'd like to hear in simple terms and cogent details a general outline of ANYTHING!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 3:27 PM
Atheists debate theists all the time. Again the dishonesty of the creationist is apparent. EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM. The majority of Christians support evolution, it's a false dichotomy to say you're either a young earth creationist or an atheist.As for dishonesty. Debates get us nowhere. Duane Gish has done the same slideshow for decades, he's been ripped apart by many scientists yet he still does the same presentation. Where's the honesty in that? Debating is not a format for deciding truth, it's a PR exercise to make it seem like there's a controversy when there isn't. Why aren't creationists fighting for their ideas in the academic arena? After all, in science that's what matters. Talk about intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy.
This is not about opinion, it's about fact. If you want to publish opinion, there are plenty of Post Modernism journals. In science, different hypothesises are put forward - some being radically distant. If science didn't allow any alternative interpretations, then why is it we have new ideas at all? Surely if science was dogmatic, then we would still all be young earth creationists. The fact that the scientific explanation has changed so radically in the last 400 years shows that your objection is nonsense. It's just that your cherished belief was discarded so you call it bankrupt. Meanwhile you sit on a computer that operates under the same laws of physics that show the universe to be billions of years old..."Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved" - Tim Minchin
Again, what does this have to do with atheism?!?Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2010 3:35 PM
Dr. Jeff
Here's your chance. Pick any 3 relevant creationist research projects that support creationism and point us to the science right now. Make sure they contain the relevant science shown in the work.
When you've done that, pick a few currently accepted evolutionary studies and show the science refuting them.
Go ahead.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 3:41 PM
Here you guys are, calling Dr. Jeff names and not pointing at any relevant work. Who would think that all of you were made of hot air.
How long before PZ closes this thread?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2010 3:46 PM
Here is the difference Dr. Jeff (if that is your real profession)
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, but when they come up with the best explanations for a given problem / question, they have empirically based support for their explanation.
Creationists claim to already have the answers to everything but have never been able to back up this assertion. It's all about supporting the predetermined conclusion that the bible is inerrant. If the creationists could start supporting their assertions with anything beyond unsuccessfully trying to poke holes in well supported science, creating strawmen of what science actually claims and outright denying easily repeatable science then maybe they'd be taken seriously.
So far that's just not the reality of the situation.
Science will continue to move forward working from a basis of empiricism and creationists will continue to stand still at the starting line suffering from a base of willful dishonesty, self and inflicted delusion and ignorance.
Bottom line, produce good testable science or stay relegated to the back of the line with the rest of the kooks.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 3:49 PM
Not too long I hope. Loading this thread on my old computer at work is positively glacial in speed.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 5, 2010 3:58 PM
Dr. Jeff #989
Paragraphs are your friends.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 4:01 PM
Dr. Jeff: Dissenting opinions are disallowed.
______
Opinions have no place in science. Science is not democracy. If it was, we would never have discovered all the wonderful things that you freeloaders enjoy, like computers, abundant food, medicine. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but they do not refute the fact and the scientific theory of evolution.
Dr. Jeff, why don't you debate Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian who is the geneticist at the head of the NIH and who embraces evolution fully and uses the fact and the scientific theory of evolution in his valuable work?
WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? I'll tell you what you are afraid up, if you have an evangelical Christian who accepts Evolution to represent your opponent, you will reveal to your sheeple that evolution is accepted by Christians and thusly has NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.
In addition, why not invite a fellow YECer who is a scientist also, a certain Todd Wood, who will tell your sheeple that the evidence for evolution is rock solid and that the only way not to look like immoral goons, is for you admit that and state clearly that you do not deny the evidence but you just have chosen to give more importance to religious beliefs.
You are confounding abiogenesis with evolution. And unsolved questions in abiogenesis does not refute the fact of evolution.
And why do you think your god will forgive you at judgment day for the lying that you do? He won't. Wow, what a concept. You will be so dissapointed, but I won't be. I am all prepared to happily be in hell for all eternity, and I will tell you right now I won't do any psychological counseling with you to help you through the ordeal because you don't deserve my expertise.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 4:02 PM
Whereas creationists don't explain anything in any detail, they just say "God did it - the way the bible says He did. End of story". That tells us precisely nothing and contradicts everything we have learnt from studying the natural world.The age of the earth is completely external to the question of life, as is the age of the universe. These have been derived from other methods, the evidence is pretty clear on both of these. The fossil record clearly shows the gradual time in which life arose on this planet, and the gradual time it diversified.
Yet a creationist asks questions like "how did life originate?" as if that question was central to evolution. All the different lines of evidence that clearly show evolution - and they think they can wave it all away with "how did it all begin?" How did plate tectonics begin? That the plates are moving now as an observation in modern and ancient rock isn't harmed by not knowing something - but the creationist thinks it a triumph. Because if you can't explain everything then they have a gap to put god in, and then proceed to squeeze god into gaps that were already filled.
Again, creationists aren't seeking to explain anything. Their entire enterprise is to reduce us to a non-explanation, because all they have is a non-explanation. How did God do anything? It doesn't matter, it just matters that it follows the mythic narrative taken from the Babylonians. Their whole argument is an argument towards an argument from ignorance. They see God as being indistinguishable from the null hypothesis. While not having an explanation for, say, the origin of life - scientists would say "we don't know" and then proceed to create experiments to find out, a creationist says "look you don't know, therefore it was God". Thus demonstrating that God is indistinguishable from a linguistic placeholder of the unknown, and demonstrating that they are aspiring to an argument from ignorance.
In effect they are setting their opponents an impossibly high burden of proof, and not setting any burden of proof for themselves. Liar creationists playing rhetorical games so that they can push their moral agenda in the guise of a non-answer. God truly is a substitute for human ignorance...
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 4:07 PM
Oh, Dr. Jeffypoopoo, Intelligent Design/YEC creationism did not get expelled, it flunked. The Dover Trial not only flunked your crapola, it show to the whole world in a big, publicized trial, that your side LIES.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 4:21 PM
Dr.Jeff: If the Atheists are so smart, then let us hear in simple terms and with cogent details a general outline of pre-biotic evolution.
____
Atheism has nothing to do with the study of abiogenesis, just like atheism has nothing to do with the fact and the scientific theory of evolution. And though we are certainly smart, our atheism will not shed any light on the scientific fields working together to ask the really important questions so we can deepen our understanding of nature.
I hope you are doing some penance for all that lying, Dr. Jeff! I would much rather have you go to heaven so us atheists won't have put up with your brain-dead banality and immorality for all eternity.
Posted by: Sane Guy
|
January 5, 2010 4:22 PM
the atheist "arguments" here all ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, hate speech, and altogether ignorant. It is near impossible to find any atheist actually deferring to scientific evidence to support their religion.
No wonder the leading atheists like Dawkins and this Myers guy are scared to debate scientists, because they would have to examine the evidence!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 5, 2010 4:27 PM
HAhahahahahahahahahaha!
here's an ad hominem for you, dude: You are an idiot. Oh, wait, no, that's a conclusion from evidence. Sorry.
btw, did you know that Dawkins and Myers are scientists? Who did you have in mind, Gish? Behe?
HAAAAAAhahahahahahaha
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 4:27 PM
I call poe... Because atheists don't have a religion by definition? Again, I call poe.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 5, 2010 4:27 PM
"Dr." Jeff #989
Let's see how we're doing on Creationist Bingo:
* Evolution = atheism.
* Atheists are morally bankrupt.
* You guys use naughty words.
* Evolution is a religion/mythology
* Evolution is dying
* Evolution's "high priests" stifle dissent.
Plus, as an extra, global warming is politically correct but not scientifically correct.
Anyone got Bingo?
Posted by: DaveL
|
January 5, 2010 4:27 PM
Interestingly enough, the end of argumentation in the Dover trial coincides neatly with the end of activity in Dembski's ID journal mentioned above.
Funny, that. It's almost as if the whole journal was just a piece of theater to lend a sciency look to the ID movement.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 4:29 PM
Dr. Jeff: but scientifically incorrect doctrine of Global Warming.
____
Global warming itself is not generally disputed, it is whether or not mankind is contributing to it that is subject of much spirited discussion. And even if that was true, that science was wrong about anything else besides evolution, those errors will never, ever refute the fact of evolution.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 4:31 PM
And what religion would that be? We don't believe in your, or anyone else's god. We have no god. We have no theology. We have no holy book. To say we do is a lie, and shows yourself to be an idjit. Note, since I am telling you why your are an idjit, it is not an ad hominem attack.Now, as for no evidence, exactly which of the million or so papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature that back evolution both directly and indirectly don't count? These papers are found in institutions of higher learning worldwide. And you are obviously ignorant of the content of even a small fraction of their contents. And you wonder why we consider you a liar and bullshitter?
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 4:34 PM
Anyone want to be that 'Sane Guy' hasn't read 10% of the comments on this thread?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2010 4:36 PM
Yet another person who doesn;t understand what and ad hominem is. Here fucking moron (not ad hominem) is the complete idiot's guide to ad hominem.
Ok gigantic weeping asshole (not an ad hominem), go here and refute all the papers regarding evolution.
Hows that for support, fuckface (again, not ad hominem)?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2010 4:39 PM
link failure there (along with typos)
Complete idiots guide to ad hominem
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 4:42 PM
Sane Guy: the atheist "arguments"
_____
Then refer to the CHRISTIAN EVANGELICAL, Francis Collins, who is not an atheist, but who accepts the fact and scientific theory of evolution and who is the geneticist at the head of the NIH to explain to you what we atheists are unable to do. Because evolution has nothing to do with either Christianity or atheism, it is a fact, just like gravity. Also, Leigh, a Christian who has posted in this thread, accepts evolution. Why would that be if the fact of evolution was an atheist perspective? Many atheists are not atheist because of evolution, but because of the lack of evidence for anything supernatural.
Sane Guy, should I burn a candle for you or if not is that sufficient from preventing from going to hell for your lying and not using the brain that the god in which you believe in gave you, then please suggest something else. I worry about your eternal soul.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 5, 2010 4:46 PM
rmp, I doubt 'sane guy' has read any comments; hasn't even noticed most comments relate to science vs. creationism, not atheism, or even that not all commenters are atheists!
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 4:51 PM
Sane guy: like Dawkins and this Myers guy are scared
____
There's that recurrent obsession with fear. These creotards are the ones who are shitting their pants in fear. They are god-FEARING after all.
Hey you creotards, are you praying enough, getting tithed enough, lying for Jebus, etc., so you can quell that rising fear in your cowardly bellies? No, then get down on your knees, and pray. Why are you wasting your time here? Your eternal souls are shriveling hanging out with the heathens!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 5, 2010 5:01 PM
Dawkins and Myers are both PhD biologists, i.e., scientists.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 5:04 PM
Dr. Jeff: They lack the intellect and the honesty to engage in any sort of civilized debate to begin with, and don't need any more outlets for their nonsensical mythologies.
____
How can a person with a decent vocabulary like you have do not know how to use paragraph breaks? Could it be that gaseous, vapid, piece of merde of a comment of yours was cut and pasted from some manual on how to manipulate via intellectual dishonesty any discussion on evolution?
Hilarious. I can't stop laughing with glee. after over 1000 comments, THEY REALLY DON'T WANT TO DEBATE.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 5, 2010 5:08 PM
PZ, this thread is becoming unwieldy, yet fresh meat still comes in.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 5:15 PM
And PZ, we are still ravenously hungry.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 5:34 PM
Wasn't much meat on the bones of the last couple. Just drop in, insult us and then leave. Not very satisfying.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 5, 2010 5:41 PM
The greasy stain of a run-on paragraph that Dr. Jeff left was extremely satisfying: After demanding a debate for hundreds of comments, they have relinquished.
WHAT COULD THEY BE AFRAID OF?
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 8:59 PM
Michelle, I think what they are afraid of is Reason. To deny the evidence for evolution you have to be willing to check your brain at the door. In fact it seems that they have absolutely no problem with that.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 5, 2010 9:26 PM
Apropos to this thread, Skewed views of science, by the most excellent QualiaSoup.
Posted by: Kenneth Higgs
|
January 5, 2010 9:30 PM
Mr Myers,
You are wrong and very misleading to say that creationists find science "bizarre". As you well know, creationists do not object to factual, objective science. What they find bizarre is your biased interpretation of evidence, existing in the present, to "prove" your faith about what may or may not have happened in the past. Yours is a blind faith about the past... a blind faith in naturalism and uniformitarianism as the only plausible explanation for past events and for the origin of all living things from non-living matter. I say "blind", because you refuse to allow for something outside of your preconceived naturalistic and atheistic framework of belief. Blind ... because you cannot accept the irreducible complexity of all living creatures as evidence of an intelligent designer and maker of these things. Blind ... because you ignore the many evolutionary scientists who lament the lack of any transitional life forms, which the religion of evolution says must exist. Blind... because you shut your eyes to the facts and the truth.
Please have the guts to confront your opponents in a live public debate. Or admit that your evolutionary ideas cannot stand up in the face of reasoning and debate.
Regards,
Kenneth Higgs
BCom DipIT
PS: (TO ALL THE NAME-CALLERS) Personal insults and name-calling are no substitute for rational, open, accountable public debate. Ask yourself: "What are PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins afraid of? Why don't they take this opportunity, in front of the whole world, to defend their particular view of origins and the past?"
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 9:34 PM
Mr Higgs, Please have the guts to confront your opponents in a evidence driven format. If not peer reviewed literature, I'd be ok with a jury format debate.Me thinks, you'll decline.
Please note the lack of name calling!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 9:35 PM
Then stop being irrational by telling lies about what is and what isn't science, to someone like myself who is a thirty plus year practitioner. Until you do, and debate where it should be done, in the peer reviewed scientific literature, you will be called the ignorant idjit you are, as you never present conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. So what else can you expect? We are waiting for you to produce your theory and evidence, and put it up to the proper scrutiny. Put up that evidence or shut the fuck up.Posted by: 007Jim
|
January 5, 2010 9:37 PM
I've read a few of the comments to this blog. As I understand it the invitation is to debate at an Atheist's conference in Australia. As far as reasoning that to "debate these creation nuts" only gives credibility to their delusions and that instead of debating they should go and do some "real science"... surely a conference is the appropriate place for such a debate to occur. And given that by far the majority of people at the conference will be atheists you can't accuse them of pandering to a dumb audience. I think it would be interesting.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 9:39 PM
007Jim, I'd agree if the format requires evidence and doesn't tolerate meaningless rhetoric.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 5, 2010 9:39 PM
Kenneth, how many of the comments on this post have you read? :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 9:41 PM
Jim, a couple of Aussie Pharyngulites are willing to debate. However, idjit Wieland is trying to get PZ for his (PZ's) name recognition. Typical. And they can't even present their case here.
Posted by: Kenneth Higgs
|
January 5, 2010 9:43 PM
I repeat ... What are Myers and Dawkins AFRAID of?? Surely, if their faith in evolution is real and soundly-based, then they would consider it their civic duty to assuage us poor ignorant cretins of our error. Come on PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, show us what your evolution theory is made of. As the saying goes.. PUT UP or SHUT UP!
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 5, 2010 9:44 PM
007Jim, why should atheists debate creationism?
Surely they should debate the evidence that a deity exists!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 9:44 PM
Again, this is the dishonesty of creationism. This debate is not about settling science, it's about using the status of well known atheists to make it seem like Creation is on a par. Why is it in debates that Creationists will pull out the same tired disproved rhetoric time and time again? Why is it creationists will use the public arena among people who are uninformed instead of fighting for their ideas in academia? Surely that constitutes running scared.In other words, you're advocating a debate to put your non-science and the science on a par in front of an audience who wouldn't know the difference. Is there anything more dishonest than that? Should modern astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists have the veracity of their ideas decided by pitting them against people who say "The bible says the earth is the centre of the universe"?
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 5, 2010 9:45 PM
Humm... let me guess what PZ and Richard are afraid of... laughing at you gawdist trolls until they wet their pants?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 5, 2010 9:47 PM
Evolution requires no faith. It just happens like heliocentrism. Furthermore, we've already put up (learn to read the thread before you comment), but you still fail to do so. Is stupidity some type of reassurance to you creationists?
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 5, 2010 9:48 PM
Kenneth, I repeat: what are YOU afraid of?
cf. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/a_sudden_influx_of_young_earth.php#comment-2185312
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2010 9:50 PM
No that is precisely what they do.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 9:51 PM
Kenneth, I ask again, what are you afraid of? Is an evidence driven debate out of the question?
Again, please note the lack of name calling.
(that's 2)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 9:53 PM
Of course, if you don't care about the celebrity of your opponent, a few commenters on this blog who will be down in Melbourne have been willing to take up the offer. So what do you say, can you support the notion of three regular joe atheists in the debate? The offer is there... After all, what are you creationists afraid of?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 5, 2010 9:55 PM
All a debate does is show who is a better debater. As Dawkins said about Ray "Banana Man" Comfort's challenge to debate creationism: "That would look rather good on your CV, not so good on mine."
The "invitation" was by a creationist wackaloon* who decided to invite himself and some of his fellow idiots to debate two prominent atheist biologists. The invitation has been declined. Now the creationist wackaloons need to stop whining because nobody wants to play with them.
*Sorry about being repetitiously redundant.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 9:55 PM
Kenneth Higgs, Richard Dawkins has a new book about evolution out called The Greatest Show On Earth. Write a book that refutes what Professor Dawkins has written. Many theists built a cottage industry out of writing response books to Professor Dawkins' previous book. There is nothing to stop you from writing your own book. If you can refute him, you will have achieved your goals. While you are it, also refute Your Inner Fish and Why Evolution Is True.
Kenneth Higgs, you do not need a public debate to bring evolution down. All you need to do is refute the written record and put in place a better theory. There is no one stopping you.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 9:56 PM
Kel, please don't me re-read the 1044 posts. Who's going/willing?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 9:58 PM
What are you afraid of? The peer reviewed literature, with a million or so papers that supports evolution, both directly and indirectly, awaits your ignorance...And so far, nothing from the idjit creobots. Not even a bad attempt to show physical evidence for your imaginary deity. What a bunch of losers.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 10:02 PM
Exactly. There are willing debaters on here, yet it doesn't seem that we'll be able to get the chance. WHAT ARE CREATIONISTS AFRAID OF? Heck, creationists can't even argue their case scientifically on here...Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 5, 2010 10:05 PM
Kenneth Higgs and Jim007 - since you must be well-versed in the relevant sciences, please feel free to point out to us precisely which creationist findings demonstrate flaws in evolutionary theory - and/or which aspect of the theory of evolution fails to explain the diversity of life on our planet.
I'd really like to hear what you've got to say, and I'm sure the other posters here do to.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 10:09 PM
I was just thinking about asking Kenneth if he'd agree to a debate on a fresh thread if all the pharyngulites promised to provide a 24 hour insult free zone. We could let them start first but of course they'd have to promise that for 24 hours their arguments would be evidence driven.
It would be an empty thread!
Posted by: steve
|
January 5, 2010 10:10 PM
I must say, I have been quite surprised by the level of vulgarity and ignorance displayed by many of the contributors to this forum. I would have thought that some tolerance and decency might have prevailed among people who claim an enlightened viewpoint; how far many of you fail. Despite much of your filth I do need to provide some actual facts to relieve you of some of your ignorance, if that is not to confronting or inconvenient for many of you.
Firstly your outrageous personal criticism of the intellect of creationists you don't know anything about. Carl Weiland who offered the invitation to debate the atheists at the conference is a doctor with degrees in medicine and surgery.
His colleague Dr Jonathan Sarfati has a PhD in physical chemistry. Jonathan is also an accomplished chess player and is a former New Zealand Chess Champion, representing New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads (and drew with Boris Spassky, world champion 1969-1972). In 1988, the International Chess Federation awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM). For the fun of it, he regularly accepts challenges from multiple players while he is blindfolded. He then plays from memory with up to 12 players simultaneously.
In fact of the 13 Australian CMI (creation ministries international) speakers 10 have doctorates in fields such as engineering, plant physiology, geology etc. Only ignorant fools could claim they are ignorant or foolish.
In terms of published peer reviewed papers go to Journal of Creation, and review to your hearts content.
Sorry to be scientific at this web site but can any evolutionist answer a few of my serious questions? (Or will I just be vilified?)
How did the first replicating bacteria type life form came about? It seems to me you have a theory without a beginning.
If DNA mutates it degrades (there might be a change or loss in genetic information but not a gain), therefore, where did the new genetic information come from to grow scales, fur, internal organs, eyes etc?
At what stage, how could it slowly occur and how is it advantageous for species to start being male and female to reproduce?
And finally, are these unscientific unreasonable questions for an evolutionary scientist to debate?
Yes or no?
If it is not to offensive to continue with some further facts and resources read Professor Antony Flew's latest book, ‘There is a God’. For decades this atheist wrote and debated against creationists and has now become a theist. He said "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." Surely his scientific journey is of interest to the open minded.
Professor Paul Davies an Australian theoretical physicist, now teaching in the US, who posits God as one of 5 theories to explain the universe.
John Lennox an Oxford professor of maths and philosophy of science has debated Dawkins several times and written several books.
The 'Expelled' documentary is humorous and scary but may explain the sad behaviour of many atheists. Obviously all can be googled FYI.
Finally there is the creation.com web site with a host of lay/scientific articles all comprehensively referenced.
I am sorry if some facts, questions and further references offend many of you with a supposed scientific interest. You may not want information to get in the way of you enjoying your ignorant prejudice but in the interests of objective science I thought it responsible to provide you with some facts. What you broad, open minded, balanced people will now do with it, will speak volumes of your scientific sincerity and objectivity. I dare you to have a look, but you guys run from a debate so you will probably run from information. But as you do, please drop any notion of you holding a genuinely scientific position if it does not even consider a counter thesis.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 10:14 PM
Steve, please note that I've not called you or Kenneth any names. That being said, would you please read the thread. Is that too much to ask?
Thats 1.
Posted by: Kenneth Higgs
|
January 5, 2010 10:15 PM
This blog page is headed: "a reply to Carl Wieland", and the lead article engages in personal insults and childish ridicule to justify why PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins refuse to openly debate the very creationists (including many very qualified and accomplished scientists) whom they are persistently contradicting and ridiculing in their books and talks. Myers and Dawkins make an art form of perjorative statements and ridicule against Christians, particularly young earth creationists, so it seems quite reasonable and fair and democratic to me that they should have the guts and conviction of their faith to accept a request for a public debate. (PS: In response to the strange challenges to me personally, I am no more claiming to be a qualified scientist than any of the other bloggers on this site, so I am not the one whom Myers and Dawkins need to debate. The issue is what are Myers and Dawkins afraid of ??)
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 10:16 PM
BTW Steve, any of those folks you mentioned biologists?
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 10:20 PM
No Kenneth. The issue is why won't your side use an evidence driven format? You refuse to answer.
That's 3.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:22 PM
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 5, 2010 10:23 PM
Please provide evidence to support your claim that either (or both) Myers and Dawkins are afraid to debate creationists. Here's a hint: your repeated assertions that that's why...isn't evidence.
Just like your continued assertion that your god exists isn't evidence.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
January 5, 2010 10:24 PM
Duplications increase the information content of the genome. Therefore, your initial premise is false.
Sexual reproduction evolved in single-celled organisms. Single locus genetic changes that created mating types, individuals with a limited range of possible mates, but otherwise morphologically indistinguishable, would have been the early precursors to a male/female distinction. The best explanation for the advantage of sexual reproduction is that it creates rapid genetic variation that protects progeny from parasites and disease.
They are very basic questions. The answers can be found in any elementary textbook. So yes, they are an unreasonable foundation for someone to use to claim that evolutionary theory is invalid, since they indicate that the claimant is an arrogant, ignorant ass.
Students who ask such questions, of course, are trying to correct an ignorance of which they are aware, and are therefore doing something quite reasonable. You are not.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 5, 2010 10:25 PM
They are perfectly legitimate scientific questions, though really hard to answer for various (but mostly obvious) reasons, which is why all of them have been discussed at almost stupefying length by scientists, in the vast and exponentially growing scientific literature.
But you know nothing of these decades of thought and work, and neither does anybody who is likely to show up for a public "debate." Do you really think you can pose these questions as if nobody has ever thought about them from a scientific viewpoint? Do you really think a 2-hour "debate" is a venue conducive to catching everybody up on even the background information necessary to start thinking about such questions in contemporary scientific terms?
Ignorance. You are ignorant.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:26 PM
Again, for the umteenth time you illiterate creobots, the debate should be held in the peer reviewed scientific literature. BAWK, BAWK, BAWK. What are you afraid of? BAWK BAWK BAWK. The creobots are quaking in their underwear (or worse) at the thought of actually having to present scientific, rather than religious, evidence. Which is why their idea of public debate is stooopid. Religion cannot refute science. But religious rhetoric can make is sound like they can. Why not a jury trial, where one must prove that the evidence is worthy to a judge (a real scientist) before it can be presented? Again, that will take away rhetorical tricks. There goes the dirty underwear again...Posted by: PZ Myers
|
January 5, 2010 10:28 PM
By the way, we're very familiar with Expelled (I recommend you read Expelled Exposed) around here. I'm in it.
You mean you didn't notice?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:28 PM
Kenneth, you stupid sack of toxic sludge, if you can refute Myers and Dawkins, write a fucking book. If you can refute them, you will have a book even more shattering than On The Origins Of Species. Or is this concept just to difficult for you to understand?
Dumb fuck!
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 10:30 PM
oh great, now you pissed off the big dog. You got your answers from PZ himself. Now grow up and ask something intelligent or go away.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 10:30 PM
See, this is the bullshit dishonesty that comes from creationists. Again, it's a complaint about tone. Nevermind that every and any claim that has been made has at least one person giving a scientific explanation, those are ignored. The questions have been asked many times before, upthread. But I'll answer them anyway.
So by that reckoning, plate tectonics is useless because one cannot explain how the earth formed? Or better yet that atomic theory is useless because one cannot explain how the universe formed? No, it doesn't work like that. The question of abiogenesis is a separate question to how life evolved over time. That the fossil record shows that life came about gradually through the ages and has changed over time, how the genetic code shows markers that demonstrate common ancestry - just a couple of the many different lines of evidence (let alone the evidence within those lines) clearly demonstrate that evolution has occurred.So while it would be nice to have a complete model of abiogenesis for completeness sake, the question of how life started doesn't change that the evidence points to life evolving.
As for how the first cell formed? There currently isn't a complete answer, but there is work being done on the field. If you can, google Iron Sulphur Theory, RNA World Hypothesis, and "white smokers"
Selection. Randomness + selection = information. Potentially exponentially increasing population with a finite quantity of resources. Most organisms will die, so anything that can infer even the slightest advantage in the ability to find food, shelter, a mate, stave off predators, etc. will quickly spread through future generations. Over time these mutations accumulate and you have features.From all accounts, back in single-celled Eukaryotic species. Of course not, but these already are debated in academia - by knowledgable people who understand the theories and the reseach. Who do experiments and try to convince others that they have something new. The place not to do this is in a public arena with people who don't know much about the science and reject the very premises for non-scientific reasons. It would be a stretch to pretend that actual science is done by debating people who reject the most fundamental and well-supported theories in science today. The age of the universe is well established, the age of the earth is well established, that we evolved is well established. Why should those who reject it out of ideology get a podium to put their dogma as an equal to science that has survived rigorous peer review?
Posted by: Kenneth Higgs
|
January 5, 2010 10:32 PM
It speaks volumes about the supposed intellect of evolutionists, that their defenders on this page continually resort to foul language, name-calling and personal insults to avoid answering the question that the world wants an answer to:
Why won't Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers accept a legitimate challenge to a rational debate about Creation vs Evolution?? What are they afraid of??
The world is waiting for an answer!
(RMP: it is not about you or me, mate. It's abotu PZM and RD doing the right thing!)
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 5, 2010 10:33 PM
Steve: Regarding your questions, falsifiable hypotheses have been put forth to explain every one of them. Volumes have been written explaining progress in testing these hypotheses. The scientific literature is replete with answers to these questions, and assessments of the uncertainty of those answers. I teach an honors course in which college undergraduates are charged with finding the answers to deep evolutionary questions, and reporting the state of the science--many of them do this with aplomb. That your champion New Zealand chess-boxer/physical chemist can't find the answers to these questions is nothing short of incredible. So incredible, in fact, that I supect deceit.
Scientists debate these all the time. If you want a good primer, Nick Lane's "Life Ascending" is an enjoyable synopsis of the state of modern scientific knowledge on these questions, that a layman could easily learn from. You should read it.
Let me put the question back to you. What testable hypotheses have creationists asserted to answer these questions?
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
January 5, 2010 10:34 PM
Kenneth Higgs, if an obscure neo-Nazi challenged you to a debate on the merits of Nazism, would you bother to accept the invitation?
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 10:35 PM
Kenneth, why is a rhetoric driven format the right thing? Why not evidence driven?
That's 4 (a bonus for using the word mate, made me think of Shrimp on the barby)
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:37 PM
Kenneth, this speaks nothing about Myers, Dawkins or any other biologist in the world. This speaks about your own bloody mindedness. There is nothing stopping your allies from writing a book that refutes evolution. Well, nothing but reality.
Dumb fuck!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:38 PM
What part of debating an ignorant creabot is an IRRATIONAL DEBATE, since crebots aren't rational, don't you understand? They are delusional fools who believe in imaginary deities. In other words, known liars and bullshitters.Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 5, 2010 10:42 PM
You are being insipid Kenneth.
First, Kel already offered to debate you. Why do you want to debate celebrities like PZ or RD when plenty of other "evolutionists" are willing.
Second, a debate with most creationist is useless. They don't bring out evidence, they spew unsupported lies that becomes so tedious that we may as well make a recording of it and debate against the recording.
Third, why does it matter what tone we take on?
Is "2+2=4" any more factually different from "2+2=4, you dumbass turd"?
Posted by: Joffan
|
January 5, 2010 10:43 PM
Show me a creationist who can give a proper definition of evolution, and stick to it consistently, and you might have a chance at estabilshing the possibiliity of a rational debate.
Until then, the evidence is that any debate on evolution with a creationist will be as far from rational as it is posssible to imagine.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 5, 2010 10:44 PM
Duh, because no legitimate challenge has been presented. For a scientific claim to be legitimate, it has to be science - and creationism isn't science. It's like asking martial arts to debate philosophy.
Of course you always show where I'm wrong and list those aspects of creationism which are scientifically based.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 10:47 PM
I'm going to steal that.Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:48 PM
Gyeong, don't be such a damned fool. I prefer fucking two plus a goddamned two shits out a mother fucking four.
Am I understood?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 5, 2010 10:53 PM
It speaks volume that you continue to focus on the language and ignore all the substance. That you whine about having a theatrical public debate rather than offer any arguments says much as well.
'In general, however, Dawkins has followed the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould and refused to participate in formal debates with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" they crave. He suggests that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins#Criticism_of_creationism
Posted by: steve
|
January 5, 2010 10:54 PM
Janine (She Wolf?)I don't know what you are trying to compensate for; perhaps you inability to read and understand the point that I obviously made. For you my foul mouthed dear, I will make again "Only ignorant fools could claim they are ignorant or foolish."
Try answering some of my questions Janine instead of personal attack. All must be a bit too hard to debate science.
To rmp pleasure to discuss with you. Yes, in answering your question several do have PhD's in biology. Dr Rob Carter US office PhD Marine Biology; Dr Pierre Jelstom PhD Molecular Biology. Other closely related qualifications are Dr Don Batten and DR David Catchpool with PhD's in Plant Physiology; Dr Stephen Grocott PhD in Organomattalic Chemistry; Two more have PhD's in Zoology. For many more qualifications see creation.com - About us.
Can any of you scientific atheists answer my questions above? If not keep running, keep hiding but try and stop foul mouth abuse.
Posted by: Kenneth Higgs
|
January 5, 2010 10:55 PM
In reply to Janine, you may care to read Refuting Evolution by Dr Jonathan Sarfati. It contains many substantial rational scientific evidence-based arguments (rmp please note) against the THEORY of evolution.
You can even read it online at: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-1/
In reply to Nerd (I don't think you are), it is not reasonable and democratic to pre-judge your opponents as "ignorant" or "irrational", just because you disagree with them. In fact is demeaning all of us who frequent this blog page. knowledge is advanced by respectful exchange of views in a free and open debate, not by persecuting or belittling your opponent.
Furthermore, if you visit http://creation.com/ you will have access to many peer-reviewed, rational, scientific articles and examples of the evidence for special creation and against the concept of evolution.
Let's try to have a calm reasonable discussion on this blog page. Regards, Ken.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 10:57 PM
OK, time for me to go home and watch the Daily Show. Which reminds me, if you haven't seen last nights 'religious' episode regarding Tiger Woods, you've GOT to see it.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-4-2010/the-best-f--king-news-team-ever---tiger-woods--faith
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 5, 2010 10:57 PM
Why won't Kenneth Higgs debate Gene Ray, or Dr. Gene Ray - Cubic and Wisest Human as he prefers to be called, on the merits of Time Cube? What is this Higgs bozo afraid of? I think everyone here would like to see Higgs and Dr. Gene Ray - Cubic and Wisest Human debate on stage as equals.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:59 PM
Your questions were answered. You obviously didn't look. How about you answer a question. Do you have any physical evidence for your imaginary deity, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin? If so, present it here and now. If not, fuck off, as you don't even have the starting point for a scientific argument for creationism, as you have no deity. An eternally burning bush is a good start...Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 5, 2010 10:59 PM
Notice that none of these guys ever propose a library as a venue of debate.
Steve: If DNA mutates it degrades (there might be a change or loss in genetic information but not a gain), therefore, where did the new genetic information come from to grow scales, fur, internal organs, eyes etc?
Me: [Quick ISI search on "gene duplication" AND "diversification"] Hey! 405 peer-reviewed papers on this one. Steve, read these and get back to me with any questions you might have...on second thought, maybe we should begin with a genetics text book. And a dictionary. Let me just rustle up some crayons and construction paper here.
Sure. You can go pee-pee before we begin.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 5, 2010 10:59 PM
Well now I am jealous.
Janine, Master of Foul Mouth Abuse.
Whaaa! *stamping ruby slippers*
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 11:00 PM
Steve, are the people you listed YEC or theists that meld their religious beliefs with their scientific training?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 5, 2010 11:01 PM
Shhh, NOR! It's not true if they don't see it. lol
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 5, 2010 11:05 PM
Once again, Steve. Try reading a book. I recommended one. An easy one. It is teeeediousss to write answers to these questions over and over and over again. Shit. Not much of a reader? You have the intertubz at your command.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 5, 2010 11:07 PM
"But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." - Matthew 5:22
_ _ _
Also, let's see if steve actually responds to the science PZ gave him @ #1059.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 11:07 PM
Steve, you ignorant asshole, many people here have gave examples and pointed you to evidence. You choose to ignore it all. You are the dumb fuck that was going off about how one of your guys was such a fucking great chess player. Guess what! That means jack shit! And fuck you if you cannot read the thousand plus comments just on this site. Nevermind reading Your Inner Fish, Why Evolution Is True or The Greatest Show On Earth. Fuck you if you cannot take the time to learn for yourself.
One last thing, you bottom of the barrow reject; your arrogance is much more rude than my profanity. Fuck you!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 5, 2010 11:07 PM
Mistress of Foul Mouth Abuse sounds just plain naughty...
Steve, I would like to see your evidence as well. Produce living or fossil evidence for the biblical creatures dragons and/or unicorns. Thank you.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 5, 2010 11:13 PM
This is why creationists get abuse hurled their way. Your questions have been answered scientifically several times. Yet you ask for them to be answered again apparently without even bothering to check whether they have been, in fact, answered. This is nothing but dishonesty.Posted by: Kenneth Higgs
|
January 5, 2010 11:14 PM
Recommended reading for all scientific thinkers:
Refuting Evolution by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 5, 2010 11:15 PM
Gottcha! Two plus two equals
fivefour.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 5, 2010 11:17 PM
Why do you ignoring the fact that evolution ≠ atheism? There are plenty of Christians who accept the fact of evolution. Try contacting Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins to get them to explain to you that one can believe in the Christian god and not have to lie about science to do so.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2010 11:20 PM
Sorry, idjit Higgs, that isn't the peer reviewed scientific literature, which is the only place where evolution can be refuted. Any fool can write a book based upon nonsense. I believe they call that fiction. Just like your babble. Provide the physical evidence that your imaginary deity exists and your babble isn't a work of myth/fiction. Until you do, you have nothing. Just another Liar for Jebus™, losing the comparison to the doorknob on intelligence.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 11:27 PM
Kenneth, I've given you a bonus of waiting until after 4 of your posts before I used a naughty word. But I've reached my limit. You refuse to agree to an evidence based process so just STFU.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 5, 2010 11:28 PM
I think we need a new thread for these asshats, PZ. This one's getting all tatty.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 5, 2010 11:33 PM
If that were true, no creationist would have any problem with the factual, objective science of evolution.
In fact, there's at least one creationist who does not.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html
Explain how factual, objective science can reject naturalism and still work, O Doctor of Thinkology.
Then why are there theistic evolutionary biologists, O Doctor of Thinkology?
Except that theistic evolutionary biologists agree that there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" that is evidence of an intelligent designer, O Doctor of Thinkology.
Except that theistic palaeontologists agree that there are indeed transitional life forms, O Doctor of Thinkology.
Why do you not know that evolution is a fact and a truthful scientific theory that is also accepted by God-believing biologists, O Doctor of Thinkology?
Are you eyes closed and your fingers in your ears?
Please have the guts to acknowledge that truth is not decided by public debate, but by empirical evidence, or admit that evolution is a theory and a fact.
Posted by: Kenneth Higgs
|
January 5, 2010 11:45 PM
If the irreducible complexity of every living thing speaks of masterful design by a very intelligent being, then why is it not reasonable to believe in creation?
If you deny the creator, then you must believe that everything made itself, and that this must have been the result of completely mindless
accidental chance.
Of course, you also have to believe in the supposed millions and billions of years concept (which changes with the weather). Which is why you might need to review these 101 evidences.
Science and physical evidence actually contradict evolution, which is really the religion of naturalism first devised by ancient superstitious Greek philosophers, and plagiarised by Erasmus Darwin (Chuckie's grandfather), long before the THEORY of evolution was written up by CD.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 11:48 PM
Kenneth, are you arguing as a theist ID type or a YEC person?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 5, 2010 11:49 PM
If nothing can exist without a creator, who (or what) created the creator?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 11:50 PM
I was not looking for it but I just got a new nickname.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 5, 2010 11:50 PM
Irreducible complexity is an unsupported ID claim and therefore can not be any sort of evidence for anything let alone a creator. (which creator by the way)
That link you provides has now peer reviewed source what a surprise. They only reason that you can't fathom the existence of billions of years is purely based on religious dogma and not science.
Posted by: rmp
|
January 5, 2010 11:51 PM
Oh, and Kenneth, unless you want to be known as a 'Gish Galloper' (sp?), could you please pick your best 3 out of 101?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 5, 2010 11:53 PM
That should be "no" not "now." My mistake.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 5, 2010 11:59 PM
Shocked, I am shocked to see that Kenneth is a YEC.
Here is one of the 101.
My forehead is going to destroy my keyboard.
BASH!
CRASH!
SMASH!
Dammit, I have blood flowing into my eyes.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 6, 2010 12:02 AM
Higgs Bozo,
WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE DR. GENE RAY CUBIC AND WISEST HUMAN? If Time Cube is obviously wrong why won't you put the matter to rest once and for all? Publicly debate Gene Ray merely because I ask you to!
Posted by: rmp
|
January 6, 2010 12:03 AM
I refuse to look at all 101 at the same time for fear of going blind. I'm wondering if Kenneth will pick the top 3? I figure we can handle that much without severe mental damage.
ooops, That was a rather insulting comment on my part. my bad.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 6, 2010 12:03 AM
Janine - Ahh, you wear it well. (Said in Rod Stewert voice)
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 6, 2010 12:06 AM
And what of the ignorance you display?
And Creationists, for the most part, fail in having the decency to be honest, despite supposedly having the "enlightened" viewpoint that there is a God that commands people to not bear false witness.
There is another option, though: that those that are not ignorant fools are liars. And it is wise and proper to call liars the liars that they are.
No. As I pointed out above, it is not enough for papers to be reviewed by a peerage of fools and/or liars. A scientific paper must be based on empirical evidence, and is reviewed by peers who are experts in the empirical-evidence-based science being written about. Creationist journals reject empirical evidence, therefore, they are not acceptable as science journals.
End of story.
Do you actually care about the answers?
How about if you are vilified AND answered?
This is an open question. Bacteria, like all life, is made of chemicals, and the investigations are being made into the complex chemical reactions that lead to life, and chemical complexes that have certain traits in common with life.
Biological evolution doesn't require a beginning, any more than gravity or chemistry do. Do you need to know exactly who your great-great-great grandparents were in order to know that you have parents?
If DNA mutates, it changes. Calling it "degradation" is an implicit lie; a strawman fallacy about genetics.
Genetic duplication and variation.
Even bacteria and viruses swap genetic information.
Flew does not deny evolution, and does deny Christianity.
Assuming the quote is even accurate, I note that it is an argument from incredulity and ignorance of biochemical investigations into abiogenesis.
LOL. One of five?
I listened to the Lennox-Dawkins debate. For someone so intelligent, Lennox made some appallingly peurile arguments for Christianity.
I note that John Lennox does not deny evolution.
And filled with lies.
A host of lies, you mean.
Any new theory must explain the empirical evidence better than all current scientific theories. Creationism fails to do so, therefore it is not a valid scientific "counter-thesis".
Posted by: E.V.
|
January 6, 2010 12:13 AM
Jeebus-fucking-Christ. You people wrote naughty words and have offended these idiotic tight-ass troll douche nozzles. Consider their pearls duly clutched in lieu of a rational and sane rebuttal.
As usual they are TSTKTS and priggish.
Carry on.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 6, 2010 12:15 AM
Patricia, as long as it is Faces era Rod, it is all good. I have post this song a couple of times already, but damn, it is so good! If you have not done so, get a copy of Five Guys Walk Into A Bar....
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 6, 2010 12:27 AM
Because we have no evidence of a designer, irreducible complexity can evolve [Muller (1918)], and any intelligent being as we know it is sufficiently complex (an intelligent mind is a complex mind) so it wouldn't actually explain anything. A watch may imply a watchmaker, but a watchmaker doesn't exist ex nihilo.Besides, if I want myself a dog I don't pray. I get two dogs to have sex and get the resulting puppy. That's the problem of creation, how I get a dog is from its parents - not from an intelligent agent. Dogs may or may not know that sex leads to puppies, but puppies are the result of sex. And so it goes back to the first sexually replicating organisms.
In other words, you're invoking a break in the way that we know the structure of life to come about in order to explain it. That's quite absurd really. We know that the next generation comes from a previous generation, and evolution can explain that back to the first digitally- replicating cell. Creationism breaks that, and for what?
Bzzt, wrong. Stars and planets form not by chance, but by the gravitational collapse of atoms. Not an accident, not chance, but blind procedure. Similarly evolution doesn't work by chance, selection is the opposite of chance. It is mindless, but it is no accident. This is the problem of creationism, they think that evolution should fit into their god-shaped hole. Where it doesn't do that at all, evolution is a strange inversion of reasoning, and it has the added advantage of being supported by the evidence. What do you mean "concept"? The age of the earth / solar system is pretty well established by multiple dating techniques and multiple lines of evidence. As for the universe itself, we've seen objects billions of light years away. Ergo, the universe is billions of years old. Nope, wrong. Nothing in biology contradicts evolution, nothing found in any field of inquiry contradicts evolution. There's a reason why evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology - "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". And that's not an atheist who said that, but a theist and amateur theologian. (who also happened to be one of the 20th century's leading biologists)Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 6, 2010 12:31 AM
Because the premise of your hypothetical is false.
Everything is the way it is because it got that way over time.
So what?
The age of the universe is given better estimates with better data, i.e. evidence.
101 lies and fallacious arguments and apologetics, you mean.
This is either a moronic assertion or a blatant lie.
Naturalism is not a religion, moron..
Naturalism is the opposite of superstition, moron.
It was only "plagiarism" if Christianity "plagiarised" pagan religions and Judaism.
Yes. So what?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 6, 2010 12:37 AM
PS: You might need to review Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 6, 2010 12:41 AM
Thank you. We appreciate your support, and if you continue to post your stupidity we will aspire to raise our level of vulgarity in accordance. May you be sodomized by a rabid leatherback turtle.
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 6, 2010 12:54 AM
Well, Steve, I went over to have a look of at the CVs on the folks at creation.com. As far as I can tell, only Pierre Jerlström has published much; he seems to have stopped, however, in the mid-nineties. You have an electrical engineer who seems to have done interesting work in satellite technology, Mark Harwood, but he's done nothing in biology, paleontology, or genetics.
Let me quote here from my own earlier post:
And let me point out once again, as several of my compatriots here have already done, that scientific debate takes place in the peer-reviewed literature, not in churches or lecture halls.
If you want educated people to take Young Earth Creationism seriously, you're going to have to DO the science and get in published in a peer-reviewed journal. Alas for you, the very few degreed scientists on your side have abandoned its practice and now engage entirely in public relations. Could it be they've recognized something you haven't: to wit, no science is ever going to confirm the creation myth of bronze-age goatherds?
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 6, 2010 1:12 AM
And let me take off my science enthusiast hat and point out that, far from being an atheist, I am a devout Christian, and therefore qualified to attack your theology, which is at least as bad, if not worse, than your science.
It's apparent that your notion of Biblical heurmaneutics rests solely on the doctrine of inerrancy. So that's one strike against you, as no rational person who knows anything about the Bible, either in terms of its content or its history, can hold this doctrine without copious amounts of intellectual self-deceit.
Having thus blithely dismissed the literary genres of the works in question, you go on to deliberately misconstrue passages that are clearly metaphorical (or devotional poetry, or philosophic treatises, or apocalyptic literature), mutilating your understanding by a one-size-fits-all eisegesis that shreds the Word and makes it into an object of derision.
That enormity still not satisfying your need to distort and diminish God's message to humanity, you go on to blatantly lie about the whole: about the Bible itself, about the science, and certainly about the undeniable fact that the majority of the members of the Body of Christ think you're kooks and cranks who spit on direct knowledge of God's creation in favor of your flawed and disproven Biblical interpretation.
Really, is there NOTHING you won't do to bring dishonor to the Name of Christ?
Posted by: Joffan
|
January 6, 2010 1:18 AM
Can Kenneth, steve or any other of the creationist posters please post a definition of evolution to qualify themselves for further discussion on this matter. Please note that the one in Nicholls' letter in the opening post (non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years) is both wrong and circular.
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 6, 2010 1:29 AM
Now,to round off my diatribe into a nice three-parter, I'm going to repost my own #837 for Steve's continued edification:
The reason for not debating creationists is two-fold:
1) It gives them a totally spurious reflected sheen of academic respectability which they haven't earned.
2) We can't teach the science in sound-bytes; we spend years learning this stuff, and it doesn't reduce to cretin-sized mouthfuls. They, on the other hand, can wheel out a few Bible verses and two or three snappy (and totally false!) sciency-sounding sound-bytes and easily deceive the ignorant and gullible.
An additional reason is this: creationists like Carl Wieland are professional con-men. Naturally they've got their "sell" down pat; it's how they pull in the shekels without having to do any honest work. They're naturally going to lard up their part of the "debate" with dog-whistles for the faithful. An honest scientist, even the rare one who has experience communicating with non-technical audiences, has little ability to prevail over that kind of intense and unethical manipulation.
________________________
Now, Steve, I trust I've made my opinion clear: you and your snake-oil operation is designed to avoid honest work, particularly in science (because, after all, that's HARD WORK) in favor of making a comfortable living fleecing the sheep. Lying for JesusTM is a contemptible and blasphemous way to make a living.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
January 6, 2010 1:32 AM
OK, fine. Science, as of yet, has been unable to explain the origin of life on earth. Let's, for fun, accept the premise that the first cellular organisms on our humble little planet arose by being magicked into existence by some intelligent agent rather than through abiogenesis. OK? Good.
Now, how does the above premise:
A) invalidate evolution
B) confirm the existence of the christian god (or any other, for that matter)
Posted by: Joffan
|
January 6, 2010 1:36 AM
IaMoL, quick acronym check:
TSTKTS = too stupid to know they're stupid?
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 6, 2010 1:46 AM
After all that Leigh, why the hell do you believe in bullshit?
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 6, 2010 1:47 AM
Joffan, that's the one. :)
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 6, 2010 1:53 AM
Why won't Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers accept a legitimate challenge to a rational debate about Creation vs Evolution?? What are they afraid of??
Kenneth Higgs keeps asking that, and then people answer, and then he keeps asking it some more instead of addressing the answers. One would be tempted to ask Mr. Higgs what is it that he is afraid of? But then one wouldn't be quite that stupid, now would one?
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
January 6, 2010 2:00 AM
I take it you refer to my conviction that God exists, Patricia. Correct me if that's not what you're wanting to know.
I believe in God because I have personal, very subjective evidence for Her existence. I would never expect you to find it compelling; hell, I myself can't even reproduce it on command.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 6, 2010 2:17 AM
Nothing. They aren't afraid of anything you stupid gawd soaked freaks.I dispare for you dumbasses, you are such ignorant christians. Fools. The blood of the lamb is a lie.
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 6, 2010 2:19 AM
I believe in God because I have personal, very subjective evidence for Her existence.
How would you know it is a "god" and not something else? Or if it was a "miracle", then how would you know it was done by a "god" and not by something else? If something said it was a "god", then how would you know it wasn't lying about being the same "god" you think it is?
Answer: You don't know. You don't know any of that. Therefore, you have deluded yourself. Thanks!
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 6, 2010 2:27 AM
I just realized... this thread has 1128 post in it! Don't tell the management! They'll shut 'er down!! Everybody sneak them comments in there...
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
January 6, 2010 2:34 AM
Owlmirror: All that scientific stuff you're spouting is just dancing around the real question: Why won't PZ Dawkins measure his dick in public against Carl Wieland? The whole wide WORLD wants an answer?
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 6, 2010 2:46 AM
386sx, Leigh is well aware of our opinions.
Look at Leigh's posts on this thread; I think she is a real asset to Pharyngula and has earned my respect.
In my experience over quite some time now, Leigh has engaged in:
* No denial of science;
* no dogmatic morality;
* no proselytism;
* no complaints about us or our tone;
* calling out theists who do any of the above.
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 6, 2010 3:00 AM
Well there you go for you fundies who think Pharyngula is a pack herd mentality of irrational sheeps. John Morales rightly calls me out for my knee-jerk unthinking comment. Let that be a lesson for all you fundie trolls out there!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 6, 2010 3:14 AM
But you forget, we must be an echo chamber of irrational sheeps. We might disagree amongst ourselves, but we all reject the Absolute TruthTM that God laid down for us in the bible. And since we all unanimously reject the Absolute TruthTM, it must be our dogmatic presuppositions that are standing in the way. Not that the Absolute TruthTM doesn't match observed reality, not that the Absolute TruthTM is indistinguishable from any other given myth of any culture - it's all because we adhere to the doctrine of naturalism (though I'd gladly convert if one were to demonstrate that were was the supernatural) that we reject the Absolute TruthTM!Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
January 6, 2010 3:20 AM
Pffft, the fact that people here aren't sheep is only proof that there are "Deep Rifts" growing within atheism!
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 6, 2010 3:29 AM
I think if anybody would demonstrate that there were a supernatural, then pretty much everybody around here would be thrilled out of their minds! (That's contrary to the typical reality-denier's claim that skeptics try to deny supernatural things because skeptics are scaredy cats or whatever.)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 6, 2010 3:42 AM
Indeed, it would be a new component to reality. It would be utterly amazing!(but of course we can't think like that, we have to loathe the very idea of the supernatural. Otherwise, what other reason could they use against us for denying it? Because both naturalists and supernaturalists are in agreement that the natural exists, it would implicate that the burden of proof is on them to show something more as opposed to us denying what they think is real)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 6, 2010 4:24 AM
Don't forget the prosperity paradox. If you've had a hard life - "You're only an atheist because you're mad at God!" If you've had a prosperous life - "You're only an atheist because you don't know what it's like to need God!"No matter our circumstances, experiences, education, culture - there is always something a theist can use to blame your lack of belief. Too bad they never are right on this.
Posted by: DaveL
|
January 6, 2010 5:51 AM
Some of Kenneth's 'evidences':
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: rmp
|
January 6, 2010 7:31 AM
As much fun as these 'someone on the internet is wrong' threads are, I wish they could be scheduled for times when I didn't have so much work to do.
http://www.spareroom.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Wrong-on-Internet.jpg
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 6, 2010 7:55 AM
Bwahahahahaha, what ignoramuses. This is how Carbon 14 is formed:(1) 13C(n,hv)14C
(2) 14N(n,1H)14C
(3) 15N(n,2H)14C
(4) 16O(n,3He)14C
(5) 17O(n,4He)14C
(6) Various heavy nucleotide fission.
For carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, method 1 predominates. That is taken up by plants, then animals, and can used for dating. For carbon in the earth, where low level radiation including stray neutrons are present, method 2 predominates. So new carbon 14 is always being formed, which is why carbon in the earth tends to date to 70,000 years. Which also refutes their 6000 year old earth. So, what we have by the stoopid creationists is a claim from ignorance. They are unaware of the formation of carbon 14, yet pretend they are knowledgeable. Bwahahahahahaha. Real comedians they are, incapable of rational discussion...
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
January 6, 2010 8:56 AM
For all the IDjits who keep asking (ad nauseum) why Dawkins and PZ won't debate creationists, here is the answer from Dawkins himself:
Why I Won't Debate Creationists (2006)
Apologies if someone has already posted that, but I don't think so. Over the past two days I have read all 1100+ posts on this thread. My brain hurts.
Naturally, not one of the creationist retards will take the trouble to follow the link and read what Dawkins wrote. That would be too much like doing something constructive.
Some creationist-related humour coming your way next, just to lighten things up a bit...
Posted by: Josh
|
January 6, 2010 9:30 AM
*yawn*
Okay, fine. Explain how the possession of teeth by the avian Archaeopteryx doesn't represent a transitional feature with respect to the evolution of birds from non-avian dinosaurs.
Explain how the possession of feathers by the dromaeosaurid (a non-avian theropod dinosaur) Microraptor doesn't represent a transitional feature with respect to the evolution of birds from non-avian dinosaurs.
Explain how the possession of a wishbone by Microraptor doesn't represent a transitional feature with respect to the evolution of birds from non-avian dinosaurs.
That's probably enough to start with.
Aaaaaaaannnnnd go.
Posted by: Michelle B
|
January 6, 2010 9:38 AM
Kel: Not that the Absolute TruthTM doesn't match observed reality,
____
Also, not that the Absolute TruthTM is a pack of clearly documented lies.
Posted by: Josh
|
January 6, 2010 9:47 AM
Really? How about you show me where anything has come out in the geological literature since the 1930s or so (when radiometric age dating was first really systematically put toward the question of the age of the Earth) where the resolution in the reported dates has swung from millions to billions of years.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
January 6, 2010 9:50 AM
A fairly intelligent man once said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke, 1961
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and how it relates to the pseudoscience I spend a fair amount of my free time researching and debunking. If you'll forgive a bit of poetic license concerning the usage of indistingushable, I posit the following:
The likelihood of any creationist assertion being true is indistinguishable from:
a) The smell of a fossilised brontosaurus turd
b) The statistical significance from placebo of a double-blinded homeopathy trial
c) The difference in level of the cosmic background radiation in two given directions as measured by a Scientologist's e-meter*
I made that multiple choice, so you can pick your favourite measure of infinitesimal ;-)
*There may be a small margin of error inherent if the e-meter is not properly calibrated
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
January 6, 2010 9:56 AM
Thread closed for excessive length. Fresh thread here if you want to continue.