Creationists

[newpolitics]

It is understandable why christians think science is derived from authority, because their religion, and for fundamentalists, their entire worldview, is derived from authority, so it is a simple projection of their only understanding of reality onto science. They have to make science fit into their models of realilty. Without a working knowledge of how science works and why, authority seems like the only rule of thumb to go by. This is evident in their reliance on textual documents from two thousand years ago with no historical reliability to completely guide their life. This is considered to be virtuous, because the bible rewards faith as being virtuous, hence a reward and of itself. It is a manipulative religion that produces delusion to reality, sorry to say. This is truly my opinion, especially of christianity.

creationist quote mining

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFXH3VqcCM&feature=g-high-rec]Creationist quote mine collapse - YouTube[/ame]

I really think this show is useful in showing the actual dialogue between atheists and theists. When logic and reason are applied, theists have no ability to justify their faith. It is telling to watch, of just how unjustified religious beliefs really are when confronted directly with logic, reason, science, and rational thinking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

must be you I'm having a great time watching you make an ass of yourself.

You are a bad liar to.

how am I lying?
you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?

How about multiple eyewitness accounts?

We also have multiple eyewitness accounts from people who have seen Bigfoot, UFO's, and images of Jesus in store windows.

They're all true, of course.

So now you are calling most farmers and scientist nuts ? I knew you loathe real science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.

You really don't know what you're writing about.

And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.

She didn't know what Neo darwinism was either

 

[Youwerecreated]

And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.

You're confusing the two. Do a search on both names and report back to us what you find.

Here it is reaaaalll slow in plain English. YOU don't know the difference between the two men. YOU need to do the search and educate yourself.

Daws should follow her lead.

 

[Youwerecreated]

People sometimes ask me if evolutionists are at all changing their minds given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their religious mandate. The answer of course is “no.” But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence.

Darwin's God: The Evolutionist Speaks: Savor the Irony

Evolution is science, not a religion. Yours is a common confusion shared by the science loathing, science illiterate crowd.

No evolution has put a black eye on science once the loons took over. Promoting a theory that contradicts observed evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."

Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.

Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.

Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.

Behe is not a hack,he is someone that can actually see design in nature along with a few popular evolutionists.

 

[Hollie]

"The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."

Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.

Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.

Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.

Behe is not a hack,he is someone that can actually see design in nature along with a few popular evolutionists.

Behe may think he sees many things. People think they see Bigfoot and UFO's.

Have you ever been curious as to why the creationist community is a fringe group of frequently non-scientists who have been dismissed by the scientific community, given the bums-rush out of the public school system by the judiciary, sideline by the mainstream public and become a laughing stock of wacky conspiracies?

 

[Hollie]

People sometimes ask me if evolutionists are at all changing their minds given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their religious mandate. The answer of course is “no.” But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence.

Darwin's God: The Evolutionist Speaks: Savor the Irony

Evolution is science, not a religion. Yours is a common confusion shared by the science loathing, science illiterate crowd.

No evolution has put a black eye on science once the loons took over. Promoting a theory that contradicts observed evidence.

That's so silly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.

Behe is not a hack,he is someone that can actually see design in nature along with a few popular evolutionists.

Behe may think he sees many things. People think they see Bigfoot and UFO's.

Have you ever been curious as to why the creationist community is a fringe group of frequently non-scientists who have been dismissed by the scientific community, given the bums-rush out of the public school system by the judiciary, sideline by the mainstream public and become a laughing stock of wacky conspiracies?

Same old rhetoric Hollie. Can you post without being disengenuous ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution is science, not a religion. Yours is a common confusion shared by the science loathing, science illiterate crowd.

No evolution has put a black eye on science once the loons took over. Promoting a theory that contradicts observed evidence.

That's so silly.

Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.

I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.

 

[Montrovant]

No evolution has put a black eye on science once the loons took over. Promoting a theory that contradicts observed evidence.

That's so silly.

Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.

I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.

Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.

Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's so silly.

Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.

I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.

Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.

Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.

No, not any part of nature should be designed unless the natural process is an intelligent thinker right ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's so silly.

Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.

I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.

Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.

Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.

Montrovant,how does dawkins know that things only appear to have been designed and they were not designed ? Why do they appear to have been designed ?

 

[daws101]

God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.

any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?

How about multiple eyewitness accounts?

nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
(thanks for playing)

 

[Montrovant]

Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.

I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.

Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.

Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.

Montrovant,how does dawkins know that things only appear to have been designed and they were not designed ? Why do they appear to have been designed ?

I'm not trying to speak for Dawkins. It is you who seems to want to do that. His saying something has the appearance of design is not the same as his saying it was designed. If you have a quote from him saying, "this was designed" that's another story.

Based on everything I've ever seen from the man, I find it hard to believe he has decided there is a designer without some pretty conclusive evidence.

Whether he is right or wrong in his beliefs is beside the point; I'm only bringing up what you have said about him, not the veracity of his claims.

 

[Youwerecreated]

any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?

How about multiple eyewitness accounts?

nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
(thanks for playing)

Give it up Daws. To be able to properly explain something in science you must be able to test ,study and observe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.

Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.

Montrovant,how does dawkins know that things only appear to have been designed and they were not designed ? Why do they appear to have been designed ?

I'm not trying to speak for Dawkins. It is you who seems to want to do that. His saying something has the appearance of design is not the same as his saying it was designed. If you have a quote from him saying, "this was designed" that's another story.

Based on everything I've ever seen from the man, I find it hard to believe he has decided there is a designer without some pretty conclusive evidence.

Whether he is right or wrong in his beliefs is beside the point; I'm only bringing up what you have said about him, not the veracity of his claims.

You avoided the questions that dawkins comment caused to be raised. If you look at a watch or a car there is no doubt they were designed but biological organisms and structures are much more complex. Why would you draw the line at watches or cars or any other thing you know a mind designed ?

 

[daws101]

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?

So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?

I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

 

[daws101]

You are a bad liar to.

how am I lying?
you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

your obsession with minutia is chronic ...By James Kirk Wall, February 27, 2012 at 7:22 am I have much respect for Richard Dawkins who cured my ignorance regarding the difference between a breed and a species. As an agnostic I was deeply offended by his criticism of the term in his book The God Delusion where Dawkins reduces the meaning to a probability number on a scale and asks the question if we should be agnostic about fairies.

It had been my hope that Dawkins would correct what I believe was an insult to all agnostics and the very legacies of Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. In a discussion between Dawkins and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on February 23rd I received my wish. Richard Dawkins proclaimed himself to be an agnostic in this debate at Oxford University. He clarifies that “I don’t know” does not constitute a 50/50 chance.

I am very grateful for Dawkins’ clarification. The greatest confusion I get from people is this notion that agnosticism entails 50/50 credibility to Christianity or any other religion. I will use three examples of why this understanding is completely absurd.
Just because you don’t know what made that noise last night doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it was an alien from Venus.
Just because we don’t know who will win the World Series this year doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it will be the Chicago Cubs.
Just because we don’t know who will win the 2012 Presidential Election doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance it will be Lady Gaga (although her chances may be improving.)

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist mean that he’s changed his position on anything? I don’t believe so; I think he just has a better understanding of what agnosticism is per what Thomas Huxley had intended the term to be. Some may argue that with all of the anti- theological statements Dawkins has made, he should be classified as an atheist. Let’s examine the following theology crushing rhetoric.

"I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions."

*"Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it."

"For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols."

*"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain."

These statements were actually not made by Dawkins; they were made by Thomas Henry Huxley long before any of us were even born. The admission of ignorance is the foundation of Socratic wisdom and modern science, but this must be combined with probability and common sense.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. It’s all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.

Are agnostics in between atheist and theist? This is another common misconception. Agnosticism is anti-dogmatisms. There is nothing more dogmatic than someone who believes to possess undisputable divine knowledge. This makes agnosticism closer to atheism, and a term that can be better thought of as somewhere in between atheism and deism.

Is an agnostic an atheist without balls? This comes from a stereotype that was addressed earlier. A notion that “I don’t know” implied a 50/50 fence sitting chance that the god of Abraham or other myths were real. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Robert Ingersoll were self-proclaimed agnostics. Any disrespect to the agnostic term is disrespect to the legacies of these three men who were critical players in the battle of science over superstition.

Can someone only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? This comes from the recent popularity of a 2D belief and knowledge graph and a notion that atheism is purely about belief and agnosticism is purely about knowledge. This concept has become very popular on internet definitions and YouTube videos. This is not something that I subscribe to. Agnosticism is not an erroneous knowledge number on a chart, it is a philosophy that a belief should be fortified with knowledge to the best of our ability and that any belief that cannot reasonably withstand scrutiny should be humbly abandoned.

Is agnostic defined as someone who believes that the truth about god is unknowable? The answer is no. Some mistakes can haunt us for a very long time. Huxley initially used the term “unknowable,” but later recognized that mistake. It is contradictory to say that we don’t know, but do know that any knowledge will never be obtained. Huxley corrected that mistake, but dictionaries even to this day have not.

What is the definition of god? God through an agnostic lens would be some kind of self-aware greater intelligence that was responsible for the physical and biological universe and is currently beyond our senses or philosophies. Note - If such a greater intelligence does exist but is not interactive in our daily lives, the practical impact would be no different than if there was none at all.

Reference

Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, February 23rd, 2012, Oxford University, moderated by Anthony Kenny.
(140 in the video)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0]Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate origin - YouTube[/ame]

The Huxley File
Created by Charles Blinderman,
Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology,
and David Joyce,
Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Clark University
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/